Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
MEDICAL 'SCIENCE'? INFECTED BEYOND CURE
- Clifford G. Miller (20 August 2004)
-
Progress
- John Stone (20 August 2004)
-
Selective Research
- Alan Challoner (20 August 2004)
-
Re: Progress
- John Stone (20 August 2004)
-
Thimerosal - a case of non-disclosure in The Lancet
- John Stone (20 August 2004)
-
How safe is safe?
- Richard Lanigan (21 August 2004)
-
Pay attention to - the MERCURY story
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (21 August 2004)
-
Misconceptions
- John P Heptonstall (22 August 2004)
-
DESTRUCTION OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH
- John Stone (23 August 2004)
-
Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine
- Raymond Gallup (23 August 2004)
-
Personal communications aren't evidence.
- GH Hall (23 August 2004)
-
Re: Misconceptions
- Ellen Goudsmit (23 August 2004)
-
Re: Misconceptions
- John MM Rumbold (23 August 2004)
-
Re: How safe is safe? Come off it, Dr Salisbury!
- John Stone (24 August 2004)
-
Re: Misconceptions
- John F Bolton (24 August 2004)
-
Re: Re: Misconceptions
- John P Heptonstall (25 August 2004)
-
Re: Re: Misconceptions
- John P Heptonstall (25 August 2004)
-
Re: Re: Misconceptions
- John P Heptonstall (25 August 2004)
-
John Heptonstall's call for a public enquiry
- John Stone (25 August 2004)
-
Re: John Heptonstall's call for a public enquiry
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (26 August 2004)
-
Conspiracy theories
- Peter Flegg (26 August 2004)
-
Independent Judicial Enquiry Before More Deaths
- Michael D Innis (26 August 2004)
-
Re: DESTRUCTION OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH: A CORRECTION
- John Stone (26 August 2004)
-
Re: Misconceptions
- Ellen Goudsmit (26 August 2004)
-
UNAVAILABILITY OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH
- John Stone (26 August 2004)
-
Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- L. Travis Haws (26 August 2004)
-
Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- janet d harris (27 August 2004)
-
Re: Re: Misconceptions
- Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS (27 August 2004)
-
Re: Conspiracy theories
- John P Heptonstall (27 August 2004)
-
Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- Peter Flegg (28 August 2004)
-
Re:Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- Carol Johnston (29 August 2004)
-
Misconceptions about misconceptions
- Marc Girard (31 August 2004)
-
Arithmetic
- Adrian K Midgley (31 August 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- sm latta (31 August 2004)
-
Re: Arithmetic
- John P Heptonstall (1 September 2004)
-
Re: Arithmetic
- John Stone (1 September 2004)
-
Response to Carol Johnston
- Peter J Flegg (2 September 2004)
-
Re: Arithmetic
- Mark Struthers (2 September 2004)
-
Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine
- Hugues H Bogaerts, Norman Begg (2 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- John P Heptonstall (2 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- L. Travis Haws (2 September 2004)
-
Re: Response to Carol Johnston
- MC Feliciello (3 September 2004)
-
Re: Response to Peter Flegg
- Carol Johnston (3 September 2004)
-
Re: Response to Carol Johnston
- John P Heptonstall (3 September 2004)
-
My two penny's worth (no pun intended!)
- Penny Mellor (3 September 2004)
-
When will the Penny finally drop? (no pun intended!)
- Carol Johnston (6 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma
- Peter Flegg (6 September 2004)
-
Competing Interests?
- Ruth E Acaster (6 September 2004)
-
Re: Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine
- John P Heptonstall (6 September 2004)
-
Re: Response to Carol Johnston
- Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS (6 September 2004)
-
From a voice of the 80's.
- Hilary Butler (6 September 2004)
-
A Case Study - read it then tell me there's no connection
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (6 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Response to Carol Johnston
- Peter Flegg (6 September 2004)
-
Hippocratic Oath or Hypocrites Oath?
- Raymond Gallup (7 September 2004)
-
Re: Competing Interests?
- John Stone (7 September 2004)
-
Re: Conspiracy theories
- Peter Morrell (8 September 2004)
-
Re: Hippocratic Oath or Hypocrites Oath?
- L Sam Lewis (8 September 2004)
-
Confused
- Adam Jacobs (8 September 2004)
-
Hurdle Lanes and Dodgeball Fouls
- L. Travis Haws (9 September 2004)
-
Re: Confused - Aren't we all - Including those who can still do their sums
- Clifford G. Miller (9 September 2004)
-
Re: Confused
- John Stone (9 September 2004)
-
Re: Confused
- John P Heptonstall (9 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Conspiracy theories
- Peter Flegg (9 September 2004)
-
Re: Confused
- Michael D Innis (9 September 2004)
-
Re: Hurdle Lanes and Dodgeball Fouls
- Peter Flegg (9 September 2004)
-
Response to Clifford Miller
- Adam Jacobs (10 September 2004)
-
My Thoughts
- Christina England (11 September 2004)
-
Yet more evidence
- Leo W James (11 September 2004)
-
Prof Fombonne, Dr Horton and The Lancet: double standards on competing interests
- John Stone (12 September 2004)
-
Re: DO VACCINES KILL BEFORE MEASLES CAN?
- Clifford G. Miller (13 September 2004)
-
History repeats itself because people forget history
- Viera Scheibner (13 September 2004)
-
Re: Yet more evidence
- Mark Struthers (14 September 2004)
-
Re: Yet more evidence
- John Stone (14 September 2004)
-
Re: Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine
- Carol Johnston (15 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (16 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Yet more evidence
- Leo W James (16 September 2004)
-
Yet more smokescreen
- John Stone (17 September 2004)
-
RELIGION IS THE CAUSE OF SO MUCH ILL - Yet more evidence
- Clifford G. Miller (17 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Hurdle Lanes and Dodgeball Fouls
- L. Travis Haws (17 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories
- John P Heptonstall (17 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Hurdle Lanes and Dodgeball Fouls
- Peter Flegg (17 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories
- Peter Flegg (20 September 2004)
-
What David Salisbury said, and the DOH's position on multiple vaccine safety
- John Stone (20 September 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories
- John P. Heptonstall (20 September 2004)
-
What Parents Need.
- Ruth E Acaster (1 October 2004)
-
Try it first on your kids, we will wait
- Saadedine Tebbal (1 November 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Practising lawyer, graduate physicist & former examining University lecturer in law Beckenham Kent BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, I have huge respect for the skill and professionalism of medical practitioners in this country and have witnessed in my lifetime at least a magnitude in improvement in the quality, skill, care and knowledge in the practice of medicine. But journal articles and papers no longer impress. What I have seen so far in a highly selective and limited area of reading is shocking and a revelation. From every footnoted statement now rises a shadow of doubt. This article by Helen Bedford and David Elliman 'Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine' BMJ 2004; 329: 411-412 is no exception and that is irrespective of anything these authors have or have not done. The trouble with the articles stating vaccines are 'safe' or 'better' is that none of them ever admit to the dangers of the adverse effects. Almost without exception they do not provide hard reliable statistics quantifying the dangers to allow anyone to compare risk and alleged benefit. This is compounded by the quality of some of what passes for published 'medical science'. It would seem the whole area of so called 'medical science' is infected beyond cure. There appears to be at least a generation, if not two or three, of papers that are good only for pulp, the poor science in some infecting the rest that may have good science or valid conclusions (and I have yet to find them). I have seen one too many allegedly 'peer reviewed' papers published with hasty conclusions based on incomplete and inaccurate data with inadequate discussion of and consideration of the results. Authors who jump to conclusions without considering and eliminating rafts of variables and sources of error and inconsistency. Mumbo jumbo maths being used to give credibility to poor work. The old maxim 'Rubbish In = Rubbish Out' is regrettably too apt. It has hammered home that what passes for medical 'science' in journal papers is, in one too many cases, not based on 'real' or 'proper' science. Whilst busy practitioners do not have the time to do so, one too many of the papers published in medical journals will not survive close scrutiny. There are just too many loose ends in what is meant to pass for 'research' or 'science'. Where have all the real scientists gone? It is just too depressing to realise that whenever a medical paper is cited in an article, one now is in the position of not being able to accept its conclusions and having to ask basic questions as to the competence of the alleged 'science' practised. A favourite but all too depressing example is a paper on sesame allergies which claims, using the Heineken weasel word 'probably', to conclude (1):- "Sesame seed allergy is becoming increasingly prevalent, probably because of its use in international fast-food and bakery products. ..........." The doubt about the validity of the paper is then cemented when the true motivation of the authors is revealed. The authors of the sesame paper not only just assume this 'cause' of the problem, but also are not looking to confirm what causes it, only how to treat the results, rather than prevent them:- "CONCLUSION: The identification of 4 sesame seed allergens is the first step toward generating recombinant allergens for use in future immunotherapeutic approaches. ............. might be a useful tool for predicting cross-reactivity to certain foods." This is a depresingly familiar but unsurprising approach when there is no money in cure but plenty in pharmaceuticals you can sell to people for life. This is like jumping to the conclusion more people are getting killed crossing the road 'probably' because more people are crossing it, with no investigation to justify that or to find out if it might be an increase in the number of blind or drunken drivers or a fall in vehicle design safety. A 'real' medical scientist would want to know why more people were getting squashed in the road and would want to do something to reduce or prevent it. The search for a new kind of pill to treat the rising numbers of the squashed is premature, especially if getting to the cause of the problem meant it would be unnecessary. The scientific need is the knowledge answering why more people are getting sesame allergies and to use that knowledge to prevent that happening. Instead, no doubt, we will be seeing an anti-allergy vaccine quite soon. (1) J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002 Jul;110(1):154-9. Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
David Elliman and Helen Bedford have declared their competing interests. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Challoner, Retired LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
|
Elliman & Bedford [1] write that, “... research shows that thiomersal in vaccines is not associated with serious neurological problems...”. This is a selective approach to research on the subject. Other scientists would not agree with that opinion. A report in the Daily Telegraph this month by Celia Hall suggested that, “Mercury is an extremely poisonous metal, a powerful neurotoxin which has long given doctors and environmentalists cause for concern”. The National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance in Sydney, Australia has this to say: “... the recommendation to remove it (thiomersal) was made for two main reasons. Firstly, it was an attempt to reduce exposure in very small premature babies with low body weight in whom there was a theoretical risk that their intake from vaccines could have been high. Secondly, the intent was to reduce total exposure to mercury in babies and young children in a world where other environmental sources (particularly in food) may be more difficult to eliminate.” Celia Hall also reported that, “The debate over autism and mercury goes on. As recently as June (2004) researchers from Columbia University said they had found "autism-like" damage in the brains of mice exposed to thiomersal.” [2] The importance of this study is the selective response by recipients of the vaccine. Hornig et al found that thiomersal affected only one strain of lab mice, possibly explaining the mixed results of past studies. This would explain why only a few children are susceptible to vaccine damage. A paper published in Medical Hypotheses (2001) [3] suggests that, “It is hypothesized that the regressive form of autism represents another form of mercury poisoning, based on a thorough correspondence between autistic and HgP traits and physiological abnormalities, as well as on the known exposure to mercury through vaccines”. The Food and Drug Administration and the American Academy of Pediatrics (both USA) have determined that the typical amount of Hg injected into infants and toddlers via childhood immunisations has exceeded government safety guidelines on an individual[4]and cumulative vaccine basis [5]. It is to be welcomed that thiomersal is now to be removed from vaccines. However this event and the Editorial should not cloud the issues that arise from past events that have brought disaster to vaccine damaged people and their families. [1] Helen Bedford & David Elliman. Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine. BMJ 2004;329:411-412 (21 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7463.411 Editorial. [2] Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI, Jerome L and Dawn Greene. (Infectious Disease Laboratory, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.) Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal Are Mouse Strain Dependent. Molecular Psychiatry (advance online publication, 8 June 2004); doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001529 PMID: 15184908. [3] S. Bernard, A. Enayati, L. Redwood, H. Roger, T. Binstock (ARC Research, Cranford, New Jersey, USA.) Medical Hypotheses (2001) 56(4), 462–471 [4] Halsey N. A. Perspective on the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines. Presentation at the National Vaccine Advisory Committee Workshop on Thimerosal and Vaccines, August 11–12, 1999. Institute of Vaccine Safety website; www.vaccinesafety.edu. [5] Egan, W. M. Thimerosal in Vaccines. Presentation to the FDA, September 14, 1999. Competing interests: Father of vaccine damaged daughter. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I have checked all fifteen earlier entries in the BMJ site index and can find no previous statement of competing interests by David Elliman or Helen Bedford. The Scotsman interviewed Dr Elliman on 23 February 2004 in regard to the allegations of undeclared interests against Andrew Wakefield, and reported: "Dr David Elliman, of the Institute of Child Health at Great Ormond Hospital (sic) for Children in London, said vaccination rates had dipped below 60% in parts of the city, and he expected some correlation with increased rates in measles, mumps and rubella in those areas. Dr Elliman said Dr Wakefield's approach to his research was suspect because he had been looking for evidence of the MMR jab causing harm rather than adopting a neutral standpoint." [1] But now we are expected to accept Dr Elliman's endorsement of the new vaccine even though he has accepted money from the manufacturer. [1] http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=212462004 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Helen Bedford and David Elliman continue to reassure us of the safety of thimerosal/thiomersal. Remarkably the first (western) clinical study into the safety of thimerosal was published in the Lancet only two years ago: Pichichero et al 'Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving thiomersal: a descriptive study' [1]. No disclosure of competing interests were made. In an earlier article for American Family Physician Professor Pichichero made the following declaration: "The author has received research grants and/or honoraria from the following pharmaceutical companies:Abbott Laboratories, Inc.;Bristol Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck&Co.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Labs; Roche Laboratories; Roussel-Uclaf; Schering Corperation; Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; Upjohn Company; Wyeth- Lederle." [2] Eli Lilly and Company are, of course, the manufaturers of thimerosal and several of the other companies use it in their products. It would surely greatly have effected the credibility of this study if this had been known when the article was published, and the fact that it was not made known effects it even further. [1] 2002, 360: 1737-41. [2] Pichichero M E, 'Acute otitis media Part I. Improving diagnostic accuracy, American Family Physician April 1, 2000: 61: 2051-6. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard Lanigan, Chiropractor Park Clinic KT2 6DQ
Send response to journal:
|
How safe is safe? Sir, Helen Bedford and David Elliman state "The Five in one jab is safe".The DPT vaccine of the 80s was "safe", even though 1 in 110,000 vaccines caused a serious reaction and 1 in 300,000 resulted in permanent brain damage (The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study 1981). DPT was replaced with a "safer" DTaP in 1996 (this had been available in Japan since 1981 but was more expensive). The DTwP/Hib is now being withdrawn, because of "The precautionary principle" regarding thiomersal and being replaced by the five in one to "reduce side effects." The impression given is these side effects are merely "fever and soreness at the injection site". In the United States doctors are legally obliged to inform parents of potential risks from vaccines using Vaccine Information Sheets (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The DTaP sheet states there is a small risk of "long term seizures, coma, or permanent brain damage". Parents are told very little in this country in fact in a survey on "Informed" Consent for my masters dissertation of 200 parents who had vaccinated their children with DTwP/Hip, 61% did not even know what DTP stood for. 65% of respondees were not warned of possible side effects and of those that were only fever and rash were mentioned. 35% experienced side effects 21.6% reported fever while 13.5% had more serious reactions which they believed were caused by the vaccine, 7 children were hospitalised. US doctors unlike their British counterparts are also obliged to report any adverse reactions. In fact according to their Vaccine Adverse Reporting System a number of children have died from DPT vaccines. Health experts consider this risk statistically insignificant, but as a parent of nine month old twin girls myself I want to know what these risks are. I am not going to vaccinate my girls just because it is a cost effective intervention, when there is not one shred of evidence to say vaccinated children in developed countries are healthier. During a measles epidemic in 1959 (51000 cases), the British Medical Journal (Feb 6 1959 ) reported that measles was "the commonest disease in the world and normally a mild infection, complications are rare". Now we are warned that children are in mortal danger from this disease. Either this claim is not true or in recent years, despite improvements in living conditions etc, a generation of children's immune systems have been compromised. Could it be the excessive use use of antibiotics and the number of vaccinations being administered to young children which has played a role in the massive increase in autoimmune illness. British medical experts were so certain of the safety of the DPT vaccine that it was not even considered as a possible cause of the death of Sally Clark's son until her second appeal, despite the fact her son died only a few hours after receiving the DPT vaccine ( Stolen Innocence The story of Sally Clarke). Or a parent in my survey who reported that her son devoloped sepsis a few hours after recieving DTwP/Hib and was told by the hospital doctors it had nothing to do with the vaccine only for it to happen again after the second jab, the parents were again told the vaccine was safe. It is likely adverse events are under reported so how is the public to decide how safe is safe when they look at their baby and have a picture in their heads of John Gummer feeding a beef burger to his own daughter. Dr Richard Lanigan BSc (chiropractor)
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist Based in Uk
Send response to journal:
|
"all the attention has focused on the new pentavalent vaccine (DTaP/Hib/IPV)" state Bedford and Elliman as they once again seek to trash the free press. I agree with them about the wrong focus. The story about the five in one is a distraction away from the real story which came out the day before, fastly followed by the five in one story - the fact that our children have all been vaccined using MERCURY. Can we have some serious attention on that? The sort of attention provided by a public inquiry. I first wrote about this in 2001. (1) 1. Blakemore-Brown LC Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry Jessica Kingsley Publishers 2002 Competing interests: Expert in Autism |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I would add to the authors' list of misconceptions the following That Diphtheria vaccine is necessary for our children -diphtheria vanished from unvaccinated communities, and this disease has been shown to be limited to intravenous drugs users, winos and declined as any real threat to the general population decades ago. The very few cases ever realised amongst anti-socials is treatable with medication and good nursing. That Tetanus vaccine is necessary for babies and young children nowadays - the vaccine has been linked to CFS and ME, which are becoming more and more prevalent, and natural immunity amongst those most likely to succumb to tetanus, elderly farmers, has been shown to be widespread in the unvaccinated. That Hib vaccine is safer for children than no Hib vaccine - the former has been linked to childhood diabetes which is rising at an alarming rate. That polio vacine is necessary for our children - the only polio to afflict local born children or adults is known for decades to have been caused by polio vaccine. That Whooping Cough is a dangerous disease, and the uptake ratio in our population and attendant dangers of a child developing whooping cough outweigh the dangers associated with whooping cough vaccine. Can there be any other reason than financial for this penta-vaccine being introduced in the UK and is it not time to legally test whether it is lawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally infect another with any disease or potentially disease-inducing product? Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
The proposed destruction of the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) casts the ultimate doubt over the validity of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunisation Safety Review, much of which was dependent on the database. Even if the CDC can legally do this the proposal surely on its own places the research beyond any scientific credibility (since it becomes unverifiable), and poses ethical questions which are supra-national. While this act would represent the suspension of all normal scientific standards the IOM review is presently cited by the Department of Health in support of the safety of its immunisation programme, and is quoted by Helen Bedford and David Elliman above. But if the CDC are already proposing to destroy the data how can the review be considered in any way credible? The CDC evidently defend the proposed action on the grounds that the database endangers patient confidentiality. This is said by opponents - quoting government officials - not be so, but it is an odd argument anyway: on such a basis which medical documents could be preserved? The destruction would also have the effect of protecting pharmaceutical companies from future litigation. THIS COULD NOT BE A MATTER OF GREATER SCIENTIFIC OR ETHICAL SIGNIFICANCE. What have Helen Bedford and David Elliman to say about it? (Report: PR Newswire: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040819/clth017_1.html Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Raymond Gallup, Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034, USA
Send response to journal:
|
The five-in-one vaccine in the UK, Ireland and Canada has the DTaP, Hib and polio. (1) The five-in-one vaccine in the USA has the DTaP, Hepatitis B (replacing the Hib) and polio (Pediarix vaccine). (2) Why the difference, one should ask? In the USA, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) maintained by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the cases of adverse reactions to vaccines increased with the introduction of Tetrammune. The Tetrammune vaccine was pulled from the market in 1998 and it has been recommended that the Hib and DPT be given separately because 34 cases with one death was reported to VAERS. In an article by F. Edward Yazbak, MD (4)the DTaP vaccine has some problems. (3) References: 1.UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articl es/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=313193&in_page_id=1774 Ireland http://www.shb.ie/class1099815319.cfm Canada http://www.mpshu.on.ca/Immunization/penta.htm 2. USA http://www.epediatricnews.com/scripts/om.dll/serve?article=aqp030370101c 3. http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/2003_dec04.html Competing interests: Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project and father to Eric Gallup, who was born normal and regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine |
|||
|
|
|||
|
GH Hall, Retired physician EX1 2HW
Send response to journal:
|
"An as yet unpublished study" and "A trial in the UK, to be published later this year" are the main references on which the conclusion "Penta valent vaccine is better in many ways" appears to be based. How about providing some facts rather than assertions? The minimum requirements are information about the drug firms' animal and clinical trials (with numbers,places, ages etc) and whether there was independent supervision of the study or any subsequent modification of the products. Without this no one can make an informed decision or be expected to. Competing interests: None whatever- unlike some |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ellen Goudsmit, Chartered Health Psychologist London TW11 9QX
Send response to journal:
|
I would like to ask Dr. Heptonstall what evidence he has to support his claim that the "tetanus vaccine... has been linked to CFS and ME, which are becoming more and more prevalent". As editor of the ME and CFS References, I read almost every publication on ME and CFS and I have not come across any evidence that the illnesses are becoming more prevalent, let alone that either may be linked to the tetanus vaccine. There has been no published epidemiological study in the UK for many years so we simply do not know how prevalent these disorders are. However, we do know that since the broadening of the criteria in 1994, more people are being diagnosed with CFS. Studies which followed the change reported prevalence rates of about 1-3%, which is slighly higher than the estimates of around .1% documented in the years before.(1) Incidentally, thank you Minerva, for alerting your readers to the new evidence of immune dysfunction. I believe that the patients in question fulfilled criteria for ME as well as CFS. If my colleagues cannot explain how deconditioning can result in higher numbers of apoptotic neutrophils and lower numbers of viable neutrophils, will they now accept that many cases of ME are actually suffering from ongoing disease (2)? 1. Goudsmit EM. The psychological aspects and management of of chronic fatigue syndrome. PhD. Brunel University. 1996. 2. Kennedy G, Spence V, Underwood C and Belch JJF. Increased neutrophil apoptosis in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Clin Pathol 2004; 57: 891-893 Competing interests: Psychologist with a special interest in ME and CFS |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John MM Rumbold, n/a West Midlands
Send response to journal:
|
Perhaps John Heptonstall is not aware of the difference between injectable polio vaccine and oral polio vaccine? In which case why is he posting about vaccines? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
According to the Head of of Immunisation at the Department of Health, Dr David Salisbury, in a Newsnight interview (10 August 2004), children would be safe being given as many as 1,000 vaccines at a time (quoted by Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday Telegraph 15 August 2004). Dr Salisbury was undoubtedly being more cautious than the 10,000 mentioned by Paul Offit in the paper recommended above by Helen Bedford and David Elliman. Of course, none of them is entitled to state this. There are no trials demonstrating this, and no experimental base. Nor has the history of vaccination suggested that it is an inherestly safe business, and all vaccines equally stable and contained in their effect. We know historically that whooping cough has been problematic. We are told that President Bush risked having the smallpox vaccine but apparently stopped short of anthrax - which did not spare our troops. Early versions of MMR were withdrawn. I would not go as far as John Heptonstall, but behind his absolutist position is a sensible point. There are plenty of illnesses that we do not generally vaccinate for so we ought actually to be considering how much in the contemporary world we are at risk from some of the ones we do vaccinate for. And, of course, it is not merely a matter of the overload, it is the cocktail. The reality is there is a consensus that serious adverse reactions occur: even Dr Salisbury knows this, as do Drs Bedford and Elliman. It is an obvious point that the more vaccines you mix into the cocktail the more you flirt with potential catastrophe: this is plainly a mathematical truth underpinning a biological one. To mention 1,000 or 10,000 vaccines does not reassure, it demonstrates complete confusion between an absurd theoretical speculation and scientific knowledge. Is the message to us: "Be glad we are letting you off with only six"? Or should we be demanding protection for our children from smallpox, anthrax, bubonic plague and scarlet fever as well? And is anyone ever going to answer? Dr Elliman has on the back of the above article gone the rounds of credulous, deferential television interviewers, as if the world was just waiting for his endorsement of the product to pronounce it safe. But what about attending to some serious, informed questions for a change? Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John F Bolton, Clinical Fellow in Urology Bristol Royal Infirmary, BS2 8HW
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR - Mr Heptonstall's letter is somewhat alarming if this sort of reasoning is widespread. I would like to address his "Misconceptions": 1. "...diphtheria vanished from unvaccinated communities... ...The very few cases ever realised amongst anti-socials is treatable with medication and good nursing." The same could have been said about TB a decade or two ago. Now we have multi-resistant strains, and it is re-emerging. 2. "...natural immunity amongst those most likely to succumb to tetanus, elderly farmers, has been shown to be widespread in the unvaccinated." This is flawed reasoning. If elderly farmers are most likely to succumb to tetanus, then any "natural immunity" isn't. 3. "That Hib vaccine is [not] safer for children than no Hib vaccine - the former has been linked to childhood diabetes which is rising at an alarming rate." And the latter is linked to fatal epiglottis (ref 1). Is Mr Heptonstall qualified to assess these risks? 4. "That polio vacine is [not] necessary for our children - the only polio to afflict local born children or adults is known for decades to have been caused by polio vaccine." This is undoubtably true, but the rate of polio in a vaccinated population is still less than the prevalence in an unvaccinated population, and can be further reduced by injectable vaccines (ref 2). 5. "That Whooping Cough is [not] a dangerous disease, and the uptake ratio in our population and attendant dangers of a child developing whooping cough [do not] outweigh the dangers associated with whooping cough vaccine." Is Mr Heptonstall asserting that whooping cough does not have attendant complications? Or that the vaccine has more? There is a wealth of data to refute either (ref 3). I think there is a counter-argument to Mr Heptonstall's - should it be lawful to knowingly *not* vaccinate a child when the risks of not doing so are evident and quantifiable? Should not the law step in, and act on behalf of the child's interests? And what about the interests of the wider population to reduce the number of susceptible indivduals in its midst? Yours, John Bolton -- References: 1. Halperin SA. J Otolaryngol. 1990 Jun;19(3):169-74. 2. Dowdle WR, et al. Rev Med Virol. 2003 Sep-Oct;13(5):277-91. 3. Girard DZ, Paediatr Drugs. 2002;4(5):299-313. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir To answer Ellen from memory as I have the paper somewhere but it would take time to locate - but her details were provided by ME ACTION to me about 12 years ago, then I spoke to her personally, perhaps Ellen can contact her via ME ACTION... A Doris Jones gained her MSc about 15 years ago with research into some 200+ Uni. students who had developed ME/CFS; she found that 12% of them had received a vaccination within the month prior to developing a disorder that was later diagnosed as ME/CFS, the most commonly associated vaccine was anti-Tetanus. (She also found evidence for Septrin and one or two other antibiotics that may be linked with onset of ME/CFS that she advised me of, the Septrin link I had already considered and it was in a letter to ME ACTION's newsletter 'Interaction' that sparked its Editor putting me in touch with Doris Jones). This was a period that vaccines and ME/CFS were being anecdotally strongly linked - Charles Shepherd, Medical Advisor to ME Association at that time tried to publish a study linking Hepatitis B vaccines and ME but was refused. Ellen states that "there is no evidence for greater prevalence" (meaning "no epidemiological evidence") then says "since the broadening of the criteria in 1994, more people are being diagnosed with CFS....studies which followed the change reported prevalence rates of about 1-3%, which is slightly higher than the estimates of around .1% documented in the years before". I'm not sure how this is supposed to disprove my statement "which are becoming more prevalent"?? If one assumes that only increasing diagnoses increase prevalence they are still 'becoming more prevalent'; or perhaps, like autism, the increases in diagnoses cannot explain all increases in prevalence? Does Ellen concede that? Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I am aware that several major differences between injectable and oral polio vaccines exist/ed. For example 1. Injectable (Salk) killed vaccine was found to contain SV-40, a potentially very dangerous contaminent that some hundreds of millions of unsuspecting British and European citizens were injected with during the 1950s until the Sabin oral live attenuated version came into being in the 1960s. The SV-40 (simian virus-40) monkey contaminent is now being found in elderly persons suffering from cancers such as those of the lung and brain as predicted by a hamsters study in which all hamsters died in the equivalent of about 35 human years if I remember correctly - suggesting a massive increase in SV-40 related (ie. injectable polio vaccine-related) cancers in those trusting British citizens who received these 'safe' injections all those years ago. 2. Oral polio vaccine is a live attenuated version that has been responsible for thousands of cases of polio amongst vaccine recipients and their carers/parents globally since its inception. In the UK this vaccine contained bovine material which was suspected since the late 1980s to be capable of causing nvCJD yet it was only withdrawn in 2000 after a small group of men suffering from nvCJD, living around Southampton, on investigation were found to have only one common link - polio vaccination. 3. Despite the suspected links between oral polio vaccine and nvCJD, and the developing suspicions caused by research into that small group of men, the UK Health Department did not withdraw its use until after many thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of unsuspecting UK teenagers were dosed with 'contaminated' vaccines prior to 2000 given without prior notice to many of those children along with BCG jabs. Of course babies were equally dosed with known bovine material-containing polio vaccines by companies with Health Department approval from the late 80's until withdrawal in 2000. Obviously those officials thought it wise to risk a predictable (by some scientists) pandemic of nvBSE within the next few decades rather than ban a vaccine known to cause polio, in a country known to have no home-grown polio other than vaccine induced? Does John Rumbold hold so little true concern for children? Is he ignorant of these documented facts? Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I am glad that John Bolton found my letter alarming and thank him for responding by addressing my 'misconceptions'. I would add.... 1. That if Diphtheria re-emerges it will be despite, not because of, vaccinations - just like TB. BCG research has shown that the TB vaccine is useless against TB but works against leprosy - or is that another misconception? The fourth horseman appears to come and go as he pleases, and I suspect this fact is well used by vaccine promoters - as evidenced by epidemiological charts which show dramatic declines in major diseases throughout the 20th century just prior to vaccine introduction. 2. Elderly farmers who developed no natural immunity were probably most at risk, plus those whose advancing years and reduced global immunity increased the risk. 3. I refer John Bolton to the US team Claassen and Claassen whose research into Hib vaccine suggests that the vaccine is both responsible for increases in childhood diabetes and that the increase makes the vaccine more risker than no vaccine. 4. Not the UK population surely - so why use non-UK reasoning to justify vaccinating UK children with a potentially lethal vaccine? 5. That the vaccine has more complications than the disease. I don't class one reference as a 'wealth of data'. I think any counter argument, including that suggested by John Bolton, would be welcome to be tested should an appropriate court of law be tasked to adjudicate on the legality of any citizen knowingly and intentionally infecting another citizen with a disease-causing agent. What is required is an independent judicial enquiry into what might be a Health Department sanctioned conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally infect UK citizens with disease causing agents. The wider population would be best served by such an enquiry as it is clear that new knowledge about known vaccine contaminents, vaccine manufacturing processes, vaccine adjuvants and vaccine side effects create sufficient suspicion of inherent dangers to human recipients to classify them as disease-causing agents. I cannot believe it can be lawful for any person to intentionally infect another with a known disease-causing agent - especially those agents known to hold proven, or strongly evidenced, risks such as the development of a population wide nvCJD pandemic, the current autism pandemic, the cancer pandemic predicted by SV-40 research, and other known and expected side effects such as epilepsy, diabetes, arthritis, SIDS, polio and ME/CFS etc. The UK public should be served scientifically, but not before safely and justly. Regards John H Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Although such calls are very common this is plainly such a large and disturbing issue that such a move would be both welcome and timely - if not belated. Nevertheless, there are some pretty unpropitious examples both in the case of the Institute of Medicine Report in the US (which may have achieved the result that some wanted but has not led to public trust) and recent public enquiries into other matters in the UK where the results seem to have been pre-determined by the terms of reference. Additionally, we face the further problem that neither the medical profession or the judiciary in this country seem to be prepared to address these scientific issues in an open and tolerant spirit (to the extent that it seems to be impossible to offer testimony presently in a British court about the possibility of vaccine damage contributing to a sudden infant death). An interesting model is the current independent public enquiry into Gulf War Syndrome. The problem, I think, here is how such an enquiry could be instituted and funded. It is undoubtedly woth doing, but the question is how practically can it be brought about. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK based
Send response to journal:
|
John Stone writes: "it seems to be impossible to offer testimony presently in a British court about the possibility of vaccine damage contributing to a sudden infant death" This is absolutely the case - in fact, the mere mention of "vaccine damage" turns some people into monsters. Some scream at you and say `THERE'S NO EVIDENCE...!!!. Its akin to "Don't mention the war" In the Angela Cannings case, the Appeal Court Judge dutifully read out the facts. Children became ill/died a day or a few days after a vaccine, but, as the Judge said, "the Government tells us there is no connection". So - is this it? Is this how it is? Surely not. Roll on the return of Justice and Common Sense. A Public Enquiry must surely be the only way forward, so that the Government can draw a line under this, start a new chapter, and move on. Lets move on. Lets save our children from iatrogenic brain damage. Competing interests: Expert in Autism |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
I see that Heptonstall's call for an enquiry into the "Health Department sanctioned conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally infect UK citizens with disease causing agents" has gained some support. I wonder if Heptonstall is referring only to childhood immunisation, or is he perhaps seeking to have an independent judicial enquiry into his most recent pet theory, that of a major conspiracy to covertly inoculate the entire UK population against diseases like anthrax by means of surreptitiously seeding the atmosphere with pathogens ejected within the vapour trails (contrails) of jet aircraft (this being merely only one of their "secret and sinister purposes")? (ref) According to Heptonstall, vaccines are the root cause of many of mankind's ills ("nvCJD, cancer, autism, epilepsy, diabetes, arthritis, SIDS, polio, ME/CFS etc"). The wonder is that any of us have managed to live for as long as we do. In my time as an infection physician in the UK, I have had the privilege of witnessing the closure of several infection hospitals, the "fever wards" of which used to have seried ranks of iron lungs to ventilate polio cases, or were packed with children dying from diphtheria, whooping cough and all those other supposedly "mild" infections. I have also worked in hospitals in Africa and seen children dying on a daily basis from "trivial" illnesses like measles. I find Heptonstall’s concept that vaccines can only cause harm insulting. If he had ever had the experience of seeing a child die from one of these preventable childhood infections, he might think differently. Reference Heptonstall JP. Contrails or Chemtrails, That is the question. http://www.mac-tcm.demon.co.uk/background.htm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, John Heptonstall says,”What is required is an independent judicial enquiry into what might be a Health Department sanctioned conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally infect UK citizens with disease causing agents." Concern that the Health Departments, not only of Britain, but of America and Australia too, are engaged in a cover up of the adverse reactions of some of the vaccines to which children are exposed, is widespread. The medical profession is, regrettably, the chief culprit in this sordid process. Instead of declaring the so-called Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) to be an unintended iatrogenic disorder they seek to explain it by blaming the parents for the haemorrhages and “fractures” which follow vaccination. Apart from the untold distress they cause the families of the victims, they have succeeded in misleading judges into believing that a callus on a rib means child abuse. And the hunt is on. Repeated attempts to provoke the SBS advocates to publish a SINGLE instance of the condition which did not follow vaccination, a disorder of haemostasis, liver disease, infection or malnutrition/malabsorption, has been met with silence. Deafening shameful silence Michael Innis Competing interests: As previously declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
It has been pointed out to me that what is proposed is not the physical destruction of this material but simply making it completely unavailable: the substantive point I think remains unchanged. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ellen Goudsmit, Psychologist London TW11 9QX
Send response to journal:
|
To answer John Heptonstall's comments: I'm familiar with the findings in Doris Jones's thesis. I was the external examiner. All things considered, I stand by my assertion that there is no sound evidence linking the tetanus vaccine with an increase in either ME or CFS. One can argue that individual cases may seroconvert following vaccination, but in all the research which I have seen, only a small proportion of patients attribute the onset of their illness to vaccination. Most do not. It is possible that there is a link between hepatitis B vaccination and some cases of CFS, but we were not discussing hepatitis B. The change in definition in 1994 is almost certainly related to the consequent increases in number of diagnosed cases, and nothing else. One way to identify a true increase in prevalence is to study the outbreaks. There was a documented increase in cases worldwide during the mid fifties and again, during the mid eighties. The prevalence of ME has actually gone down since then (I've seen two graphs, from two different researchers in two different continents, showing the exact same patterns). If there is an increase in cases now, it is almost certainly due to the fact that CFS also covers patients with TATT, chronic stress and phobic avoidance. To return to the subject of Ms. Jones's thesis, the study in question had certain limitations and these must be taken into account when interpreting the findings. Moreover, her observations have not been replicated. Competing interests: I have a special interest in ME and CFS. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I do not think that I could have been older than 12 when I was taught in maths that you did not get the mark by writing in the answer: you had to show the working. Not any more. What takes the breath away is the bare- faced contempt for what anybody thinks. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L. Travis Haws, Dentist Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
|
Editor: The data tells us that morbidity to most all of these "deadly" preventable childhood diseases decreased by 90% prior to widespread vaccine jabbing. With such knowledge how can any statement be made to the "miraculous" benefits of vaccines? And since most of the vaccines were introduced some 50+ years ago, then Peter Flegg must be in his 80's or 90's to have witnessed the masses of quarantined wards and dying children that vaccines supposedly helped alleviate. The morbitity in the undernurished, as discussed by Flegg, supports the fact that improvements in health via hygiene, proper nutrition etc. are more likely the result of the decline of these otherwise "deadly" diseases. You know, along the lines of Semelweiss, the guy that thought scrubbing down prior to surgery etc. was a good idea to prevent sepsis and newborn disease from spreading of the "thicket". As a side note he was mocked and scoffed at by the "scientific" community as he was outcasted. What do we see today? Full scrub down and gowning of both surgeon and surgee. Hmmm... So, at the end of the day, we have a decrease of quarantine/"fever wards", but a concomitant increase in wards focused on LIFE LONG REHABILITATION of the iatrogenic immune/brain damaged from man-made mutated disease jabs. Hell, I'm astonished that, as a youngster, I survived cases of mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough or the flu and common cold (still fight those off). Now had I lived in my own waste, maybe I would have succumbed? Yes, you are right Dr. Flegg, I don't know how I survived without the MMR and Varicella man-made jab. I probably have Hep B and don't even know it. I wish they had that jab when I was born. Oops, I forgot, I had that upon entering dental/med school. Most babies I know frequently encounter Hep B, you know the one transmitted via sex/bodily fluids, IV drug use, or infected feces. So, lets innoculate every infant, rather than only the ones with Hep B infected mothers, fathers or siblings? Let alone, how was I, or my parents even born, as surely the human race was rapidly on it's way to extinction. That is until vaccination abruptly changed the, up until then, invariable course of "fever ward" human extinction. Then, we are told that 1,000's of jabs could happen at once, the infant immune system can handle it. That begs the question, with such strong immune systems, why would we ever need to intervene. That is unless malnutrition or impoverished environments are a key factor. And, is it wise to jab such unhealthy infants without simultaneous or antejab strenghtening of the immune system via anti-oxidants, proper nutrition etc. And what of the subclinical processes such as scurvy, a mild cold etc and their anteweakening of the immune system just prior to the jabbing assault? Last fall there was a major scare in my area of the world with a flu epidemic. There was even 8-10 supposed deaths to the flu rather than dehydration etc. The media and public health officials ran with the scare and the flu vaccine was quickly eaten up--bolus style. You then visit the VAERS database (with a known rate of only 1 - 10% of potential adverse reactions reported) and find numerous serious adverse reactions and death to the flu vaccine. Especially in the elderly immune compromised. Wonder why the media and health officials didn't bother to tell us about that? But we can inject 1,000's of these cocktails (which consist of a broth of pathogens, neurotoxic metals, tissue fixative formaldehyde, proteins of other species etc.) at once into a weakened or developing immune system? What about the Pertussis outbreaks in Oregon last year? In a community of 95% vaccination "success". Of course, it was the 5% that spread the disease, how could I not see it? Personally, knowing what I know now, I often think I would rather die in a "fever ward" than risk serious brain damage and its potential devastating effect on quality of life. I guess SIDS from vaccination is probably a better way to go than the long course of the "fever ward". Then again, I could "risk" strengthening my immune system via good hygiene, proper nutrition, excercise etc. to PREVENT these dastardly pathogenic attacks. Infants are usually fairly quarantined as their parents often cleanse them or keep them away from dirty places or sick children (unless their entire environment is dirty--you know third world or back in the day). That is until the infamous mutated man-made cocktail of pathogens and adjuvants are injected into the blood stream as they directly bypass our first and foremost protective mechanism. If I get cancer, you can bet I'll request a screen for the simian virus. The bottom line becomes benefit of decreased likelihood of ending up in a "fever" ward or rare death (benefits which are highly suspect as the morbidity of such diseases were down by 90% with simultateous hygiene, nutrition improvements etc. prior to vaccination) by accepting vaccination vs. potential risk of life long immune dysfuntion (allergies, asthma, CFS...), brain damage disabilities, death etc. by accepting vaccination. Hmmm...to choose or not to choose, to vote or not to vote, to stay in the box or get out of the box, to take the stick or tell em' to stick it? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
janet d harris, retired nurse London, N17
Send response to journal:
|
I find the remarks to vaccination in the young against hepatitis B very interesting. Can someone amongst your slew of experts please explain to me who decided - and why - that eight week old infants should be vaccinated against tetanus? How many children of that age have acquired tetanus and, what puzzles me is how did they do so? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS, Retired LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
|
If Dr Bolton would like to see the vaccination of children imposed by law, I wonder if he would go further and suggest what indemnity should be provided if a child suffers brain damage as a result of that vaccination? Does he consider the current £100,000 award by the Vaccine Damage Payment Board to be sufficient for a lifetime of disability? The stance of many people in this issue is the defence of the epidemiological programme. However, when anyone actually finds they have a member of their family damaged by vaccination, their loyalty and support vanishes, probably over night. Competing interests: Father of vaccine damaged daughter |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Unlike Peter Flegg I specialise in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). One of the most important aspects of TCM is epidemiology – the basic tenets of TCM, like human anatomy and physiology, remain relatively unchanged over millennia but not pathogenic agents, especially man-made and iatrogenic. Hence we must constantly consider new pathogens before intervening; the identification and elimination of pathogen and education of a patient to prevent re- ’infection’ are paramount hence my interest in all things potentially pathogenic – from bacteria, viruses and parasites to vaccines, environment, lifestyles and any other possible source. I do not close my eyes or ears to anything as that does not serve a patient. I am a scientist, not a conspiracy theorist. I recognise the ease with which the latter title is bestowed on those who confront society with evidenced, science-supported, facts that make uncomfortable reading for those who stand to lose from those facts; they try to dismiss, confuse, act evasively, and make ad hominem attacks on the messenger yet their destructive behaviour does not serve their fellow citizens. I make no apologies for stating evidenced facts. If Flegg would like to offer rebuttal of any facts I provide I welcome that but not opinionated unscientific and unevidenced criticism. I would have responded at length on ‘fever wards’ and the ‘old days’ but note that L. Travis Haws has done so most eloquently with comments that echo my own experiences; I wonder where Flegg grew up, perhaps he can enlighten us? The fever hospital near my home in the ‘50s housed a fraction of the ‘fevers’ modern hospitals deal with daily (and MRSA!) – I remember only 2 children from school who suffered scarlet fever, 2 with asthma, about 7 with whooping cough, all who are alive and kicking and none worse for wear. Most kids had measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox without problem and schools were relative sickness free zones. We lived close enough to know when kids suffered other than normal ills – we never had classrooms replete with remedial kids, autistic spectrum disorders, CFS, ME, asthma, diabetes, anxiety, depression, ADHD, cancers, leukaemias, like I’ve seen in my kids’ schools….. kids played sports, played out all hours they could, were healthy (physically and emotionally), could eat anything, and the kids likely to succumb to more serious events were generally malnourished or living in insanitary conditions. Recent studies suggest that modern medicine is now the biggest killer and maimer of mankind, yet those statistics say little of the vast numbers of deaths and debilitation that may be caused by vaccines – the true damage is currently unknowable. Flegg should face the fact that not only diphtheria but even smallpox disappeared despite the vaccine, not because of it – read the unabridged history, how the UK population rose up against the killer vaccine to ensure survival and how Leicester refused to vaccinate its population to become the safest place in the UK to avoid smallpox. Without the vaccine, smallpox was predicted to disappear (with the 4th horseman) by the 1870s; instead it was delivered around the world well into the 20th century by ‘mass immunisation’. For example, the Philippines suffered disastrously through US smallpox vaccination campaigns, its peoples dying in their tens of thousands from a disease that had historically hardly touched that nation. An independent inquiry is sorely needed, as others and I appear to agree. We are not conspiracy theorists, we are realists who have weighed up the evidence and are not confused by government propaganda that could be discredited by a 6th form science student. The great shame is that more physicians are not already calling for an inquiry and through their inaction accept intentional infecting of children by known infective agents through vaccination – not because they know them to be safe but, in many cases, because they know no better as they do not take the trouble to analyse all the evidence. It is easier to accept a government line, despite allegations of distortion of facts and corruption, rather than take responsibility as physicians for health. Flegg refers to my item about contrails as a ‘pet theory’. It is a report based on evidence in the public domain of a phenomenon readily seen on clear day; those contrails described are not vapour trails, they defy that scientific explanation and evidence exists of military involvement in some, and of private companies with military contracts; one obvious answer is that our population is being used for secret experimentation, secrecy laws prevent exposure for 30 to 50 years and such acts have taken place over many decades here and abroad. The contrail/chemtrail phenomenon is relatively recent – perhaps the last decade – and yes our scientists and governments are on record as having conspired to commit acts that endangered public health without public agreement. Whistleblowers allege governments are causing weather alteration (I doubt the citizens of Boscastle would be impressed), developing military mapping through seeding skies with potentially harmful chamical agents, and are testing vaccine sprays on humans. Their allegations are supported by technology - airborne spraying of animal vaccines is used in the USA for wild life – and contracts awarded to companies sporting such features; my own concern is public health and that of my patients and thence to try identify any origin of illness. Clearly governments act without the agreement of their electorate – MPs are currently trying to impeach Prime Minister Blair for such acts. I do not believe it valid to compare measles of Africa and UK; I know that Vitamin A supplementation in African children reduced mortality by 80% illustrating that nourishment, along with fresh water and sanitation, may serve African children better than vaccines that could be causing untold harm amongst peoples whose voice is hardly ever heard. I saw what developed countries do, what priorities they have, in Africa during VSO service in the early 70s - and am not surprised African’s are so destitute despite having wealth beyond their wildest dreams beneath their feet. I expect Flegg’s upbringing in Rhodesia could have given him such insight. Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, UK. FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
I am afraid Travis Haws misunderstands me. I never claimed to have seen fever wards packed full of people suffering from vaccine-preventable diseases, only that I had worked in hospitals where the wards used to be filled with these cases (although several of my older colleagues did have that sobering experience). I am in my 40s, easily old enough to have worked in several Infectious Disease Units in the UK when separate "fever" hospitals were still the norm. Glasgow at one point had 3 such hospitals (only one when I was there, however). In Manchester’s Isolation hospital there were two paediatric infection wards. One of these closed while I worked there, and the only time the remaining ward served its original function was during the pertussis epidemic of the early 1980s. To refresh Travis Haws’ memory, this epidemic arose as a direct result of the media hysteria in 1974 surrounding a possible link between vaccine and neurological reactions in 34 children. Before vaccine had been introduced, pertussis caused 1.3% of all deaths in England and Wales, but with the introduction of vaccine, rates fell to around 10 per 100 000 population in the 1970s. Following the vaccine scare, pertussis immunisation rates dropped to 30%. Within a couple of years, pertussis rates had risen dramatically to over 120 per 100 000 population. The result was an epidemic of over 100 thousand cases of pertussis, with hundreds of brain damaged children and 36 deaths. I hope Travis Haws does not think these children died from malnutrition. In every country where vaccine rates have dropped, disease rates have risen, only to drop again when vaccine rates rose once more. Healthy living conditions and good nutrition obviously do not prevent epidemics. In Japan for example, there were only 400 cases of pertussis in the three years prior to 1974, when vaccination rates were over 80%. Withdrawal of vaccine in 1975 resulted in a major epidemic, with tens of thousands of cases and 113 deaths between 1976-1979. Refs: Kulenkampff M, Schwartzman JS, Wilson J. Neurological complications of pertussis inoculation. Arch Dis Child 1974;49:46-9. Gangarosa, R.E.J., A.M. Galaska, C.R. Wolfe, L.M. Phillips, R.E. Gangarosa, E. Miller, and R.T. Chen. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: The untold story. Lancet 1998; (351): 356-361. PHLS Epidemiological Research Laboratory. Efficacy of pertussis vaccination in England. Br Med J 1982;285:357-9. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Carol Johnston, Carer Carshalton, Surrey
Send response to journal:
|
To Peter Flegg, Interesting to read your statement regarding an epidemic that arose as a direct result of the media hysteria in 1974 surrounding a possible link between vaccine and neurological reactions in 34 children. The result of which was an epidemic of over 100 thousand cases of pertussis, with hundreds of brain damaged children and 36 deaths. Can I just ask you how you can in all good conscious extol the virtues of vaccination when today there are tens of thousands of children who are brain damgaged and severely damaged following vaccination in the UK alone. We have an epidemic of autism in the developed world! Not to mention the the deaths of God only knows how many infants which have followed in the wake of vaccination - a damn site more than 36! Please do not tell me there is no link. Coincidence alone should be enough to be ringing some very loud alarm bells among the government and the scientific community. Applications for Disability Living Allownace for all these autistic children should be worrying the powers that be. I watched my children worsen, and develop bowel problems and autism following vaccination. For the government to keep trotting out the same old tired epideimological studies which point to there being no link. Is an insult to parents like myself and a slap round the faces of my children. I have sat in front of my son's peadiatrician who repeatedly tells me no link between MMR and my son's severe autism. I have repeated asked him what exactly happened to my children Only to be told - noone knows. It is about time that some serous clinical research was conducted on these children. I as a parent would be more than happy to have my children involved in any research. If noone knows what it is that causes a perfectly normally developing child to develop severe autism, then how can the government keep telling me that what I know caused my kid's autism possibly cannot possibly have caused it! Seeing is believing Dr Flegg, flawed epidemilogical research will not convince me that I did not see what I saw happen. When mercury is a known neuro toxin - why do the government still deny its involvement in the explosion of autism? My children's bodies were primed by earlier mercury containing vaccines and the MMR was the one that finally did the damage and resulted in the disabilities that both children suffer from. My children are not autistic by the hand of God, my children' autism is manmade with compliments of the science which I was told would protect them from diseases which would cause brain damage and disability. Someone somewhere is not facing up to reality. It certainly is not the parents of these children. Who live with very harsh realities day in and day out! I think it is time for some honest answers as to exactly what has happened to these thousands of children! We owe it to these children. Thank God for the likes of Dr Andrew Wakefield. Competing interests: Parent of two Autistic Children following vaccination with MMR |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Marc Girard, Consultant 1 bd de la République 78000-Versailles (France)
Send response to journal:
|
According to vaccine experts, doubts about vaccination programmes cannot be based on more than “misconceptions” (BMJ 21 Aug, 411). Let’s try to demonstrate that in this field the distribution between “myth” and “reality” is not so univocal. On the side of myths, there is a growing awareness that guidelines are governed by more than scientific evidence [1], whereas experience gives no reason to believe that vaccine experts, who make recommendations on vaccine programmes, are above conflicts of interests (BMJ 21 Aug, 417). On the other hand, when published papers on vaccine safety contain such gross inconsistencies [2] that even a body not suspect of any hostility against vaccination (French Agency, Feb. 2000 report) is forced to admit that they should be “discarded”, one would appreciate more than a “personal communication” to be reassured about the success of a vaccine. On the side of reality, it is not only “ignorance” [3] that inclines scientists to worry about vaccination as “an additional player in the mosaic of autoimmunity” [4] and to put this risk in perspective with the appalling quality of most safety trials on vaccines… This is another reality that a combination vaccine largely marketed in Europe was rejected by the FDA due to efficacy and safety concerns (SCRIP 2001; No 2625: 22). Another reality, again, that, as a manufacturer, Aventis has a regrettable tendency to repeated production problems, esp. with its vaccines [5]. Editorial limitations on Letters make it impossible to give references on other very sad realities: e.g. that WHO’s records on infections may be more consistent with manufacturers interests than with epidemiological evidence, or that it is despairingly difficult to publish even in major journals to correct with all due documentation inaccurate reports from vaccine experts. 1. Raine R, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N. An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guidelines development. Lancet 2004; 364: 429-437 2. Zipp F, Weil JG, Einhaupl KM. No increase in demyelinating diseases after hepatitis B vaccination. Nature Medicine 1999; 5:964-5 3. Begg N, Nicoll A. Myths in medicine – Immunisation. BMJ 1994; 309: 1073 -5 4. Shoenfeld Y, Aharon-Maor A, Sherer Y. Vaccination as an additional player in the mosaic of autoimmunity. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2000; 18: 181-184 5. Girard M. Vraies terreurs et fausses pénuries. Moniteur des Pharmacies 2004 ; No 2544 : 24 Competing interests: Dr Girard is an independent consultant working for pharmaceutical firms (including vaccines manufacturers) as well as a medical expert witness in charge of reports in the setting of civil or criminal inquiries on vaccines. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian K Midgley, GP Exeter EX1 2QS
Send response to journal:
|
A rather breathless correspondent alleges he has been lied to again "During a measles epidemic in 1959 (51000 cases), the British Medical Journal (Feb 6 1959 ) reported that measles was "the commonest disease in the world and normally a mild infection, complications are rare". Now we are warned that children are in mortal danger from this disease. Either this claim is not true " The arithmetic is fairly simple. 1 in a 1000 is rare. 1 in a 100 is rare to many people for many things. A severe complication at those rates on those figures would lead on those figures to 51 or 5100 children being at risk of death or permanent injury of types we understand very well to be due to Measles. This seems to me to be mortal danger worth trying to prevent or reduce. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
sm latta, director so32
Send response to journal:
|
I am not an expert in facts and figures of vaccination around the world. It is though my reality that after my child at eight weeks was immunised just ten days later she was dead. The standard accuse the family was adopted and so some three years on my family has been destroyed and the memory of my daughter compromised. Some three years on still no cause of death... All medicines cause reactions of some degree, it is not anyones fault just that we are all made in a different way. What can not be right is that when there is no explination that abuse is the one adopted by police, social services and the cps. When all you know is that your child was sick and you kept telling the doctors that and were fobbed of with colic or tummy bug only hours later to watch you tiny baby die in your arms whilst trying to breath life back into thier tiny limp body do the top doctors want to know. The knowing is the finger pointing and that can not be right. In the family court you are expected to be able to explain what happend when doctors cant. The lack of explination is seen as one of covering up and not what it is a simple not understanding why this nightmare is happening or how on earth this could have happened to you child. It is not the fault of anyone that a tiny number of children react to vaccines. What needs to be done is a proper study funded by an independant body, who have open eyes and ears. Maybe then this small number of children will be recognised prior to immunisation and thus the risk of reaction reduced. I fear we are a long way off of this. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir At least two things are missing from the GP's arithmetical logic.. 1. That Vitamin A can lessen the risk to the small percentage of children who may suffer (due to lack of this measure in those most likely to succumb ie. malnourished) complications to wild measles. So why not prescribe fish oils to all UK children, as opposed to the currently questionable vaccines and lessen that arithmetical risk. 2. That MMR vaccines carry a real arithmetical risk (that itself is under serious question in relation to autism, arthritis, inflammatory bowel disorders, meningitis and other studies etc. and subsequent arguments against MMR vaccine, the risks of which may be vastly underestimated) that attaches itself to all recipients of MMR vaccine thus complicating the GPs simple arithmetic. Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Dr Midgley, There are currently uncounted thousands of autistic children in this country for which there is no official clinical explanation at all. Curiously, the only thing the Department of Health is certain about is that it was not the vaccine. Do I take it that if a child falls ill and/or becomes mentally regressive after vaccination, that you believe that in no circumstance can any inference be drawn about the involvement of the vaccine, and that vaccines are entirely unlike other pharmaceutical products for which adverse reactions can be noted and reported? Yours sincerely, John Stone Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter J Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, UK, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
I hope you can believe me when I say I have tried to view the vaccine debate objectively. I certainly believe you and other parents when you say that vaccination appears to be the trigger/cause for your children's autism; too many of you have described this for it to be a complete coincidence. Like yourself, I wish we knew more about autism and wish there was more ongoing clinical research in this area. I accept that vaccination might trigger autism, but I remain to be persuaded that it is anything but a highly unusual outcome. You talk of epidemics of autism in the developed world, and of tens of thousands of brain damaged children in the UK, implying vaccination has caused it all. This is not the case. My reference to the pertussis vaccination hysteria was to illustrate what can happen when our guard slips, and we let these old and "harmless" illnesses creep back. Preventable diseases cause millions of deaths globally each year (nearly one million from measles alone), and I heartily endorse the principle of widespread childhood immunisation against them. The proven benefits spectacularly outweigh the risks (both proven and theoretical). I support an informed debate about vaccination and its safety, and I hope medical science can learn from the experiences of people such as yourself and your children and make a genuine effort to find out why these things happen. I am afraid that misinformed generalisations about the adverse consequences of vaccination are not useful contributions to this debate. Emotive and baseless statements from John Heptonstall such as "medicine is now the biggest killer and maimer of mankind", accusations that smallpox vaccine killed tens of thousands in the Philippines, and conspiracy theories of secret experiments to test vaccines on humans through covert atmospheric spraying technology do not help. These merely polarise opinion further, and alienate the very medical establishment which should be actively partaking in discussion and research into how to make vaccines safer. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP Bedfordshire
Send response to journal:
|
This was a curious response from Dr Midgley. How rare is rare and how safe is safe? These are indeed the questions. I wonder what was the real complication rate during the fabled measles epidemic of 1959. The real figures would surely have been more illuminating than the complicated conjecture that Dr Midgley provided. Were the cases of death and permanent injury just rare or were they perhaps even rarer at 1 in 10000 - or if my simple arithmetic is correct there might have been just 5.1 serious casualties? That is certainly tough for the 5.1 people who would have been saved by measles vaccination, yet tragic for the unknown and uncounted numbers damaged or even killed by measles and other inoculations in more recent times. Vaccinating may not be completely safe after all! There may be a serial killer on the loose. Harry Clark was not murdered by his mother. Nevertheless, the court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A medical expert made a mistake; vital evidence was withheld. The innocence of Sally Clark was eventually proven against expert advice. Baby Harry died within hours of vaccination but British medical experts are still certain that vaccines are safe and are not involved with killing babies. (Dr Richard Lanigan, 'a rather breathless correspondent' 21.8.04). A vicious murderer is roaming wild and free. Who will catch this silent killer; are any medical experts looking? Dr Midgley's breathtaking arguments would have been more convincing if he could at least have got his sums right. There is a crisis in confidence in medical expertise. Drs Bedford and Elliman do not appear to advance the cause of restoring public trust in the medical expert - and neither does Adrian Midgley. Competing interests: I suffered measles just after returning to the UK from Africa in 1963. I am still here and perhaps relatively unscathed. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hugues H Bogaerts, Vice President, Worldwide medical GlaxoSmithKline Biological Services, Rue de L'institute 89, B-1330, Rixensart, Belgium, Norman Begg
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, We refer to the editorial by Helen Bedford and David Elliman in the BMJ of Saturday 21st August 2004. Although we support the intention to correct some misconceptions about the new DTaP-IPV-Hib combination vaccine to be introduced in the UK immunisation schedule, we are concerned that at the same time another misconception is created. Bedford and Elliman state that “A three component acellular vaccine has been used in the UK as part of the pre-school booster since 2001. However, it is not sufficiently immunogenic for a primary course”. Evidence from both pre-licensure clinical trials and post-licensure experience does not support this statement: In a review of more than 230 clinical studies, including over 130,000 vaccinees and 275,000 primary doses following a variety of vaccination schedules, the three acellular pertussis components of the vaccine - pertussis toxoid (PT), filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) and pertactin - were shown to be highly immunogenic and well tolerated either in combination with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids or when combined in tetra, penta or hexavalent combinations.1 Furthermore, in two large double blind efficacy studies, one cohort study and one household contact study, the vaccine efficacy against typical pertussis was 84% and 89% respectively.2,3 Since 1994, three-component acellular vaccines (Infanrix range, GlaxoSmithKline) have been approved for a variety of primary and booster immunisation schedules by regulatory authorities in 90 countries. These include the European Union, Australia, Canada and the USA. Since then, more than 129 million doses of the vaccine, alone or in combination with hepatitis B, inactivated poliomyelitis or Haemophilus influenzae type b, have been successfully administered to over 45 million children making this vaccine the most widely used acellular pertussis vaccine. Following the introduction in 1996 of the vaccine into the Swedish national vaccination programme, a population based follow-up of laboratory confirmed clinical pertussis cases showed a marked and rapid decline in pertussis disease incidence immediately following the uptake of the vaccine.4 Safety and efficacy of the vaccine have been confirmed by postmarketing surveillance in other countries. The availability of well-tolerated acellular pertussis vaccines also allows recommendations for boosting of adolescents and adults, enabling further control of pertussis. Finally, the reference used by Bedford and Elliman does not actually support their statement on “immunogenicity”: In the referenced paper which does not include any immunogenicity data, the author, Elizabeth Miller, states: “on the available evidence (the) safest option for policy makers would seem to be to use a vaccine with at least three components PT + FHA + pertactin”. 1 Capiau C, Poolman J, Hoet B, et al. Development and clinical testing of multivalent vaccines based on a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine: difficulties encountered and lessons learned. Vaccine 2003; 21(19-20): 2273-2287 2 Greco D, Salmaso S, Mastrantonio P, et al. A controlled trial of two acellular vaccines and one whole-cell vaccine against pertussis. N Engl J Med 1996; 334(6): 341-8 3 Schmitt HJ, von Konig CHW, Neiss A, et al. Efficacy of acellular pertussis vaccine in early childhood after household exposure. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 275: 37-41 4 Olin P, Gustafsson L, Barreto L, et al. Declining pertussis incidence in Sweden following the introduction Competing interests: Drs Bogaerts and Begg are both employees of GlaxoSmithKline |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Once again Peter Flegg's selective and very limited memory has thrown up inaccurate and inadequate information - this time in an attempt to "refresh L. Tarvis Haw's memory"! The 'epidemic of pertussis' (whooping cough) of the early 80's in the UK was not 'a drect result of media hysteria in 1974' but is believed to have been caused by parental refusal to have their children vaccinated against pertussis due to several years of medical research that strongly suggested the pertussis vaccine was seriously unsafe. The media reported this research and scientific opinions of that time. In 1974 a report was published by Kulenkampff from the medical records of children presented to the Hospital for Sick Children, London, between 1961 and 1972 with neurological illness (convulsions, infantile spasms, unconsciousness) thought to be associated with pertussis vaccination who advised against the vaccine. Prof. Ehrengut in Hamburg and Dr Wilson and colleagues at the London Hospital for Sick Children also reported independently that signs of severe brain damage began to appear in some children soon after adverse reactions to the triple vaccine (DTP). A number of reports appeared in the press from various parts of the UK from parents who told of previously well children who had become mentally retarded or paralysed soon after receiving the triple vaccine. Additional reports (Dick 1974 and Stewart 1977) documented adverse reactions and questioned risk v benefit with Stewarts estimate of risk of vaccine outweighing the benefits. This is not 'media hysteria' driving an epidemic. In an attempt to answer questions the Government set up the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study to look at all serious neurological events occurring in children from 2 to 35 months between 1976 and 1979 and matched with controls who had not suffered an event. However, they did not match vaccinated with unvaccinated but only looked at those who had suffered a serious neuorological event within 7 days of vaccination - discounting any child whose serious neurological event occurred after 7 days - still the research found those children suffering severe neurological events were 2.5 times more likely to have been vaccinated within 7 days of vaccination. A follow up study later showed children were 4 times more likely to have died or suffered neurological problems who had been vaccinated within 7 days before that event; when analysed for death and most severe neurological problems this fgure rose to 7.3 times more likely. Beginning in 1977 a sharp rise in notified cases of pertussis became apparent in certain Area Health Authorities in England and Wales and over the next two years all AHAs reported increases. Overall the notification rate in 1977-79 was about four times that in 1974-75, with the highest rate in children aged 1-4 years old (Pollard 1980). A considerable proportion of those afflicted (30-50%) were found to have been already fully vaccinated. Researchers primarily concerned with efficacy of vaccine concluded that the 1977 outbreak was due to decrese in vaccine uptake (Pollard 1980, Church 1979) whilst the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children claimed that pertussis vaccine was responsible for 182 of 281 total cases documented by them (Church 1979) and sought compensation for the families. Parliamentary debates and those between experts ensued and eventually a scheme to compensate parents of vaccine damaged children in 1978. The main advisory committe (The Joint Committee on Immunisation and vaccination) maintained that the vaccine was safe and effective, and that serious side effects were rare. That despite in 1974/5 the Japanese Government suspended the use of the same whole-cell vaccine after two children died post-vaccination until in 1975/6 when it was restored only for children over 2 years of age and until a safer acellular vaccine was introduced in 1981. The Swedish Government recognised the dangers of the whole cell vaccine and changed to acellular in 1979. The US changed in the early 90s and the UK - well our Government continued/s to today with whole cell despite a brief period with acellular 1999-2000 when Winter supplies of whole cell ran out to restore whole cell the following March. Is that faith in its pharmaceutical providers' product despite international agreement that whole cell does not provide sufficient safety against serious complications therefore best avoided in the public interest, or does public interest hold little meaning in the UK? In West Germany, largely as a result of Prof Ehrengut's work on toxicity, pertussis vaccine was under suspicion for years and was abandoned in Hamburg without any increase in incidence or mortality from whooping cough, and echoing similar decreases without excessive vaccine use in Egypt and Italy. In 1994 Michael Odent found that children having had pertussis vaccien were over 5 times more liklely to develop asthma. A 1997 study in Oxfordshire found children vaccinated against pertussis 75% more likely to develop asthma, hay fever and eczema later in life. A report from Canada presented to the Infectious Diseases Society of America in Philadelphia in November 1999 suggested that there had been an 80% drop in seizures and 75% decline in collapse within hours of vaccination since the acellular vaccine had been introduced in Canada. To use the words of Professor Gordon Stewart in 1980 "There are also to my knowledge a number of deaths after vaccination in the UK and USA which await explanation. I see no use nor justification for this kind of medical policy, and I think that the use of pertussis vaccine should be discontinued until, by better research or a better vaccine, these doubts are resolved". Ironically the USA got its 'better vaccine' in the early 90s, whereas the UK (ignoring the sensible moves in Sweden and Japan so long ago, and that our children were still dying of unexplained post-vaccine neurological problems) seems to maintain that old policy...and while virtually every year from 1933 to the early 1980's an article was published discussing adverse effects from whole cell pertussis vaccine. Is the pertussis vaccine useful in preventing whooping cough? By 1996 a study in California showed that 12% of adults with persistent cough had undiagnosed whooping cough. In 1990 in the UK accelerated vaccine schedules were introduced in an attempt to stem the rising tide of pertussis incidence. Deespite vaccination rates of 94% in under twos the incidence of pertussis has been rising since 1995. Is this another case of incidence rise following increasing vaccination? Reports from the UK, USA and Australia suggest a trend towards increasing deaths in very young babies who no longer are bestowed immunity from mothers whose vaccination status denied them and their offspring natural immunity during the first difficult year of life. A recent project suggests that vaccine scientists may have been misleading us (and themselves) about pertussis vaccine efficacy (1). It says that "immunity against the pertussis disease can not be measured by testing levels of specific antibodies" and reminds us that "resurgence of pertussis has been recently seen in countries with high vaccine coverage". Perhaps Peter Flegg and others would like to look a bit deeper at the facts before blaming the media, parents or concerned advocates for a precautionary approach to what is clearly a can of worms in which government and the pharmaceutical trade may play leading roles in getting to the bottom of things. Regards John H. 1. http://www.utu.fi/research/tic/projects/mertsola.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L. Travis Haws, Dentist Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
|
Editor: If Peter Flegg would reread my response, he'd realize that my points on nutrition and hygiene were that the disease process is much less likely to be fatal and that the epidemics are likely to be less severe, not that they prevented epidemics. I actually gave two examples in the developed world. One where 95% vaccination "success" didn't help at all. And the natural immunity confered is by far greater than the man- made mutated version. It's not hard to realize that immunity to a killed, attenuated or acellular pathogen (don't forget the noxious/toxic adjuvants) would be much different than a real living interactive natural pathogen. That realization alone is enough to understand why vaccines are so ineffective. Imagine the virulence of natural pathogens if they arrived with a goodie bag of toxic metals, tissue fixative, viruses from other species to cross-contaminate etc. as a marinade. Thank god for the resiliency of the human body. Natural immunity was doing just fine with dramatic declines of mortality and severity of morbidity prior to widespread vaccine use. Bubonic plague "went to ashes" with improved living conditions. As John Heptonstall so adequately pointed out, small pox and diptheria were on there way out, that is until such gracious "scientific" and cordial hosts kept them around. Peter Flegg talks about a 1.3% mortality prior to pertussis vaccination and then gives us a figure in the 1970's of .01% mortality. As mortality rates from pertussis decreased, on their own, by 80% from 1900 - 1935 (when vaccines began to be developed) and further to a 95% plus decline into 1950 (1) (when widespread vaccination began), it's very likely that the natural progression would have ended up with the same 1970's figure discussed by Flegg. Independent of vaccines. Rather than a lenghty counterpoint to the Glascow epidemic apparantly related to vaccine decreases, I'll refer Peter Flegg to four citations by G.T. Stewart. (2,3,4,5,) In regards to Flegg's Japan reference, maybe he can explain why when Japan increased pertussis vaccination to two years of age, they went from 17th in infant mortality to the nation with the least infant mortality in the world. Let's have a GLIMPSE at the efficacy/benefit vs. risk/safety of vaccination for some individual vaccines. PERTUSSIS EFFICACY: 1300 cases were reported in Kansas, in 1986. Of patients with known vaccination status, 90 percent were vaccinated. (6) Ehrengut, in 1978, points out that "in 1970-71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population...whereas in 1974/75 with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities." (7,13) An outbreak in Ohio, in 1993, occured with 82% of children having had regular vaccine doses. (8) Let's not forget when Sweden stopped vaccination of whole cell pertussis in 1979 (unfortunately they began testing other vaccines out later). This was because after more than 10 years absence, a resurgence of whooping cough became endemic, despite generalized vaccination. A subsample(620 cases) of the 5,140 cases, verified by bacteriological lab testing, showed 84% vaccination "success". (9) SAFETY: Studies have shown that babies die at a rate 7 times greater than "normal" within 3 days of the pertussis jab. (10,11) William Torch found that out of 103 SIDS cases, 70% of them had been vaccinated with pertussis within three weeks. (12) Scheibner found stress induced breathing to the point of cessation of breathing following DPT vaccination, where there were no such patterns prior to the jab assault. There was a high time associated correlation between "SIDS" fatalaties and peaks of stress induced breathing following vaccination. (13) Pertussis vaccine can cause severe reactions such as fever to 106, projectile vomiting, high-pitched screaming (encephalitic cry), convulsions, seizures, collapse, breathing problems, brain damage, and SIDS. (14,15) Another study showed severe reactions such as grand-mal epilepsy and encephalopathy to occur as frequent as one in 600. (16) One study demonstrated severe reactions to occur in 1 in 875. However, each child had received 3-5 jabs, so the rate becomes more like 1 in 200. (17) The JAMA published data in 1994 showing that children with asthma were 5 times more likely to have received pertussis vaccine than not. (18) A 1989 Pediatrics study found that using acellular pertussis DTaP decreased mild reactions, but, serious reactions (i.e. encephalitis) increased to a rate of one in 106. (19) TETANUS EFFICACY: Prior to tetanus vaccine development, the cases of tetanus had declined by 92 percent. (20) Most likely due to more proper wound care. How many infants do you know are stepping on rusty nails, or getting open wounds in the thicket? In the U.S. 95% of fatal cases occured in adults 50 years of age or older; only 5% of cases occured in people less than 20 years and were rarely fatal. (21) SAFETY: The IOM, stated a causal relationship between tetanus toxoid, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and brachial neuritis. The IOM also reported several cases of anaphylactic reactions, inability to breathe, shock, collapse or death within four hours of tetanus vaccine injections. (22) It has been shown that T-lymphocyte levels drop below normal following tetanus vaccine. The greatest decrease lasting up to two weeks. The levels were similar to those found in "HIV" and AIDS victims. (23) MUMPS EFFICACY: Do we need to discuss efficacy of MUMPS vaccine as it usually only requires palliative treatment. The natural disease confers permanent immunity. An outbreak in Minnesota in 1987 was in a population of 82% previously vaccinated. (21) In 1991, in Tennessee schools, of the 68 cases, 99% had been vaccinated. (24) MUMPS complications are much worse in teens and adults. I'm glad I got the natural version of MUMPS as I don't think I'd appreciate experiencing ORCHITIS. SAFETY: Several cases of diabetes and pancreatitis has been noted following mumps vaccination. (25) "In 1992, 180 European doctors jointly noted that the mumps vaccine "can trigger diabetes, which only becomes apparent months after vaccination." (21,26) Japan pulled the vaccine after realizing it caused encephalitis in 1 of 1044 people vaccinated. (27) The IOM recognized aseptic meningits as a cause of mumps vaccine when mumps- vaccine virus strains were isolated from patients that were neurologically impaired following vaccination. (22) MEASLES EFFICACY: International mortality statistics show a decline of mortality from measles, by 98% from 1915 - 1958 in both the U.S. and U.K. (1) "Dr. William Atkinson, senior epidemiologist with the CDC, admitted that "measles transmission has been clearly documented among vaccinated persons. In some large ourbreaks...over 95 percent of cases have a history of vaccination." (21) SAFETY: The PDR has a litany or severe reactions to the measles vaccine, including but not limited to, encephalitis, febrile and afebrile convulsions, anaphylaxis, seizures, ataxia, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, ocular palsies, angioneurotic edema, retinitis, deafness, dizziness, optic neuritis, headache and death. (28) Following mass measles innoculation, it was revealed that infants of mothers born after 1963 (start of mass immunization with measles) were 7.5 times more likely to contract the disease than infants of mothers born prior to 1963. (29) Thus, vaccines have interferred with the passing of natural immunity from mother to child. Let's not ever forget what Andrew Wakefield has found--in relation to sky rocketing of autism. RUBELLA EFFICACY: Three years prior (1966,67 and 68) to vaccine introduction, number of CDC reported cases of congenital rubella syndrome were 11, 10, and 14 respectively. In 1970, there were 77 cases--greater than a 600 percent increase. (30) The cases remained much higher, through the 80's than pre-vaccine numbers. And, isn't the goal to protect the ever susceptible infants (i.e. congenital rubella syndrome)? SAFETY: Several studies have implicated rubella vaccine in neurological disorders. (31,32,33) Others have linked CFS to the rubella vaccine. (34,35) Fifty-five percent of women vaccinated against rubella developed joint pain or arthritis within four weeks. (36) 78% and 91% of doctors and OBGYN's respectively refused to take the rubella vaccination.(37,38) Adults refuse to take the jab, but it's ok for our little infants?--Enough said! DIPTHERIA EFFICACY: Again, the diptheria mortality rate seriously declined prior to vaccine administration. From 1911 to 1935 (long before the vaccine), there was an 88 percent decrease. (39) In 1975, the FDA and authorities noted that diptheria vaccine is not as effective as projected, that it may occur in vaccinated individuals and the conferring of permanent immunity is open to question. (40) Europe in the mid 1990's had diptheria outbreaks in which several of the effected were "successfully" vaccinated. (41,42) The FDA announced, in 1999, that the prior years vaccines were too "weak", but since diptheria is very rare in the U.S. and developed world, no new vaccine doses were recommended. (43) SAFETY: Sounds like an all risk-no-benefit vaccine to me--especially in developed countries. And especially since there is a diptheria anti- toxin available and it's generally responsive to penicillin. HIB EFFICACY: Research has shown a decline in Hib antibodies following innoculation rather than an increase. (44,45) Other research shows that Hib vaccination can increase the risk of contracting Hib, up to 6 times, as compared with non vaccinated children. (46,47,48) Another study of children that acquired Hib post-vaccine, 70% developed meningitis. (49) SAFETY: Other than the so called benefit increasing the odds of acquiring Hib, the literature is repleat with examples of severe reactions to Hib such as, transverse myelitis, aseptic meningitis, invasive pneumococcal disease, vomiting, seizures, erythema multiforme, fever, convulsions, death and diabetes. (50,51,52,53,54) PNEUMOCOCCAL I'm glad the "experts" produced a vaccine that targets 7 out of the 90 potential disease causing strains. With those odds, I think I'll take my shot with nature as the vaccine insert found such adverse reactions (but claimed no causal relationship--surprise, surprise) to the vaccine (Prevnar) such as: asthma, seizures, pneumonia, neutropenia, diabetes, wheezing, croup, autoimmune disease and SIDS. Nuff said. HEPATITIS B EFFICACY: I'm not sure how to assess this as less than one percent of Hep B cases occur in the 15 and younger population. (55) Not surprising considering the natural "spread" of the disease. Additionally, surveys indicate that 87% of pediatricians do not feel the Hep B vaccine is needed for newborns. (56,57) SAFETY: The potential adverse reactions following Hep B vaccination, listed in the literature: ocular and brachial plexus, central nervous system demyelination, lubar reticulopathy, autoimmune reactions, anaphylaxis, arthritis convulsions, neuropathy, optic neuritis, Bell's palsy, Rolf's Palsy, herpes zoster, vertigo, vomiting. (58,59,60,61,62,63) CHICKENPOX What a complete waste. Especially with the timely increase of pediatric shingles cases now. FLU Another good one. Please tell me how they guess which virus strain is gonna hit. They completely missed the boat in the epidemic in my area last year. Despite this knowledge, people were urged to get their jab. Complete negligence, especially when you visit VAERS. What kind of informed consent would you call that? I sure hope those subscribing to the jab were told the vaccine targeted the wrong flu strain and so there reallly is no benefit? ANTHRAX Hmmm...sign me up--quick! Especially since animal trials showed that 9 of 20 anthrax strains killed 85% of rodents post-vaccination and 14 of 20 strains killed at least 75%. Don't see much benefit, so why discuss risks? POLIO That has been most adequately addressed by John Heptonstall, so I'll defer. At the end of the day, I think I've made my decision rather simple. I'll take my chance with nature--than let the mutated man-made disease trick my immune system into looking for something unnatural. Oh, our immune systems have been tricked alright--tricked into attacking itself in a spectrum of ways. I concede Peter Flegg's point that we have a decrease in "fever wards". Something vaccination certainly can't solely claim, if at all, as the incidences had already dramatically declined. The "fever wards" have been replaced with LIFE LONG PAIN AND SUFFERING to many. Maybe if Peter Flegg and his elder colleagues paid a visit to offices like Lisa Blakemore-Brown's, or really listen to these parents, they would be SOBERED up. There is living proof right before your eyes. Don't tell me death, "regressive" autism, uncontrollable seizures, demyelination etc. within a few hours, or even a few weeks of vaccination is coincidental. What a load of BS. Autism was unheard of 50 years ago. Let's hear other docs views, mostly related to smallpox vax, from reference #21: "I have been a regular practitioner of medicine in Boston for 33 years. I have studied the question of vaccination conscientiously for 45 years. As for vaccination as a preventative disease, there is not a scrap of evidence in its favor...In our country (U.S.) cancer mortality has increased from 9 per 100,000 to 80 per 100,000 of fully 900 percent increase within the past 50 years, and no conceivable thing could have caused this increase but the universal blood poisoning now existing"--Dr. Page "Cancer was practically unknown until cowpox vaccination began to be introduced. I have had to do with 200 cases of cancer and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person"--Dr. Clark, New York Practitioner "Never in the history of medicine has there been produced so false a theory, and such fraudulent assumptions, such disastrous and damning results as have followed the practice of vaccination; it is the ultma thule (extremity) of learned quackery, and lacks, and has eve lacked, the faintest shadow of a scientific basis. The fears of the people have been played upon as to the dangers of smallpox, and the promise of sure prevention by vaccination, until nearly the whole civilized world has become physically corruupted by its practice"--Dr. Ripley, Connecticut "I now have very little faith in vaccination, even as to modifying disease, and none at all as a protective in virulent epidemics. Personally, I contracted smallpox less than six months after a most severe vaccination"--Dr. Bakewell, Vaccinator General of Trinidad "Vaccination is the infusion of contaminating elements into the system, and after such contamination you can never be sure of regaining the former purity of the body. Consumption (tuberculosis) follows in the wake of vaccination just as surely as effect follows cause" Dr. Wilder, Prof. of Path U.S. Med College of New York Talk about the top ranking single most large and widespread experiment on the human race. Problem is, it doesn't appear there was really any informed consent for this study. Is that a breach of research ethics laws? Hopefully John Stone locates the UNAVAILABLE IOM data. I'd really like to see it, as scary as it may be. Hmmm...to choose or not to choose, to vote or not to vote, to stay in the box or get out of the box, to take the stick or tell em' to stick it? References: 1) Alderson, Michael. International Mortality Statistics (Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981) 2) Stewart G.T. Whooping cough in Shetland. British Medical Journal. 1979; May 19; 1352 3) Stewart G.T. Whooping cough in the United Kingdom 1977-78. British Medical Journal 1980; Aug 9; 451-2 4) Stewart G.T. Vaccination against whooping cough. Efficacy versus risks. Lancet 1977; Jan 29; 234-7 5) Stewart G.T. Whoping cough and whooping cough vaccine: the risks and benefits debate. American Journal of Epidemiology 1984; 119(1): 135-9 6) Vaccine bulletin, 1987 p. 11 7)Ehrengut W. Whooping cough vaccination. Comment on Report from Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Lancet 1978; Feb 18: 370- 71 8) Christie D.C. et al. The 1993 epidemic of pertussis in Cincinnati: resurgence of disease in a highly immunized population of children. New Eng J of Medicine. July 1994 pp. 16-20 9) Trollfors B. Rabo E., Whooping cough in adults. British Medical Journal 1981 283: 357-9 10) Walker A.M. Does pertussis vaccine cause sudden infant death? Presentation for Institute of Medicine Workshop on Possible Adverse Consequence of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. Washington DC May 14, 1990 11)Fine and Chen. Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccines. American Journal of Epidemiology 1992 (136): 121-35 12) Torch W.C. Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: A potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) American Academy of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25 - May 1, 1982. Neurology 32(4), pt. 2 13) Scheibner V. Vaccination 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System. McPherson's Printing Group. Copyright 1993 by Dr. Viera Scheibner 14) Vaccine insert pp. 32-34 15) Whooping Cough, the DPT Vacine and Reducing Vaccine Reactions (Vienna, VA., National Vaccine Information Center 1989), pp. 10-16 16) Immunization: Survey of Recent Research, (United States Department of Health and Human Services, April 1983), p. 76 17) Nature and the Rates of Adverse Reactions Associated with DTP and DT Immunizations in Infants and Children. Pediatrics. November 1981, Vol 68 No. 5 18) Odent M. et al. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA August 24-31 1994. pp. 592-93 19) Blennow M. et al. Adverse reactions and serologic response to a booster dose of accellular pertussis vaccine in children immunized with accellular or whole-cell vaccine as infants. Pediatrics 1989; 84: 62-67 20) Mortimer E. Immunization against infectioius disease. Science 1978 May 26 p. 905 21) Miller N.Z. Vacciines Are They Really Safe and Effective? New Atlantean Press. Copyright 2002 by Neil Z. Miller p. 24 22) Institute of Medicine. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1994 23) Eibl M. et al. Abnormal T-lymphocyte subpopulations in healthy subjects after tetanus booster immunizations. New England Journal of Medicine Nov 26:1307-1313 24) Briss, P.A. et al. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of vaccine failure and waning vaccine- induced immunity. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1994; 169:77-82 25) Adler J.B. et al. Pancreatitis caused by measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Pancreas 1991: 6:489-90 26) Albonico H. Klein P et al. The immunization campaign against measles, mumps and rubella--coercian leading to a realm of uncertainty: medical objections to a continued MMR immunization campaign in Switzerland. JAM 1992; 9 (1) 27) Sawada et al. Lancet 1993; 342:371 28) Physician's Desk Reference (PDR); 55th edition (Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 2001) 29) CDC. Babies of vaccinated moms more susceptible to measles. Pediatrics November 1999 30) CDC. Summary of notifiable diseases, United States, 1995. MMWR (October 25, 1996) 31) Kilroy A.W. et al. Two syndromes following rubella immunization. JAMA 1970; 214:2287-92 32) Schaffner W. et al. Polyneuropathy following rubella immunization: a follow-up study and review of the problem. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1974; 127:684-88 33) Institute of Medicine. Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991) 34) Lieberman A.D. The role of the rubella virus in the chronic fatigue syndrome. Clincal Ecology 1991; 7(3):51-54 35) Allen A.D. Is RA27/3 rubella immunization a cause of Chronic Fatigue? Medical Hypotheses 1988; 27:219 36) Tingle A.J. et al. Rubella-associated arthritis. Comparative study of joint manifestations associated with natural rubella infection and RA 27/3 rubella immunisation. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 1986; 45:110-14 37) Orenstein W.A. et al. Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees: poor physician participation. JAMA 1981; 245(7):711-13 38) Sacks J.J. et al. Employee rubella screening program. JAMA 1983; 249:2675-78 39)Dublin L. et al. Twenty-Five Years of Health Progress New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1937 p. 60 40) Bureau of Biologics. Minutes of the 15th meeting of the panel of review of bacterial vaccines and toxoids with standards and potency. FDA Nov 20-21 1975 41) Hardy I. R. et al. Current situation and control strategies for resurgence of diptheria in newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Lancet 1996; 347:1739-44 42) Prospero E. et al. Diptheria: epidemiological update and review of prevention and control strategies. European J of Epidemiology 1997; 13:527-34 43) Associated Press and Reuters. "FDA recalls diptheria vaccine found to be too weak. www.cnn.com/health/9901/29diptheria.recall 44) Daum R.S. et al. Decline in serum antibody to the capsule of Haemophilus Influenzae type b in the immediate postimmunization period. J of Pediatrics 1989; 1114:742-47 45) Marchant D.D. et al. Depression of anticapsular antibody after immunization with Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide-diptheria conjugate vaccine. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1989; 320: 75-81 46) Black S. et al. Efficacy of Haemophilus influenzae type b capsular polysaccharide vaccine. Pediatric Infectioius Disease Journal 1988; 7:149-56 47) Osterholm M.T. et al. Lack of efficacy of Haemophilus b polysaccharide vaccine in Minnesota. JAMA 1988; 260:1423-28 48) Hiner E.E. et al. Spectrum of disease due to Haemophilus influenzae type b occurring in vaccinated children. Journal of Infectious Disease 1988; 158(2):343-48 49) Gellis S.S. Pediatric Notes: The Weekly Pediatric Commentary Vol. 11:2 Jan 15, 1987 50) D'Cruz O.F. et al. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy after immunization with Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine. Journal of Pediatrics 1989; 115:743-46 51) Vadheim C.M. et al. Effectiveness and safety of an Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (PRP-T) in young infants. Pediatrics 1993; 92:272-79 52) Milstien J.B. et al Adverse reactions reported following receipt of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine: an analysis after one year of marketing. Pediatrics 1987; 80:270-74 53) Karvonen M. et al. Association between type 1 diabetes in children under 5 years in Oxford region: time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 1997; 315:713-16 54) Classen J.B. et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine. British Medical Journal 1999; 319:1133 55) Alter M.J. Hadler S.C. et al. The changing epidemiology of hepatitis B in the United States. JAMA 1990; 263:1218-22 56) Freed G.L. et al. Reactions of pediatricians to a new Centers for Disease Control recommendation for universal immunization of infants with hepatitis B vaccine. Pediatrics 1993; 91:699-702 57) Freed G.L. et al. Family physician acceptance of universal hepatitis B immunization of infants. Journal of Family Practice 1993; 36:153-57 58) Morris K. et al. Nature and frequency of adverse reactions following hepatitis B vaccine injection in cheldren in New Zealand, 1985- 88. Presented at the Vaccine Safety Committee, Institute of Medicine, Washington DC, May 4, 1992 59) Herroelen L. et al. Central nervous system demyelination after immunization with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Lancet Nov 9 1991; 338:1174-75 60) Shaw, F.E. Graham D.J. et al. Postmarketing surveillance for neurologic adverse events reported after hepatitis B vaccination. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988; 127(2):337-52 61) Ribera E.F., Dutka A.J. Polyneuropathy associated with administration of hepatitis B vaccine. New Eng J of Medicine 1983; 309:614 -15 62) Classen, J.B. The Diabetes Epidemic and the Hepatitis B Vaccine. New Zealand Medical Journal May 24, 1996 p. 366 63) Manufacturers package insert Competing interests: Getting out of the box and cutting the puppet strings |
|||
|
|
|||
|
MC Feliciello, n/a Leeds
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Flegg, I note your comments on: “conspiracy theories of secret experiments to test vaccines” in your response to Carol. I had no preconceptions on this subject, other than my mothers recollection of her maternal family hiding her Grandmother throughout Nazi dominance in Germany. She had suffered a nervous breakdown through grief over loss of two of her children and the immediate family lived in terror of her being taken into a Sanitorium; it was known that experimentation took place on those in care, both adults and children, mentally ill and disabled. I was horrified at this family story and reassured myself that it could not and would not happen in any other time or place. Then a friend sent through the link to a 30 minute BBC Radio Programme broadcast on 30.08.04 Document/Guinea Pig Kids http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/ The programme is archived until Monday 06/09/04, do take the time to listen to it, if you can. MCF Competing interests: Parent of child diagnosed ASD |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Carol Johnston, Carer Carshalton, Surrey
Send response to journal:
|
Thank you for your reply. I am encouraged when you say I you are trying to view the vaccine debate objectively. I wish I was exaggerating as to numbers affected. I know many children whose parents noticed regression post-vaccination. How will we know just how many children have regressed/reacted or developed allergy unless a reporting system is followed and a central register of numbers kept. Where I live there is a large autistic population amongst children. I have a copy of the disability register for the area in which I live. In an immediate area of less than two square miles there are 35 children on the disability register with ASD alone. Looking at the area map they are in clusters. For them to be on the register they are usually severely affected. I know of 7 ASD children in my street and the road off it who are not on the register. I am going to do a survey to ascertain how many children there are. I am doing this to try to put pressure on the local authority to provide a school within the borough because at the moment there just isnt the provision especailly for severely autistic children like mine. Local education authorities are struggling to cope with the numbers of these children. My son exhibits the same behaviours as friend of mine's son who has cerebral palsy - there is definitely a neurological problem with my son (he has had an MRI scan which came back "normal"). However, I am assuming that any problem with myelinisation and neurons would not show on an MRI. Many children have disagnosis for learning and behavioural problems - and are not recognised as having autism. This debate goes beyond autism I include children with ADHD, ADD, learning difficulties, behavioural problems, bowel problems and childhood allergy. Refering to epidemic of autism in the developed world and my pointing to vaccination as a possible cause. Many of these children exhibit signs of neurological damage (ie seizures). I understand my son has a 1 in 4 chance of developing epilepsy. I know of children who have had scaring of the brain caused by the seizures they developed. If vaccination has not played a part in this then what has? I am aware of the theory of an unknown environmental trigger. But surely this trigger would affect adults too. Why is it just children who have shown signs. It has to be something that is specific to childhood. A friend of mine developed multiple allergy after flu vaccination. I am also aware of the suspected link between antibiotics and allergies. What are the proven benefits of vaccination? Many question the efficacy of vaccines - the claims that vaccination is responsible for the erradication of diseases, when diseases had virtually dissapeared before the introduction of the vaccines and mortality reduced from diseases by better sanitation, nutrition, better medical care etc. - the vaccines do not appear to give lifetime immunity, mothers are unable to pass the immunity to their unborn child, which leaves young babies at risk from diseases like measles. Vaccination has changed the pattern of diseases leaving at risk age groups who are more vulnerable. As to the benefits v risks (if vaccines work) - the destruction of the quality of lives - my children will never hold down a job, live an indepedent life, have relationships and children of their own - this in my opinion is too high a price - my children may have gone through life without contracting these illnesses. Having had measles and mumps as a child - I have no allergies or on-going complications from these illnesses. Most deaths from the measles occur in third world countries where lack of adequate healthcare, basic sanitation and malnutrition play a large part in the deaths of these children. As to conspiracy theories. The wall presented to parents like myself certainly feels as if it is a them and us situation. Portage service for my son has dried up because I voiced my opinions as to what caused my children's autism. I started off trying desperately to believe what I was told. It did not make sense, the theory of genetics did not fit with what I had seen. An informed debate about vaccination and its safety is a good thing. The BMJ in particular offers an ideal place where parents like myself can address doctors such as yourself with our concerns. A higher standard of safety is generally expected of vaccines than of other medical interventions because, in contrast to most pharmaceutical products, which are administered to ill people for curative purposes, vaccines are generally given to healthy people to prevent disease. Public tolerance of adverse reactions related to products given to healthy people, especially healthy infants, is substantially lower than to products administered to people who are already sick. This lower risk tolerance by the public for vaccines translates into a need to investigate rarer possible causes of adverse events following vaccinations than would be acceptable for most other pharmaceutical products. The official position saying we dont know what causes it - but it does not appear that vaccinaton is the cause, is not a convincing argument. Against this official position is a substantial number parents whose evidence is pointing to vaccination as a trigger. Also the many clinical studies that point to there being a link. Debating the safety of vaccines is an explosive subject because it involves children. Parents get emotional about their children. It human nature. If experts/politicians/doctors/pharma companies were to adopt a more open approach there would be no need for the accusations of conspiracy. Even I wonder why they defend these vaccines so vigorously - just what is it they are trying to hide? Parents like myself want honesty and acknowledgement. If vaccines harm children then a safety net should be in place. The vaccine damage payment unit is not that safety net - their payout record is appalling. It is the official denial of the damage done to children like mine that hurts the most. Competing interests: Parent of 2 ASD children post-MMR |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir May I suggest to Peter Flegg that he look beyond the advertisements in medical journals for his facts and try the following references as evidence for my statements he calls emotive and baseless, that modern medicine is now THE biggest killer and maimer of mankind, that smallpox vaccine killed tens of thousands in the Phillipines and that governments are probably testing vaccines (and other chemicals and biologicals) on our unsuspecting populations just as they have done for decades... I can find little to criticise in the authors’ figures and evidence that modern medicine is now the biggest killer and maimer overtaking cancers, heart disease and stroke; perhaps Peter Flegg could point out the errors in their arguments (1)? In its Directives for Human Experimentation The Nuremberg Code (2) states "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential......to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over- reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coertion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision......." Clearly the Uk Government failed to adopt this 'absolute' Internationally accalimed standard for its citizens on numerous occasions including those illustrated by (3) (4) after which the then so-called hazardless chemicals and biologicals used in experiments against the population are now known to have been very hazardous and to probably be responsible for many hundreds if not thousands of deaths and many more serious injuries, all covered up for the duration of the Secrecy Laws of the UK. One must ask if our Government still holds its citizens in so much contempt that it continues to experiment with chemicals and biologicals freely, especially through aerosol applications from high altitude aircraft - the evidence points to the affirmative? For US citizens US Code Title 50: War and National Defense, Chapter 32, appears to have removed this International human safeguard in time to facilitate the 'chemical and biological contrail' activities recorded over the US coincident with a similar build up over the UK during the latter part of the 1990s to today. (5) Author Judith Miller broke the story of a secret cabinet level experiment named "Scarlet Cloud" in the NY Times on 28th December 2003 where she discussed the difficulties of rapid distribution of antibiotics in some cities that would not offer protection against widespread attack with anthrax....in her book 'Germs' she alludes to a solution to the problem that involves 'military spraying a detergent over people to neutralise an anthrax attack' (p307). The Defense Advanced Research project Agency gave Maxygen a $3.8 million contract in 1998, and a $7.7 or $6.7 million contract in 1999 which the company says is a 3 years grant for its 'molecular breeding directed evolution technology to protect against a broad spectrum of pathogens (Gene Shuffling)....the military asked Maxygen to develop aerosol-based vaccines that could be inhaled to safeguard people against a broad range of pathogens....Shaun Jones, first Director of DARPA's Unconventional Countermeasures program has said the value of many of their programs will not be known till they are tested on people ('Germs' p308). It's neither far fetched nor without medical research support (6). I suspect this will not convince Flegg that the long lasting contrails that pepper our skies and gradually descend to low levels as they develop into cirrus-like formations, unlike natural vapour trails, are not worth breathing in but if governments are abusing populations in the name of national security, having shown such contempt for public opinion with GWII and the WMD scenario, we must first ensure that vaccine science is valid or the gross misrepresentation of vaccine safety and efficacy we see today will result in even more horrors for the masses once they are subjected to government induced aerosol vaccines paid for by the public and sprayed in the name of national security against the Nuremberg and any other moral code that currently exists. As to the Phillipines and devastation of its peoples through US vaccine campaigns in the early part of last century I suggest Flegg reads (7) (8) and (9). Regards John H. References 1. http://www.nutritioninstituteofamerica.org/ research/DeathByMedicine/DeathByMedicine1.htm 2. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/nuremberg.php3 3. http://www.mod.uk/issues/dorset/ 4. http://geocities.com/ceriason2000/Millions_Of_ British_Citizens.html 5. http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/etc.shtml 6. Feasibility of aerosol vaccination in humans; Roth Y, Chapnik JS, Cole P, Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003 Mar;112(3):264-70 7. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html 8. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes10.html 9. http://www.archetypeltd.co.nz/Smallpox.htm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Penny Mellor, Advocate Home WV9 5HX
Send response to journal:
|
I don't know enough about vaccines to make any scientific comments, I can only give my own personal experiences as an example. I have eight children. None have been vaccinated. All have been breastfed until they were a year old apart from the enforced separation from my youngest who was 7 months old at the time I was imprisoned. None have ever had an apnoea attack, allergies, Asthma, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, learning difficulties, behavioural problems, bowel problems weight problems, in fact none of them ever see a doctor for anything. I can't remember the last time I had to take them to see a GP let alone take one into a hospital. Background: My children are a result of having relationships with three men, their ages range from 24 years right down to 3 years, there are four boys and four girls, we live an average life. There is hay fever and other allergies on my mother's side of the family and my children have been exposed to the same environment as children who now have ASDs etc; so it can't all just be genetic or environmentally caused. All mine were breastfed so that's going to be a part of it, however none of them have been vaccinated and none of them are ever ill with anything or have any problems. If I had just two children from the same father it could all be explained away, for all 8 to be ridiculously healthy with 3 different biological fathers can't be so easily. I am my own cohort study, I chose not to vaccinate and my decision not to, combined with breastfeeding, in my own opinion, based on my own experience proves to me that there has to be some causal link between vaccinations and adverse events. It may be a genetic predisposition to react to vaccines, it could actually be a manufacturing fault as opposed to the drugs themselves, I don't know. I know what I see and what I experience. My experience is that alot of children who have been vaccinated are nothing like mine and perhaps that should be the starting point for any research. A study of children who weren't vaccinated versus a study of those who were, I think I know what the findings will be, however let's see if anyone picks up the gauntlet. Competing interests: none vaccinating parent |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Carol Johnston, Carer Carshalton Surrey
Send response to journal:
|
Penny Mellor what an inspiration and her children sound so like many other unvaccinated children I know of. Unvaccinated children appear on the whole to be healthier, suffer less from sniffles, coughs, constant ear infection, childhood allergy, behavioural problems, bowel problems etc. etc. that seem to plague vaccinated children. I for one would like a study of vaccinated children v unvaccinated children (there are enough of them now because parents like Penny Mellor make an informed choice not to vaccinate). GP records would be able to locate all these unvaccinated kids. Can it be mere coincidence that Penny's children have not suffered the problems that many other vaccinated childen (including mine). As a layperson my observations are that parents like Penny time and time again attest to the health of their children. They are protected with a healthy diet and lifestyle. These children teach us that nature itself provides a measure of protection and a child with a healthy immune system is able to fight off illnesses just as mother nature intended. I took all precautions necessary whilst pregnant, folic acid, ate the right foods, had no dental treatment and breast-fed both my children, yet the efforts I made to ensure the best possible start in their lives were undone by the vaccines. From the first vaccines they seemed trapped into a cycle of infections ie ear infection, tonsilitus treated with antibiotics. My son at eight weeks was hospitaised with an unknown viral infection and was treated with intravenous antibiotics. 5 days after his release from hospital I took him to the surgery for them to check him over, whilst there he was given DPT, Meng C, Hib and Polio. If I were to have another child (highly unlikely) that child would be unvaccinated. When will the penny drop, it cannot be mere coincidence that many of the disorders that are now so common were once extremely rare and have increased in line with mass vaccination and widespread use of antibiotics. Many blame the the hygiene hypothesis. I am a firm believer in a bit of dirt does noone any harm and I actively encourage my kids to dig for worms in the garden. My house is so untidy that you have to wipe your feet on the way out! I was never one for constantly wiping my chidren everytime they got a little dirt on them (I have seen many mothers who do this). I love to see grubby kids covered in dirt - knowing that they have had a great time getting dirty! I dont use antibacterial products and just stick with soap powder and water and elbow grease and always have a window open for fresh air. I also have two cats. My kids do not have multiple allergys aside from intollerance to gluten and milk. Competing interests: Parent of 2 ASD children post-MMR |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, UK, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
Travis Haws has produced an extensive collection of references pointing out the supposed uselessness of vaccination. Perhaps his hope is to overwhelm me with the sheer weight of “evidence”. If this is the case he is partially correct, because I simply do not have the time to look at every single reference and see which is accurate, and which has been deliberately used out of context or misquoted. However, a few thoughts sprang to mind when looking down the list. Firstly, Travis Haws is inconsistent and selective. He seems happy to quote authorities when they support his dogma, but mysteriously ignores their pronouncements when they do not. He willingly embraces the Institute of Medicine’s conclusions when it gives details of adverse reactions to vaccines, but not when it exonerates MMR from a link to autism or exonerates other vaccines from alleged side effects (1). In fact the IOM’s initial statement in its executive summary reads as follows: “Next to clean water, no single intervention has had so profound an effect on reducing mortality from childhood diseases as has the widespread introduction of vaccines.” Similarly, Gordon Stewart’s views on pertussis vaccine are championed (Travis Haws quotes four of his references), but conveniently forgotten is Stewart’s assertion that “Immunization against diphtheria and poliomyelitis was unequivocally effective in reducing incidence and morbidity of these diseases". (2). Secondly, Travis Haws is very misleading with other references. I decided to look in more depth at just one of his claims, that “babies die at a rate 7 times greater than "normal" within 3 days of the pertussis jab”, a statement for which he gives two references. The first of these (3) concerns a presentation to the IOM by Walker in 1990, which actually concerned his earlier work published in 1987 showing increased risk of SIDS within 3 days of vaccination. However, the IOM collated all the evidence and published a detailed 367-page report on their conclusions in 1991 looking at all relevant studies in this area (4). Surprise, surprise, the Walker study (which Travis Haws refers to) was the only one showing an association between vaccination and sudden death, the other studies all showed an inverse association or no association at all. The IOM’s conclusions were that “there is no indication of a statistically significant increased risk of SIDS in the early postimmunization period.” Indeed, the association between vaccination and a subsequent reduction in sudden infant death is well recognised, and even mentioned in the second study Travis Haws quotes to back up his claim that it does the opposite (5). In this the authors state “Most published studies have reported a deficit of sudden infant death syndrome among vaccinees.” This is why they looked for possible confounding factors; their conclusion was that confounding factors may exist. They do not, as Travis Haws claims, suggest that “babies die at a rate 7 times greater than "normal" within 3 days of the pertussis jab.” If Travis Haws needs further evidence that vaccination may reduce sudden infant death, perhaps he can read the following references detailing the protective effect (6,7). Travis Haws’ claims in this area would seem to be refuted by his own references. I wonder how many of his other claims would fall at the same hurdle? References: (1) Institute of Medicine (2004): Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. (2) Stewart GT. Infection and immunization. Scot Med J. 1979 Jan; 24(1):47-52. (3) Walker A.M. Does pertussis vaccine cause sudden infant death? Presentation for Institute of Medicine Workshop on Possible Adverse Consequence of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. Washington DC May 14, 1990. (4) Institute of Medicine (1991). Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. (5) Fine and Chen. Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccines. American Journal of Epidemiology 1992 (136): 121-35. (6) Essery SD, Raza MW, Zorgani A, MacKenzie DA, James VS, Weir DM, Busuttil A, Hallam N, Blackwell C. The protective effect of immunisation against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) in relation to sudden infant death syndrome. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1999 Aug 1;25(1-2):183- 92. (7) Heininger U, Kleemann WJ, Cherry JD; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Study Group. A controlled study of the relationship between Bordetella pertussis infections and sudden unexpected deaths among German infants. Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):e9-15. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ruth E Acaster, Full-time Mother of 6 yr old unvaccinated child. Worthing, West Sussex
Send response to journal:
|
I am not sure if it is just me that thinks this?? Helen Bedford and David Elliman have declared their competing interests and are both pro-vaccination and are, I assume, respected in the medical world. Yet Andrew Wakefield has been shunned and humiliated by the same people for having 'so called' competing interests. I wonder why? Is this not just a little outrageous? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I read with interest the response by Drs Bogaerts and Begg of GSK. Several definitive statements were made, supported by 4 citations, for which I would seek further clarification. The response dealt with a number of issues which are of interest to children, their parents and interested observers alike, all in relation to pertussis and pertussis vaccination but which in some cases could be relevant to vaccines as a whole. The doctors take the position that Acellular pertussis vaccines contain elements that make the vaccine 'highly immunogenic', 'well tolerated' in various combinations; that 129 million doses in 45 million children have been 'successfully administered', and 'cause a rapid decline in pertussis disease incidence' immediately after uptake of the vaccines with 'safety and efficacy' having been confirmed by post-vaccine surveillance. With so much going for acellular pertussis vaccines one wonders what all the fuss is about. However, all the positive descriptions provided by the doctors from GSK are relative terms. For example 'successfully administered' means what? If a child dies or is seriously afflicted by a vaccine, was it successfully administered? Of the 45 million children cited as receiving acellular vaccines at least 35,517 of 6-11 month old children alone may have died within 7 to 9 months due to the vaccination (1) - the potential found in a wealthy European Country and excluding figures for deaths and all other mild to serious reactions in all age groups and periods that may bear relationship to vaccination - and what of the poorer countries' children where malnutrition, poor sanitation and contaminated water supplies may cause immune deficits that pose greater risk from adverse reactions to vaccination yet where post-vaccine surveillance is far less strong? If a child dies or is seriously afflicted by a vaccine after the duration (in some cases only 3 days) of follow-up was the vaccine still 'well tolerated'? If pertussis disease was rapidly replaced by a different form of (atypical) pertussis immediately after widespread vaccination that has now replaced, and may be more dangerous than, the original disease, does that mean the vaccine 'caused a rapid decline in pertussis disease incidence' or merely a decline in the incidence of pertussis disease the vaccine inhibits the detection of? (2)(3) Does 'highly immunogenic' mean it strengthens the recipients immune response to pertussis disease thereby conferring on that recipient an enhanced lifetime outcome benefit greater than the wild disease or merely that the markers curently used to try define immunogenic have been reached? Is there any research which suggests that 'immunogenic', as currently defined, may be not as valid as is currently believed (3)? Does 'safety and efficacy' confirmed mean that a child can confidently take pertussis acellular vaccine with the knowledge it is absolutely safe, and will protect that child against the most common form of pertussis (2)? I accept that 'risk' is also a relative term - for example the risk of developing a wild disease without vaccination that may hold greater risks than the vaccine. But for every person damaged by the vaccine terms like safe, well-tolerated, efficacy and immunogenic hold little meaning. If the vaccine is merely altering the wild disease causing new strains (2) which induce atypical pertussis diseases; and causes shifts in age-of-uptake of wild pertussis that may turn out to be more dangerous than the original age-of-uptake in populations (4); leads to increases in deaths and serious afflictions of more and more young (<2m of age) victims; and as herd immunity to vaccine strain spreads yet confers no immunity to the new strains; and if vaccinated mothers have no natural immunity to pertussis or the new strains to confer on their newborns; what is the real value of vaccination? Furthermore, it has been shown that pertussis vaccination invokes dramatically increased non-specific sex-related effects not seen in the unvaccinated (5) that will affect sex-specific mortality patterns in areas with high vaccine coverage. How does this resonate amongst communities of sexual equality, if vaccination causes more deaths in one sex than another, and what damage is mass vaccination doing to natural selection by sex? Surely there must be intense investigation, debate and legislation in the public interest according to whether the public is willing to accept vaccine-induced interference in natural sexual selection processes, and the impact unequal mortality amongst sexes could have on the survival of whole communities? The increasing trend for pertussis outbreaks in high vaccinated communities, with increased dangers in children under 2 months who have no natural immunity from vaccinated mothers is worrying; the risk is said to be enhanced by the ever larger numbers of adolescents and adults developing often unrecognised pertussis illnesses (6)(4) despite those communities being heavily vaccinated for decades. The response from the Pharmaceutical industry is to re-vaccinate old and young, but this is contradicted by studies which suggest that the strains of pertussis gaining ground are unaffected by current vaccines. Is pertussis vaccine impact really quantifiable when new studies suggest disarray in the supportive science yet industry continues to strive for ever more increases in vaccination schedules with the message that 'vaccines are good for you'? Isn't it time we had an independent enquiry into the whole vaccine process to interrupt the present situation where figures and terms, as those provided by the good doctors, probably hold greater marketing than health significance? When population sexual differentiation and discrmination issues are added to the long list of questions about the role vaccination is playing globally it is time the public was confronted with the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and is asked to decide what is right for itself - neither industry nor governments can assume that responsibility. Regards John H. 1. Mortality and morbidity from invasive bacterial infections during a clinical trial of acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden, Storsaeter J et al, Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1988 Sep:7(9):637-45 2. Polymorphism in Bordetella pertussis pertactin and pertussis toxin virulence factors in the US 1935-1999, cassidy et al, J Infect Dis 2000 Nov;182(5):1402-8. Epub 2000 Oct 09. 3. Pertussis: Diagnosis, Immunity and Prevention, Jussi Mertsola MD, http://www.utu.fi/research/tic/projects/mertsola.html 4. Epidemiological features of pertussis in the US, Farizio KM et al, Clin Infect Dis 1992 Mar;14(3):708-19 5. Divergent female-male mortality ratios associated with different routine vaccinations among female-male twin pairs. Aaby P et al, Int J Epid 2004 Apr;33(2):367-73 6. Pertussis of adults and infants, von Konig CH et al, Lancet Infect Dis 2002 Dec;2(12):744-50 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS, Retired LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
|
I believe that Dr Flegg is well aware of the scientific evidence that asserts vaccines can cause brain damage. I have posted several references on that subject in response to similar subject matter as this. However, one of the latest by Laurie Barclay [1]— Describes how Thimerosal, the ethylmercury-based preservative found in childhood vaccines, can increase the risk of autism-like damage in mice, according to a report published online June 8 in advance of publication in Molecular Psychiatry. In a typical response from the Institute of Medicine, Washington DC (IOM), it states: "This type of study, while certainly interesting, in no way substitutes for actual human evidence," IOM panellist Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, an associate professor of oncology and epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, told Medscape. "We don't have an animal model for autism and we don't understand exactly what causes autism or what its exact patho-physiology is in humans. So we don't understand it completely in either system at the moment, and we certainly don't understand to what extent one is a model for the other." So, is it the case that we should all understand that if you are prepared to bury your head under the sand, any research could be discounted? Fortunately, at least in the UK, this additive is to be discontinued. (Not because it is accepted that it might cause brain damage but because some people believe that it might.) Steven H. Miles [2] in a recently published book, writes: “The Hippocratic Oath is one of the most valid of all ancient documents. The United States Supreme Court referred to it in reaching the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. Medical students recite it at graduation. Its definition of medical ethics endures because it represents the fundamental truth that a sick person requires, and is entitled to have, trust in the caregiver. The Oath, writes Miles, in this book, "... simply puts the swearer's character on the line for human judgment on whether the physician has honored the pledges to learn, to teach, to sustain the development of medicine, to benefit the ill, and to shun injustice." This ancient document attributed to Hippocrates helped medicine become a respected profession. Perhaps we need to look at it in more detail to fathom the crisis of trust that lurks in our profession.” [1] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/480683 [2] Miles, Steven H. The Hippocratic Oath and the Ethics of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 2004 New York, NY. ISBN 0-19-516219-6. Reviewed in JAMA. 2004;292:1083-1084. Competing interests: Father of brain damaged and autistic syndrome daughter |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hilary Butler, freelance journalist Home, 1892, NZ
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, Dr Flegg should know that this country has a much higher rate of vaccination than 80%, but that every four years, we continue to have whooping cough epidemics. The majority of the known cases are in fully, appropriately vaccinated children, the rest either in babies too young to have completed the series, or silent infections in adults appropriately vaccinated but with waning immunity from years before. As a parent, whose two children were number 70 and 71 (or something) in a practice in which they were the only unvaccinated children, I can attest to the fact that to most parents, the whooping cough vaccine was and still is, somewhat of a joke. But his comments of the 80's deserves to be balanced, by the views of a paediatrician of the time. Who, I would like to think Dr Flegg would consider his "equivalent" contemporary. The Practitioner, September 1983, Volume 227, pages 1463 - 1471. "Media-induced Maladies" By Herbert Barrie MD, FRCP, Consultant Paediatrician, Charing Cross Hospital, London. extract: "Pestjahr, 1982. Pestjahr was the word coined by the late Dr Walter Pagel for the year Hitler came to power. It could as easily be used for the year the DHSS launched its campaign of terror promoting whooping cough vaccine. Whooping cough is a disease which unaccountable comes in four year cycles: 1982 was an epidemic year, as was 1978. In both epidemics, notifications topped around 65,000 in England and Wales, although marginally less last year, despite the relentless knelling of doom. "Notifications in the epidemic and intervening years had previously been much lower, but the uptake of pertussis vaccine had dropped to 30% in the early 1970's when the risk of neurological complications and misgivings about its effectiveness gave the vaccine a bad name. The formulation of the vaccine was therefore changed. The current vaccine is almost certainly safer and more effective and it seems likely that a higher uptake of vaccination for a few years could again bring down notifications. "What follows, therefore, is not intended as an attack on the current vaccine, or its manufacturers, but on the crude shock tactics used on the public to promote it by the DHSS. “The campaign began sedately enough with an informative circular to doctors. If only it would have continued in this vein, it would have been exemplary. Regrettably, with the expected and unavoidable rise in notifications, the DHSS was suddenly galvanized into uncharacteristic hyperactivity” It would be interesting to know how and why the onslaught came to be shifted directly onto the public. Whooping cough has long ceased to be a serious disease. It is eminently treatable and its mortality in this country has been negligible for over two decades. There were only two notified deaths in England and Wales in the whole of 1972, and only 13 in last year’s much publicized epidemic. .... ..... There are more cot deaths in a week than death from whooping cough in a year, not to speak of the many perinatal deaths which could be avoided if the facilities were better. Why then the blunderbuss scare- mongering over whooping cough? “A fusillade of memoranda: directives and bulletins was unleashed through the media. Having little else to write about since the end of the Falklands campaign, they were only too pleased to join the fray. After all, what is news if it is not bad news? Hardly a day went by without the latest whooping cough returns turning up somewhere. ‘KILLER DISEASE STRIKES AGAIN” and ‘EPIDEMIC CLAIMS NEW VICTIM’ were typical headline messages. Battalions of health visitors and community doctors were thrown into the battle, as if vaccination could conceivable influence notifications or prevent that half-dozen deaths in babies who were too young to be vaccinated anyway. If the aim was to frighten parents out of all proportion, it succeeded, but the worst excess was still to come. “A pre-recorded phone-in service was installed by the DHSS to “inform” parents about the vaccine. Anybody calling this number was greeted with a blood-curdling series of spasms of coughing, followed by a diatribe on the imminent dangers of brain damage, lung damage and demise. The message ended, like a bad commercial, with a high-pitched hysterical exaltation; ‘If your child has not been vaccinated, do not delay. There is an epidemic. Get your child vaccinated now!” This was followed by another paroxysm and what sounded like a last gasp. “AT the height of the scaremongering, distraught mothers were telephoning me almost daily. There are over a hundred thousand babies under the age of three months in Britain. If the risks were as great as they were made out to be, what protection was proposed for infants under vaccination age? Some calls came from the mothers of chidren from whom pertussis vaccine had properly been withheld on sound medical advice. They were worried because they believed their children to be defenceless against a disease on the rampage. They were also worried that the contra- indications to vaccination implied that there was something wrong which they had not been told about. “The whole question of vaccine damage and susceptibility to it, is an unresolved inconsistency. “Either the vaccine is 100% safe, in which case all normal babies can have it, or it is not, in which case we should not be afraid to say so. The exclusion of a significant number of outwardly normal babies on account of their birth or family histories appears to be a subconscious attempt to shift the onus of responsibility if something goes wrong to the vaccinator instead of the vaccine. A few calls came from parents genuinely worried about possible reactions, but even more distressed by the accusations of community doctors or health visitors that their attitude was endangering other people’s babies. “As an exercise in health education, the campaign was a mistake. I saw nothing informing the public, or for that matter family doctors, that whooping cough occurs as readily in adults as in children; that natural immunity is short and that the disease can be had repeatedly; that the symptoms of whooping cough can be caused by organisms other than Bordetella pertussis; that the vaccine can never be 100% effective or confer more than two or three years of protection; that it could not influence the disease in the community unless adults are vaccinated regularly too; that mild vaccination reactions are common, even if permanent brain damage is mercifully rare; and that to make such a fuss over whooping cough is not being realistic about more important problems concerning child health. “The one message to come across clearly, on a poster, was the awesome ‘Whooping cough is a Killer’. With 13 deaths and 65,772 survivors this is overstating the case. Nevertheless, television viewers were regaled with the sacrificial vaccination of some Very Important Little Persons, whose sheltered existence might be expected to render a chance encounter with a Bordetella pertussis an unlikely eventuality. Just as the uptake of pertussis rose from 30% to a modest 45%, a red-faced DHSS ran out of supplies and the campaign of terror came to an abrupt halt. That it had been uncalled for and the cause of much anxiety is beyond dispute. The public should not have been brought into the debate, and the whole campaign ought to have been conducted through the profession, and the time spent by countless family doctors and paediatricians on reassurance could have been put to better use.” Am J. Dis Child, volume 137, September 1983, page 922 "Campaign of Terror" Dr Herbert Barrie (As above) “Much publicity was given to the vaccinations, like sacrificial lambs, of the health Minster’s own infant daughter and, with even less justification bonny Prince William. Of all the infants in the land, the latter’s supremely sheltered care would render a chance encounter with a Bordetella pertussis about as remote as catching green monkey disease.” “…the awesome words “whooping cough is a killer” were on everybody’s lips. All believed their children to be in imminent danger of death or brain damage. All thought that whooping cough was an infectious disease that only young children caught, and vaccination would confer protection for life. It had not occurred to them that, like flu, it could be had repeatedly, that adults had it too, and that immunity rarely exceeded two or three years…. I can honestly say I have never knowingly seen brain damage caused by this disease in contrast with a few cases of vaccine damage – and have encountered only two deaths, both preventable, in 25 years. …Harrowing tales of prolonged hospitalization and demise make me wonder what kind of treatment might have been used, or not used. Most of my patients, even infants aged only a few weeks, are home inside two weeks, and few are admitted anyway. Why all this fuss about a dozen possibly mismanaged whooping cough deaths, when we have an annual toll of 1,500 cot deaths, 2,000 child deaths from accidents, and 2,500 avoidable perinatal deaths.” “It is an interesting question, and it is difficult to believe that political factors do not enter into it. Most of the arguments center around vaccination. Once the medical advisory committee had committed the Department of health to nationwide vaccination, it could not readily go back, despite the embarrassingly high attack rates in children given the British vaccine in the Medical Research Council trials in the 1950’s, and the disturbing reports of encephalopathy, sometimes followed by severe and permanent handicap….Promoting it (the vaccine) costs next to nothing since the Child Health Centres, their physicians, and health visitors already exist, unlike the massive investment needed into cot deaths, accident prevention and neonatal intensive care. In the eyes of the Health Department, what hath no need of gold, glitters…” His words, not mine.
Hilary Butler. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK based
Send response to journal:
|
During the nineties I became aware of an increasing number of cases of children with regressive autism and related spectrum disorders. The stories of children worsening after vaccines were becoming more frequent and I began to notice that it was the medically vulnerable and allergic children who seemed to fall into the category of reacting after MMR. Years on, I am of the view that many of the children who are allergic, became so after early vaccines, or, if they came from an atopic family, became worse after vaccines. If we want to genuinely understand what has been going on, we must look at the individual children. The total refusal to consider such evidence, and indeed the vilification of those of us who DO look at the individuals and apply logic to what we see, inevitably arouses suspicions. Below is a recent example of a child who became medically more and more vulnerable over time, worsening with each vaccination, until he eventually lost all his cognitive and language skills as well. Baby One This little boy, assessed by myself 2 weeks ago, was born at full term in 1997 and delivered by caesarian section. 14th August 1997 - Born 25th September 1997 - Found to have a skin/subcutaneous tissue disease/infantile eczema all over his face. This indicated that he is an atopic child. 16th October 1997 - Despite being an atopic child, he was given his 1st Hib and DTP vaccine. His eczema worsened and on 29th October his GP noted that it was now all over his face and his trunk. 27th November 1997 - Despite the worsening of his eczema, Baby One was given his 2nd Hib DTP vaccination. 10th December 1997 - Returned to surgery with much worsened facial eczema `infected`. 12th January 1998 - Returned again to surgery `Patient's condition worsened/ face'. 15th January 1998 - Given 3rd Hib and DTP and Polio vaccination. 19th January 1998 - Seen in surgery Infected Eczema continued, candidal nappy rash noted in October 1998, but no bowel problems and no apparent regression in language and cognitive function. Baby One was advanced, with video evidence to prove it. 19th November 1998 - Given MMR vaccine. Reacted with very high temperature, next day projectile vomiting and diarrhoea. GP's notes refer to 'abnormal stool mucus' (green)Ongoing vomiting and diarrhoea, hospitalised. This continued (over years). 21st December 1998 - Anaphylactic collapse - proven peanut allergy. Allergy Consultant `not interested in serious bowel and vomiting problems'. Severe allergy and eczema continued. Upper Respiratory Tract problems from 1998. Whilst passing all developmental milestones his parents began to notice a gradual loss of some language skills. 7th June 2000 - Due for Meningitis C vaccination. Dad made Nurse tell him she was certain his son would not suffer from the vaccination, as he was becoming very suspicious that his son's problems had all followed various previous vaccinations. He was reassured there was `no connection'. Baby One reacted severely to the vaccination. He hallucinated for three days and could not tolerate light. He rapidly lost his ability to answer questions, then could not request. He then lost all language. He is now totally non verbal and hyperactive. Within months he was being assessed for autism. He has proven so difficult to teach that he is to be transferred to a very small class of non verbal severely autistic children and requires one to one suport because of `his behavioural problems`. The system has written him off. they deny any connection with vaccines and deny that anything can be done for him. I think differently. Competing interests: Specialist in Autism and related spectrum disorders Editorial note
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, UK FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
I am not entirely clear why Allan Challoner mentions the Hippocratic oath in conjunction with this issue. I presume he is implying that the medical profession has compromised its founding principles. The fact that many people now lack trust in our profession is attributable to a lot of things, but the ethical principles of the majority of doctors still remains unquestioned. None of us seeks to deliberately harm patients, but we accept that there is not a single effective medical treatment or intervention that has no side effect whatsoever, and everything has a degree of risk. The original Hippocratic Oath urged practitioners not to "harm anyone". This sounds fine in principle, but in reality this means no-one would be able to practice medicine. The Hippocratic Oath was superceded by the Declaration of Geneva in 1948. This what doctors (in the UK and most other countries) swear by when entering into the profession. This declaration maintains that the health of my patient should be my first consideration. To deliberately leave a child at risk from a dangerous and preventable disease would be an abrogation of this principle. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Raymond Gallup, Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project 45 Iroquois Avenue, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 USA
Send response to journal:
|
There is mention of the Hippocratic Oath which says, "First, Do No Harm". Does this oath indeed motivate the medical community when looking at the safety of vaccines and a public inquiry looking into adverse reactions to vaccines? Does this oath indeed motivate the medical community to look more closely into the safety issue that is being and has been ignored? Does the Hippocratic Oath mean that the interest and safety of the public comes before the interest of corporate and individual profit making? Or is it the Hypocrites Oath? The Webster Dictionary defines hypocrisy as, "stimulation or pretense of goodness; feigning to be what one is not; insincerity." So what will the medical community do? Go for the higher standards of the Hippocratic Oath or keep adhering to the Hypocrites Oath. Competing interests: Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project and father to Eric Gallup, who was born normal and regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I agree with Ruth Acaster that it is a little outrageous. I also recently returned to Brian Deer's article about Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday Times (22 February 2004) and try as I might I could not find any source for his allegations. Perhaps someone else has read it even more carefully and can? Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Morrell, Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine Staffordshire University, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Peter Flegg's attempt to smear John Heptonstall with the damning stigma of entertaining ‘conspiracy theories' and whipping up dissent about vaccines, rang a tad "false and hollow," [1] just like his previous habit of smearing Alexander Russell and David Rasnick as "HIV denialists." He is the type of person who would call round earth believers “flat-earth denialists.” What pedantic and vindictive nonsense. Not liking the message, not wishing to dialogue and instead of debating straight, through reasoned argument, he aims instead to smear and discredit any person who holds views dissimilar to his own. That is an arrogant and wholly dishonourable debating tactic, which basically says, “I cannot win this argument with reason, so I will use emotion instead.” Reading through comments like, "his most recent pet theory," "I find Heptonstall’s concept that vaccines can only cause harm insulting," [why insulting?] "I have tried to view the vaccine debate objectively," [joke?] "pertussis vaccination hysteria," "I am afraid that misinformed generalisations [huh?] about the adverse consequences of vaccination are not useful contributions to this debate," "emotive and baseless statements from John Heptonstall...merely polarise opinion further, and alienate the very medical establishment," etc, does not lead me to believe that Peter Flegg is being exactly candid on this topic. How can a man whose medical career involves issuing drugs and vaccines to patients, honestly claim to be viewing "the vaccine debate objectively?" Because such a claim stands in obvious conflict with the daily nature of his work, it does not seem innately a very credible claim to make. How can such a “misinformed generalisation,” also be a “useful contribution to this debate?” Instead of making such intemperate comments, if he had taken the time to read Heptonstall's many rapid responses over the last 4-5 years, he would conclude—if he was a reasonable person—that they are consistently informative, intelligent, well-referenced, cogently argued and persuasive if not compelling. That is just about the very opposite impression one receives from reading through Flegg's rapid responses. Significantly, I would also add, that Heptonstall's are always polite, respectful and even-toned, making a far more enjoyable read than the angry, and often disrespectful rhetoric, which Flegg routinely writes about his own 'pet theories,' including, as they often do, some impatient and waspish denunciation of those who dare to question his views. His lack of patience and tact often ruins the presentation of his own case. That leads us neatly on to his recent letter to Carol Johnston. Goodness me, what a false and duplicitous note that sounds. An obsequious insincerity—that "great enemy of clear language," [2]—seems to come wafting out of it like a bad odour. Therefore, one asks—who can possibly trust a man who presents such a fawning Janus face to a 'troubled parent,' but such a wrathful one to those who dare to question his precious medical creed? The facts about vaccines are rarely found in published articles in medical journals, but have been correctly posted in many intelligent rapid responses in BMJ over the years, including those recently by Heptonstall and Haws; these facts are always rejected "emotively and baselessly" by the medical establishment because they upset their pet theories on the causes and cure of sickness and because such erroneous theories have become a very lucrative trade for drug companies and doctors alike; indeed, the basis of their entire existence. Naturally, it is in their interests to always and energetically oppose, denigrate and smear, with all the power at their disposal, anyone who tries to present these facts in the public domain—as Flegg's polemical responses to Heptonstall, Butler and Haws, among others, amply demonstrate. Any talk of the adverse effects of drugs and vaccines are always subordinated by them—emotively—to the alleged benefits of mass treatments of people conceived as 'just another case' of disease A or B. The most truly curative therapy is that which perceives and treats each person as an individual, not as a member of a herd. Seemingly, it benefits doctors and their rich pharmaceutical backers to ever deny this. As Clifford Miller states: "almost without exception they [medics] do not provide hard reliable statistics quantifying the dangers to allow anyone to compare risk and alleged benefit." [3] Though that would be an objective approach, you can labour in vain to find it in the works of Bedford and Elliman, Flegg, or their drug company paymasters. They have manifestly lost this argument—the public are finally getting ahead of the game and can see through the lies—vaccines are not the harmless sickness-removing agents they have been consistently painted for decades, but are potent health-deranging poisons. Sources [1] John Milton, paradise Lost, 1, 112 [2] George Orwell, Politics and the English Language [3] Clifford G. Miller, MEDICAL 'SCIENCE'? INFECTED BEYOND CURE, BMJ rapid response, 20 August 2004 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L Sam Lewis, GP Surgery, Newport, Pembs, SA42 0TJ
Send response to journal:
|
I think it was Florence Nightingale who uttered the impossible dictum 'First , do no harm ' The Hippocratic Oath ( which most modern doctors do not take ) does have a line saying something like :- ' I will avoid doing harm and injustice ' see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html However, is it not clear to all reasonable people that to practice medicine one must risk doing harm ? For example, one cannot give Penicillin to a clear-cut case of Pneumococcal Pneumonia, without risking an unforeseen anaphylactic reaction.. The modern medical ethical concept is, amongst other precepts, about striving to minimise harm whilst maximising good - some form of 'good/harm ratio' operates. Competing interests: Doing Good vs. Avoiding Harm |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
|
I must confess I'm struggling to keep up here. First of all the anti- vaccinantionists told us that MMR causes autism. Then they tell us that thiomersal causes autism (I'm not sure whether that was instead of MMR or as well as, but let's let that pass). This new combination vaccine is not MMR, and it contains no thiomersal. Surely it should therefore be welcomed all round? Could someone please explain the hostility to the new vaccine? As far as I can make out, the anti-vaccination argument now goes something along the lines of 'vaccination is pointless anyway because it doesn't protect against infectious diseases'. Is that a reasonable summary or am I missing something? Competing interests: My company provides consultancy services to pharmaceutical companies |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L. Travis Haws, Dentist Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
|
Editor: I'm glad to see that Peter Flegg noticed the IOM inconsistencies. I’m glad he snatched the bait. As I find it frightening to see that the IOM, in its biased and data manipulative ways that John Stone, Hilary Butler and others have so adequately pointed out, did have to admit to SOME of the serious adverse vaccine reactions. If an institute that has shown bias towards vaccine efficacy and safety, and eventually admitted to some of these serious life threatening and life ending events, then it frightens me to know what is lurking in the UNAVAILABLE data or what has been misrepresented among countless citations regarding serious concern for vaccine efficacy and safety. Going to the VAERS database is a leery experience; especially in knowing that the scope of adverse reactions is far greater than VAERS shows as it is well known that only 1 - 10 percent of adverse reactions are reported. In a dodge ball maneuver, Peter Flegg cites a Stewart reference in which I did not list, but then tells me my references are "self-refuting". The references I listed were aimed at the Glasgow epidemic mentioned by Flegg. In which Stewart, in 1977, discusses that adverse reactions are more serious and common than "generally" accepted. That he showed additional evidence that pertussis morbidity and mortality showed a very much declining trend, long before mass immunization was practised in Great Britain, and that protection by vaccination cannot be demonstrated. Regarding Glasgow, Stewart wrote that B. pertussis vaccination schedules are ineffective and monitoring of efficacy and adverse reactions is incomplete. He then reasons that, if the risk of permanent brain damage from vaccination is one in 20,000, then at least 30 children will suffer permanent brain damage each year...far greater than the risk of death or permanent brain damage from whooping cough disease. (1) Coulter and Fisher quote a 1982 letter by Stewart stating "we have outbreaks about every four years. The last one in 1978/9 was more widespread, but the death rate was the lowest on record. In this city of over one million people [Glasgow], with less than 50 percent of children vaccinated, there have been no deaths since 1971, and we have no evidence of more severe or persistent complications due to pertussis. We do on the other hand, have very clear evidence of some children having been hopelessly incapacitated following vaccination and of at least one unexplained death.” (2) Then, in 1984, Stewart is critical of an article by Miller, Alderslade and Ross and their claim that epidemics of whooping cough in Britain in 1977-79 and 1981-82 resulted from a drop in vaccination. He notes, that the data was from passive surveillance and that 50% of whooping cough cases came from 12% of practitioners and 37% from 2% of practitioners and that there is a bias towards over-reporting of cases in unvaccinated children and under-reporting of cases in vaccinated children. (3) How were cases of whooping cough diagnosed? Were cases of flu, bronchitis, pneumonia etc. misdiagnosed as whooping cough? I’d think it very likely that during such a media frenzy, any cough was immediately tagged as a potential case of whooping cough. Peter Flegg pulls out one sentence and calls me selective? There are numerous other Stewart Citations that fall right in line with what I have put forth. In an attempt to throw the ball back at me, Peter Flegg, uses IOM "collation" of data to state that there is no relationship between SIDS and vaccines. I cited references, not the IOM's interpretation of them. However, the IOM finally admitted in 1991, as reiterated in Pediatrics 1992, that “the evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT vaccine and acute encephalopathy (defined in the controlled studies reviewed as encephalopathy, encephalitis or encephalomyelitis) and shock and ‘unusual shock-like state’…the evidence indicates a causal relation between DPT vaccine and anaphylaxis, between the pertussis component of DPT vaccine and protracted, inconsolable crying”. (4) Please don’t tell me that acute encephalopathies, shock, and/or anaphylaxis are not a high risk for severe permanent brain damage, death or “SIDS”. Does the IOM data “collation” include the unavailable data? Was the manufacturers insert part of the "collated" data? For example, in 1984, Wyeth Laboratories insert states "The occurrence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been reported following administration of DTP. The significance of these reports is unclear. It should be kept in mind that the three primary immunizing doses of DTP are usually administered to infants between the age of two and six months and that approximately 85% of SIDS cases occur in the period 1 through 6 months of age, with peak incidence at age 2 to 4 months." Hmmm...peak incidence at age 2 to 4 months...that's very interesting. What about Torches report, Scheibner’s stressed induced breathing following DPT, or the Japan’s infant mortality going from 17th to the least in the world subsequent to DPT inoculation being moved to two years of age? Were they part of the IOM’s “collation”/”collusion" of data? So, in telling me my references are "self-refuting", Flegg uses entirely different references, or should I say dodge balls? If Peter Flegg wants to claim my references fell short of the hurdle as they are “self-refuting”, then perhaps he should at least be in the same lane. Then, I’m told that I “willingly embrace the Institute of Medicine’s conclusions when it gives details of adverse reactions to vaccines, but not when it exonerates MMR from a link to autism or exonerates other vaccines from alleged side effects”. What of, the recent study mentioned by John Stone in another thread, which re-implicates and contradicts such findings and concludes “trends in prevalence data in Denmark suggest a temporal association between the introduction of MMR vaccine and the rise in autism…Autism rates in the U.S. have surpassed those of Denmark. Notably, in the U.S. the MMR vaccine was administered at the age of 12 months, often with two thimerosal-containing products, the Hemophilus Influenzae B and Hepatitis B vaccines,…” (5) Again, as aforementioned, I’m glad he noticed the IOM inconsistencies. So that I can emphasize that if the IOM swinging to the right (has built in biases and unavailable data) admits to severe reactions (swings to the uncomfortable left), I can pretty much accept them. However, the claims of the evidence denying a causal relationship in many aspects of severe reactions "fly-in-the-face" of the majority of literature, personal experiences and numerous accounts from concerned parents that I am aware of. Peter Flegg then gives me two references that allegedly show vaccines are now SIDS preventative. The first reference is a study looking at antibodies from DPT immunization that may cross-react to Staphylococcal toxins. (6) From the abstract, "Antibody levels to the toxins in infants declined with age; sera from infants < or = 2 months of age had higher levels of IgG bound to the toxins than those older than 2 months. This pattern was observed for infants whose immunisation schedules began at 2 months of age or 3 months of age. The decrease in IgG bound to the toxins was, however, less for those immunised at 2 months. The decrease in SIDS deaths after the change in immunisation schedules was greatest in the 4-6-month age range." Thus, IgG bound antibodies were greatest prior to vaccination (i.e. maternal antibodies), and then decreased post-vaccination during which maternal antibodies are decreasing and the infant begins to develop its own. Additionally, the decrease in SIDS was apparently greatest in the 4- 6 month age group (when infants immune systems are more developed and can fight of the toxic stimuli). What about the peak incidence of 2-4 months as even stated in Wyeth laboratories package insert? A phenomenon known as clustering. I know of no other more common and widespread occurrence that happens around 2 – 4 months than the initiation of mass administration of vaccines. Some of the findings from Flegg's reference number two (7): There were 254 infants (66% male) with sudden unexpected deaths and 441 matched control subjects."PCR results were positive for B pertussis for 12 case subjects (5.1%) (all with SIDS or respiratory infections) and 5.3% of control subjects."..."Also, fewer case subjects (33%) than control subjects (68%) had received age-adequate numbers of pertussis vaccine doses." Same percentage of positive PCR tests for B. pertussis with increased vaccination "success" in the control group. What does that say for efficacy? I know, Peter Flegg is going to tell us that the lower vaccination percentage among the case subjects supports that inadequate immunization equals increased SIDS. This is where a big piece of the puzzle is missing. The authors don't discuss the vaccination rates/timing for the 5.1% cases with SIDS and positive PCR tests. Were they “adequately” covered? Did they miss a jab or two and then succumb following the next jab? Additionally, parental surveys available for review were only available for 5 of 12 positive PCR “SIDS” case studies. So, for 42% of the positive PCR case studies, that information wasn’t available. Doesn’t that make it just a little difficult to make conclusions? Interestingly, this study was supported in part by Wyeth-Lederle Pediatrics and Vaccines. Another conflict of interest is that of co- author, Dr. Cherry. Where back in 1979, he is quoted as stating "All physicians are aware that pertussis vaccine occasionally produces severe reactions and that these may be associated with permanent sequellae (complications caused by the vaccine) or even death." In 1990, his mind was changed when he stated that severe brain damage from pertussis vaccination was a myth. "From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got about $400,000 in unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts" from Lederle. From 1988 through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle for pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA received $654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research. Additionally, drug manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his testimony as an expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the companies." The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) wrote a letter to the Department of Human and Human Services requesting the removal of Dr. Cherry of UCLA and a colleague, from DHHS citing the conflicts of interest and the receiving of more than $800,000 for vaccine “research” (http://www.whale.to/m/quotes9.html) I wonder how far $800,000 g’s can go towards helping third world sanitation and nutrition? Let’s spell it out mathematically, 2 (quote of severe adverse reactions) + 2 (change of tune following heavy involvement with vaccine manufacturers) = 4 (serious conflict of interest). I used to believe in vaccines as I was trained of their miraculous way of “controlling” and “preventing” disease. Unfortunately, the education process failed to inform me of the long-term and steady decline of disease mortality and morbidity severity prior to vaccination programs. Not to mention, the non-existent discussion of serious side effects. Of the well visit trips to my pediatricians office, I cannot recall a single discussion of serious side effects. No benefit/risk assessment during the “informed” consent consultation except for the faint mentioning of a possible fever. No consideration whether the child was premature or full term etc. I only came upon such information upon researching it myself and was appaled. I felt “hood-winked” and like a puppet in a box whose purpose was to help continue the propaganda message. Needless to say, I critically think about many things I’m told “as-a-matter-of-fact” these days. As far as the purported claim or reasoning that vaccines played a major role in reducing mortality of “preventable” diseases; it is beyond any scope of rationale I can conjure, as the rates had large scale reductions (trends that were consistent and long-term and, thus predictably, would have continued) of 95+ percent prior to widespread mandated vaccination. Something I and others have pointed out over and over. Points, the vax proponents keep playing dodge ball with. I invite Flegg to please explain how such bold benefit statements can be made when considering, for example, that: 1) natural progression with simultaneous hygiene and nutrition improvements resulting in mortality declines from 100 deaths to 5 or less (95% decline), and 2) perhaps vaccines may have helped further reduce the 5--very difficult to accept as the trend on the natural side was established over numerous years. So, natural immunity, hygiene, nutrition and better health care took away 95 of 100 cases, and vaccines MAY have helped 5 more. I'm no epidemiologist, but 95 vs 5 seems pretty clear cut to me on the overwhelming lack of evidence “supporting” vaccine benefit/efficacy statements. Don’t forget to add the numerous accounts of epidemics among the highly vaccinated which further refute such benefit claims. Another point constantly dodged. Let’s look at a different angle of efficacy. Since an infants immune system is mostly non-existent and is in the early developmental stages (especially prior to 6 months), and relies greatly on maternal antibodies, how does the infant produce such antibodies until its immune system is developed enough to do so (you know, around 6 months of age or later)? How does this time frame relate to preemies? Score another point for the ineffectiveness of vaccines corner. So, either no true immunity is developed, or it’s tricked into looking for an unnatural mutated man-made form of disease instead of the living interactive natural type. Yet the vaccine proponents constantly hide behind the “we’re preventing” these outrageous diseases pedestal. But, the pedestal has no legs. What about preventing disastrous mutated man-made disease? Which manifests itself in the spectrum of serious adverse vaccine reactions; reactions that are solely a figment of numerous people’s imaginations, according to Flegg. Let's break down Flegg's quote from the IOM--“Next to clean water, no single intervention has had so profound an effect on reducing mortality from childhood diseases as has the widespread introduction of vaccines.” So, clean water has had the MOST profound effect. I'm happy to note that Peter Flegg and I are on the same page! References: 1) Stewart G.T. Vaccination against whooping cough. Efficacy versus risks. Lancet 1977; Jan 29; 234-7 2) Coulter H L., Fisher BL. A Shot in the Dark. Avery Publishing. Copyright by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher. Page 100 3) Stewart G.T. Whoping cough and whooping cough vaccine: the risks and benefits debate. American Journal of Epidemiology 1984; 119(1): 135-9 4) Howson CP, Fineberg HV., The ricochet of magic bullets: Summary of the Institute of Medicine Report, Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines. Pediatrics 1992; 89(2):318-24 5) Goldman GS, Yazbak FB., An Investigation of the Association Between MMR Vaccination and Autism in Denmark. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. 2004; 9(3): 70-5 6) Essery SD, Raza MW, Zorgani A, MacKenzie DA, James VS, Weir DM, Busuttil A, Hallam N, Blackwell C. The protective effect of immunisation against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) in relation to sudden infant death syndrome. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1999 Aug 1;25(1-2):183- 92. 7) Heininger U, Kleemann WJ, Cherry JD; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Study Group. A controlled study of the relationship between Bordetella pertussis infections and sudden unexpected deaths among German infants. Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):e9-15. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist, former examining university lecturer in law Beckenham, Kent, England BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
I will try to assist Adam Jacobs (Director, Dianthus Medical Limited pharmaceutical consultancy) with his confusion (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#73573). Firstly, it is not clear who the 'anti-vaccinationists' are who are being quoted, as no references are provided. I am sure all reasonably minded people are pro what can be shown scientifically to work properly, provides indisputable benefit without causing unacceptable harm, such that the risk/benefit balance is acceptable. There seems to be difficulty showing that MMR falls into that category and there seems to be a growing body of medical science and medical scientific opinion that it may not be alone in its class. When discussing adverse drug reactions, Mr Jacobs will know that CDR and CD (1) is proof (not evidence but proof) of a causal connection between an adverse event and the administration of a pharmaceutical. It is well accepted and standard practice to accept only one suitably documented spontaneously reported CDR event as proof of a causal connection and for CD only, three such CD events are sufficient as proof. This is well-established. Accordingly, the precise cause of the reaction may not necessarily be known. It is like your car colliding with a tree. You know the engine is not working any more, but exactly which bits are implicated is an academic issue in those circumstances. Is it mercury? Is it the combination of viral components? Is it something else? Do we keep administering it and wait 20 years to find out? That is something some reasonably minded people think is not the best decision, but our government and the medical heirarchy seems to think it is. As vaccination is such a holy grail to the establishment, it seems to be determinedly engaged in a medical crusade or jihad. The vicars-general of vaccination, the taliban of toxicology and the imams of immunisation are all lining up to tell us that on their reading of the pharmaceutical Bible, these 2000 or so poor UK kids, many of whom have clearly documented CDR and CD reactions to MMR, are not victims of vaccines, are not damaged by dogma, or mauled by the madness of maniacal medical missionaries. However, these same people are wholly unable to account for the cause and it has taken them over six years to remain so unable, since first called to account. So fervent is the belief that vaccines can do no harm, that documented CDR and CD reactions are dismissed as 'anecdotal' even though it is the establishment's own CDR and CD science that tells us the contrary and which has existed for far longer than this misnamed 'MMR debate'. Further, a peer reviewed scientific paper recently published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JAPS) by Goldman and Yazbak(2) appears to show the government scientists and advisors got their sums wrong. It seems the this paper was cited only yesterday in the US Senate as sufficient to dismiss out of hand the key research paper (Madsen (3)) on which the UK government and US IoM based their dismissal of the MMR/autism link. In this context, to make quite clear the importance the UK government put on what seems to be the now discredited Madsen paper, please allow me to quote (4) the Chief Scientific Officer, Professor Sir David King FRS:- ".... there has been .... a very detailed study in Denmark ..... The study includes 543,000 children of whom 15% in one category did not receive the MMR vaccine and the rest received it, and the incidence of autism was percentage-wise within noise in the two samples. For me, that produces closure on that particular item; and I wish the media would deliver that message." The JAPS paper appears to show it was a temporary closure, and someone may just have been out to lunch. The JAPS papers claims the Madsen paper has inappropriate adjustments in the way the adding up was done. If correct, the UK and US experts seem to have not taken sufficient note of the existence of these adjustments and their effect on the data. The JAPS paper seems to show clearly that when suitable allowances are made for the effect of the adjustments the original data shows there is a link between MMR and autism. However, not only does it show that, but the incidence is not the same as in the US. The US incidence, where the mercury additive was used, is higher. And if there is any such thing as an 'anti-vaccinationist', CDR and CD tell us it is not for such a person (fictitious or otherwise) to have to show which of the components is the cause of the damage. It is only necessary to show the damage. And if Mr Jacob's pharmaceutical clients and the UK and US government scientists are unable to demonstrate it, then they should not expect others to do it for them. It is their job to prove what causes the damage, they have had long enough and they have failed to do so. But then, they would do as their own well-established science tells us it is the MMR. (1) here CDR = Challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge and CD = Challenge- dechallenge; (2) JAPS Fall 2004 Volume 9 Number 3 An Investigation of the Association Between MMR Vaccination andAutism in Denmark G.S. Goldman, Ph.D.; F.E. Yazbak, M.D. (3) Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. 2002; 347(19):1477-1482. N Engl J Med (4) Select Committee on Public Administration Minutes of Evidence Examination of Witness (Questions 220-239) 5 FEBRUARY 2004 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/4020509.htm Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I do not really believe that Adam Jacobs is confused. It is evident that there is a widespread breakdown in trust relating to the lack of independent assessment and monitoring of phamaceutical products, and most particularly vaccines where the medical profession and public are perpetually advised to ignore the side-effects. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir First I think confused is so because most of those who comment on the probable dangers of vaccines are not 'anti-vaccinists' per se - the name appears to have been granted to anyone who points out the probable dangers of vaccines and vaccination by a so-called 'pro-vaccine' lobby so often seen to have financial interests in vaccination. Second I think confused has missed the point that commentators who believe that MMR and thimerosal are causes of autism also believe there are other causes - the 'isolation' of potential causes of autism to these two agents appears to be a consideration of vaccinating governments and those researching links between autism and the two agents; clearly autism appears to have numerous orgins and those that use only thimerosal or MMR as a focus for study do an injustice to society if their research ignores other potential causes. Autism is considered to be linked to MMR (possible measles part and rubella part) as measles virus and MMR vaccine virus have been found in the brains of autistics and not controls by Vijedra Singh et al. Rubella in mothers has long been associated with autism so rubella vaccine may also be suspected. DTP has long been associated with infantile spasms which has a strong statistical association with autism. Commentators agree there could be genetic or environmental reasons for some autism, or that these may make a person more susceptible to autism perhaps through vaccination triggers. I know families who found that the strongest probable links between their unrelated (genetically) families are with Vitamin K injections; others who blame BCG due to close association with vaccination, therefore injections/vaccination may cause a percentage of autism through commonly used adjuvants that initiate eg. intentional inflammation in the recipient. Why should there be only one or two causes, and why should some of the causes not be vaccines and adjuvants - cases of autism having increased exponetially through years of ever-increasing vaccine types and schedules? The rapid physical and mental development of babies and small children might so easly be disrupted by unnatural interventions like vaccination and environmental pollutants such that brain development is arrested. All potential causes should be addressed by researchers or their research may not be appropriate. Vaccines present a challenge - as more and more are being introduced that aspect of research into autism confounds researchers and denies society an opportunity to access the truth hence some call for an independent enquiry/investigation into all vaccines and vaccination, perhaps with a moratorium on vaccination or certain vaccines to get to the bottom of this mire or we may reach the stage where no children are born without ASDs, the way currrent statistics on autism suggest we are moving. Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, UK FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
I see I have touched a raw nerve where Peter Morell is concerned, judging from his response of 8th September which accuses me of a personal attack against John Heptonstall. Does Morell not see the inherent paradox of his own position, when his attack on me is filled with the following words to describe me and my actions: “pedantic, vindictive, arrogant, dishonourable, intemperate, disrespectful, angry, waspish, impatient, obsequious, insincere, fawning, wrathful, false, duplicitous”? I admit I do not suffer fools gladly, and I like to call a spade a spade. I also value honesty and accuracy within the context of any debate, and I am sorry if he dislikes my criticism of anyone who fails to reach these standards. I deal in facts, not rhetoric, and this gives may give me less scope that others to compose a letter that makes enjoyable reading. I would like to respond to some of Morell’s points. Firstly, regarding conspiracy theories, which Morrell seems to think I am trying to use as a “smear”. I would remind him that it was Heptonstall himself who first raised the issue of conspiracies, when he requested an independent inquiry into the “Health Department sanctioned conspiracy” (25th August). Heptonstall has also discussed the conspiracy of covert involuntary mass vaccination with pathogens such as anthrax, and asserts that “governments are probably testing vaccines (and other chemicals and biologicals) on our unsuspecting populations.” These are theories concerning what Heptonstall himself labels as conspiracies, and in my view that makes them “conspiracy theories”. If Morrell feels that support for a conspiracy theory is a “damning stigma”, perhaps he should advise people like Heptonstall not to refer to them or promote them. Secondly, it may come as a surprise to him that the job of a doctor is not just to “issue drugs and vaccines”. Certainly, I do this, but therapeutics is only one of my roles as a physician. Very often I have to specifically advise people to stop drugs or avoid vaccines. Ultimately, I always endeavour to act in the patient’s best interests- not my own or that of a drug company. I resent his insinuation that I have a “drug company paymaster”. I am a full time salaried NHS employee with no private practice. My taxes contribute to the NHS drug budget, so if anything it is the drug companies that are making money out of me. Finally, Morrell praises the contributions that Heptonstall has made to the vaccine debate. Sometimes these are indeed informative and often they do contain statements I agree with (eg. “commentators agree there could be genetic or environmental reasons for some autism, or that these may make a person more susceptible to autism perhaps through vaccination triggers.” – 9th September). I agree that his submissions are undeniably persuasive (since they have clearly swayed the opinions of readers like Morrell). However, they are not necessarily “well referenced”, and they often contain inaccuracies. For example, when I asked Heptonstall for references for his claims that medicine is “THE biggest killer and maimer of mankind, that smallpox vaccine killed tens of thousands in the Phillipines and that governments are probably testing vaccines on our unsuspecting populations” (3rd September), he urged me to look at his references. Eight of the nine sources he quoted were internet links. Most of these contained anti-vaccination polemics within anti-medical and anti- establishment web sites. I am afraid I find it hard to accept as scientific evidence an opinion piece on the evils of vaccination that is sandwiched between articles about scientific “hoaxes” such as the germ theory, HIV and evolution, or between articles on great “conspiracies” such as mind control, and yes, you’ve guessed it, the contrail/chemtrail conspiracy. I urge readers of this debate to visit these sites and see the “evidence” for themselves(1,2). Not all of Heptonstall’s references are to web sites however. Many are to scientific publications, and while these may sometimes be valid and appropriate, sometimes they are not. One example of this is seen on the 6th September, in his response to Glaxo Smith Kline. Heptonstall declared that “at least 35,517 children alone may have died within 7 to 9 months due to the (acellular pertussis) vaccination“. His reference for this startling information was an article which in fact says nothing of the sort (3). The article in question in the Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal details a Swedish study on acellular pertussis vaccine from researchers at the Karolinska institute. To put the matter into perspective, I should say that one of the concerns with pertussis vaccine was the possibility that it could in some way be immunosuppressive and lead to a higher incidence of infections in the post vaccination period. Anti-vaccinationists often allude to this, but in fact the majority of research indicates this is not the case, and it is even recognised that vaccination may be actually protective. What the Karolinska researchers actually showed was that in the course of an acellular pertussis vaccine study of 3800 infants, there were 3 more deaths from infection than might have otherwise been expected. One of these deaths was actually due to pneumonia following heroin overdose. In terms of statistical significance, this number was meaningless, but it was worrying enough for the researchers to analyse vaccine recipients for any evidence that there was an immunological deficit. They found none, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence for any causal link between vaccination and altered resistance to invasive bacterial disease. Anyone with the simplest grasp of statistics can see that this apparent cluster of 3 additional deaths could be completely coincidental. Since this study was published, there have been many subsequent studies in this area. They have found no evidence for a possible link, or even an inverse relationship (4-8). The Institute of Medicine review concluded that the “evidence (i.e., from studies of vaccine-exposed populations and their control groups) favors rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and increased risk for infections.” (9). Heptonstall certainly must know about studies such as these, so why is he deliberately ignoring them? However, what Heptonstall has done is not just to ignore evidence unfavourable to his position, but to sensationalise anything that appears to support it. Remember that he claimed “at least 35,517 children alone may have died due to the vaccination.” So where does this figure come from? It is certainly not mentioned in the Karolinska reference. Well, with the help of a calculator, one can see that this figure arises from a theoretical extrapolation of the data (3 deaths in 3800 infants, probably coincidental and with no evidence that they were related to vaccine) to all 45 million vaccine recipients. (One might equally state that “at least” 11839 vaccinated infants may have died from heroin overdose). This tactic of manipulation and misrepresentation of data is intellectually dishonest, and can only be designed to deliberately mislead those who are not able to check original data and references for themselves. Is this not a prime example of the sort of “Mumbo jumbo maths being used to give credibility” that Clifford Miller decries in his original response (19th August)? Does Morrell think misuse of data in this way is a valid way to “cogently argue” a position? References 1. http://www.whale.to/ 2. http://geocities.com/ceriason2000/ 3. Storsaeter J et al. Mortality and morbidity from invasive bacterial infections during a clinical trial of acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1988 Sep:7(9):637-45 4. Griffin MR et al. No increased risk for invasive bacterial infection found following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization. Paediatrics 1992; 89:640-642. 5. Davidson M et al. DTP immunization and susceptibility to infectious diseases. Is there a relationship? Am J Dis Child 1991;145:750- 754. 6. Black SB et al. Apparent decreased risk of invasive bacterial disease after heterologous childhood immunization. Am J Dis Child 1991;746 -9. 7. Burstein JL, Fleisher GR. Does recent vaccination increase the risk of occult bacteraemia? Pediatr Emerg Care 1994; 10:138-40. 8. Essery SD, Raza MW, Zorgani A, MacKenzie DA, James VS, Weir DM, Busuttil A, Hallam N, Blackwell C. The protective effect of immunisation against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) in relation to sudden infant death syndrome. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1999 Aug 1;25(1-2):183- 92. 9. Institute of Medicine 2002. Immunization Safety Review: Multiple Immunizations and Immune Dysfunction. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
A REPLY TO ADAM Yes Adam you are missing something – you and the rest of them. You are missing the fact that vaccines, any vaccine, contains proteins (antigens) which are foreign to the body and as such initiate an Immune Response. As part of this Immune Response Lymphocytes are induced to proliferate, manufacture and liberate antibodies to interact with the antigens. The union of Antibody and Antigen, now called an Immune Complex is then engulfed by another type of cell called a Macrophage. This is just part of the story, there is much more to tell, but the point is these processes require the consumption of Vitamin C. In some children, especially premature, Formular Fed infants, this process exhausts the available body stores of Vitamin C and induces a state of Vitamin C deficiency. Vitamin C is also necessary for the formation of collagen and “A lack of collagen causes the walls of the body's blood capillaries to break down and hemorrhaging occurs in cells throughout the body. When capillaries lose the "glue" that holds them together, symptoms of scurvy appear” (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/vitac.html) So you see Adam, while some children can tolerate foreign antigens injected into them others may suffer catastrophic bleeding into the brain, into the retina, and into the periosteum of the bones, especially the ribs - these are then called “fractures” and the child is said to have suffered from the “Shaken Baby Syndrome”. Just think about it. Michael Innis Competing interests: As previously declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, UK, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
I have never said the institute of Medicine reports on vaccination are inconsistent – what is inconsistent is other peoples’ use of them to support whichever point of view they are promoting at the time. We are used to hearing the fact that for many childhood diseases, infection rates declined prior to vaccination, largely as a result of good hygiene and other preventative measures. This is beyond dispute. Travis Haws empirically states the reduction is in the order of 95%. But doing nothing will not eliminate the remaining 5%, (countries with wonderful hygiene and nutrition still get see large epidemics of infections if their populations remain unvaccinated). So how do we get rid of the remaining 5%? Do we ignore it and keep our fingers crossed, as Travis Haws seems to wish, hoping it will magically decline to zero on its own? The answer is unambiguously no. Overall trends in developed countries indicate that prior to the introduction of vaccines, incidence of infections was not continuing to fall, but had in fact completely levelled off to a fairly constant background incidence. Let us take measles as one example. USA data from the CDC show that in the decades prior to vaccine introduction in 1963 (you know, before anyone was vaccinated and everyone was so healthy!) there was a stable incidence of measles at 400-500 thousand cases per year, with all its attendant morbidity and mortality (20% admitted to hospital with complications and 450 deaths annually). Almost everyone got measles – just as they did 50 years before that, and 100 years before that. Yet Travis Haws oddly claims it had been steadily disappearing. However, within a few years of vaccine introduction, measles cases had declined by 99%. Last year there were only 42 notified cases of measles (0.1% of the 1962 rate). Must be the cleaner water, I hear you say! If a vaccination campaign begun in 1963 is to long ago for some to remember, I could easily turn to other diseases such as Haemophilus influenzae type B. Before vaccine introduction in 1987, Hib caused 20 thousand serious cases of invasive disease each year in infants, mostly meningitis, with 600 deaths and many, many more left with permanent brain damage. Within 5 years, death rates had declined to less than 10 per year (virtually all these cases occurring in unvaccinated infants). Perhaps these children were at risk because they drank contaminated water, or were not well enough fed? Who is playing dodge ball here? Would Travis Haws really like us to do nothing? At least he has got one thing correct - as he says, he is no epidemiologist. A final comment about epidemics in vaccinated patients. Travis Haws points to instances of this as evidence for the overwhelming lack of evidence that vaccines are of benefit. This is another one of the perennial myths that is constantly raised by vaccine opponents. Take a hypothetical situation where a school of 1000 pupils, 99% of whom are vaccinated against measles, is exposed to a case. Ten unvaccinated pupils will certainly get measles. Vaccines are not 100% effective, with protection being only roughly 95%. The result is that around 50 of the vaccinated pupils also get measles. This scenario is usually touted as evidence that vaccination does not work, but in fact it has done precisely that for 95% of the pupils! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
|
Clifford Miller takes issue with my use of the term 'anti- vaccinationist'. He seems to suggest that it is not an appropriate description of his point of view, as he is in fact in favour of any intervention with an acceptable risk/benefit balance. I'm pleased to hear it. Perhaps he could be a little more specific in demonstrating why he is not an 'anti-vaccinationist' by giving us a list of all those vaccines which he considers have good evidence of an acceptable risk/benefit balance. Competing interests: As stated previously |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christina England, Mother of two disabled children South Coast
Send response to journal:
|
I have two adopted children, both with known disabilities.As they were older children when adopted both were fully vaccinated, so I had no choice. Both children have ASD, ADHD one has associated gut problems. The eldest definitely has vaccine damage as we have foster carers diaries to prove severe stomach problems directly after his MMR jab, he is now 19 and still suffers. At one time his problems grew so bad he needed night tube feeding. Both children have been assessed by Lisa Blakemore- Brown ,who has been very supportive and understanding and is an excellent professional. The Point I would like to make is the vaccines do not always work.The youngest boy who has severe and complex problems had the whooping cough vaccine and three years ago was very ill. I repeatedly took him to GP and was told it was asthma (which he suffers from), it certainly did not look like asthma he was coughing and being very sick sometimes 19-25 times in a bout. I was told to send him to school, with a background of MSBP allegations I did terrified to have thoughts of my own. 16 weeks later he was identified as having Whooping Cough, but which time I was exhausted and the poor child was so ill. If these had been my birth children they would not have been vaccinated, I have never believed in vaccine. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Leo W James, Physician Scotland
Send response to journal:
|
I the light of yet another study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3640898.stm) that has failed to incriminate MMR, may I ask at what point we will consider absence of evidence as evidence of absence? Might we then proceed with the task of finding the real cause of these disorders? Competing interests: Parent of three healthy, vaccinated children |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
In view of the recent unexampled treatment of Andrew Wakefield by the Lancet over alleged non-disclosure of his involvement in the MMR litigation I think it is fair to point out that in the latest Lancet paper on MMR Eric Fombonne [1] fails to disclose that he also was party to the MMR litigation as an expert witness retained by Aventis Pasteur [2]. This was quite evidently relevant information which if it was disclosed to the Lancet, was not disclosed by the Lancet to the reader. Some form of explanation is owed either by Professor Fombonne or by Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet. Or even better, perhaps Richard Horton should apologise to Andrew Wakefield for his evident failure to act even- handedly. [1]Smeeth et al, MMR and pervasive developmental disorders: acase control study, Lancet 11 September 2004 p.963-9. [2]Lucy Johnson and Geoff Marsh 'Cash fury over jabs expert' Sunday Mail 23 December 2001(http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/December2001/CashFuryOverJabsExperts.htm) and Roger Highfield, 'Conflict of interest fear over study of autism' Daily Telegraph 21 July 2001 http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/21/naut21.xml Lancet 11 September 2004 p.968: "E. Fombonne has provided advice on epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientist advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers [for a fee], and to several government committees". Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist & former university examining lecturer Beckenham Kent England BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
I am grateful to Adam Jacobs (Director, Dianthus Medical Limited pharmaceutical consultancy) for a further opportunity to assist him. His prior and latest interventions (1) taken together are welcome as they tacitly acknowledge that CDR and CD applied to clinical case histories are proof MMR causes autism. He further asks if a list of safe vaccines could be provided. First, a related but privately sent email (2) demands reply. A Mr 'Mike Gringo' is concerned, and rightly so, about children dying from measles. If there were a measles epidemic in a postulated unvaccinated UK population today, there would be 100 deaths - not per annum but if and when there was an epidemic. One of the commonly made claims for MMR is that is has very substantially reduced and in some cases eradicated measles and that there are no deaths from 'wild' measles. Similar claims are made for other vaccines where death was a possible consequence of the naturally occurring relevant disease. SIDS and SBS (sudden infant death and shaken baby syndrome) were rare prior to 1940 but have now become common (4). Is it is possible that for well nourished children in western economies with good living conditions, vaccines may have taken over a part of the contribution measles' and other childhood diseases have in causing death in infants? A recent review (4) of SBS in US VAERS data concludes:- "A diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome must not be made lightly. It should only be entertained when all other causes for the findings, vaccines included, have been thoroughly examined and ruled out. Any future research on child abuse and specifically Shaken Baby Syndrome must include a discussion of recent vaccinations." In the UK SIDS affects one baby in a thousand (5), which puts the annual UK death rate at approximately 620 (6). Accurate figures for UK annual 'shaken baby' deaths are not currently available to the writer. However, it is only now becoming accepted that SBS is being wrongly diagnosed in some cases including when the infant death followed from a very recent vaccination. Baroness Helena Kennedy's working group, specifically set up by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Pathologists to consider the problem in the context of wrongful murder convictions of parents reported recently (7). Key recommendations are for a nationwide protocol for the investigation of unexpected baby deaths and greater scrutiny of expert witnesses by the courts. The report highlighted the shortage of paediatric pathologists. That this is not a UK phenomenum is shown in that two fathers in different parts of the USA and jailed at different times have just been released after serving 21 years and 5 years respectively (8). A US news item (9) carried by The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons records: 'Jury consultant Toni Blake states that there are about 2,800 cases of alleged “shaken baby syndrome,” and that 95 percent of the accused are convicted. If a child dies and has the findings attributable to shaken baby, anyone who was alone with the child is in serious danger of conviction.' How many of the annual UK SIDS and SBS deaths wrongfully attibuted to parental abuse are linked to recent ante mortem vaccinations? If the figure approaches or exceeds the average for measles, based on 100 for a full epidemic as and when such occurred, then this will help to put the risks and benefits of vaccination into perspective. Regrettably, we cannot rely on government and medical establishment research. Despite the strong CDR and CD scientific proof that MMR causes autism (10), the government insists on rolling out and relying on weaker epidemiological papers which are prone to error. Epidemiology is only acceptable in US courts as evidence that a drug may or may not have caused an adverse reaction but is not acceptable to prove it did or did not cause it in any particular case (11). In contrast CD and CDR are well accepted and are part of the pharmacological 'furniture' and are strong proof of causation, including for regulatory decision making. Despite this, even when whatever happens to be the latest 'last word' government backed epidemiology paper is shown to be flawed, the government uses its well oiled media machine to roll out yet another one, as we have seen this week in the case of the paper by Dr Liam Smeeth and colleagues. It is almost as if the establishment is buying time. How long will it be before the latest jewel in the crown is shown to be flawed? Flawed it must be as CDR and CD demonstrate. The CDR and CD issue cannot be something that Dr Smeeth and his team are strangers to, so it would be interesting to see them comment. As regards Mr Jacobs' request that I identify for him a list of safe vaccines, I would be delighted to have the opportunity to advise him which vaccines are safe. If he would be so kind as to contact me, we can work on what an initial programme of independent research should comprise in order to ascertain the extent of the full programme required and outline budgets. However, in view of establishments' religious fervour in the crusade to hit 95 percent take up of vaccination regardless, and their unwillingness to provide reliable and wholly independent research and figures, it is unlikely any agency would provide the necessary funding to research the matter. But the offer is made notwithstanding. (1) 'Confused' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#73573 'Response to Clifford Miller' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#73787 (2) Mr Gringo's email is prompted by 'Confused - Aren't we all - Including those who can still do their sums' (3). (3) 'Confused - Aren't we all - Including those who can still do their sums' (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#73636) (4) SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME IN VAERS: A REVIEW http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/sept22_Yazbak.html SIDS, VACCINES AND VAERS: A FOLLOW-UP http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/oct10_Yazbak.html (5) 'Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Problems, Progress and Possibilities' Eds Roger W Byard, Henry F Kraus. Pub: Arnold ISBN 0 340 75917 8 (6) There were 621,469 live births in England and Wales in 2003 - Source: Office for National Statistics (7) Nationwide protocol is needed for investigating baby deaths - BMJ 2004;329:587 - http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/587 (8) Yurko in Florida and Marsh in California, both freed in the last two months (9) News of the Day ... in Perspective 8/17/2004 http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday82.htm (10) MMR KIDS - LIVING SCIENTIFIC PROOF MMR CAUSES AUTISM http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7459/239#68276 (11) Epidemiologic Evidence Is Insufficient To Prove There Is No Link Between The MMR Vaccine And Autism: Clifford G. Miller August 4, 2004 http://redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/2004_aug11.html Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Viera Scheibner, Principle Research Scientist (Retired) Blackheath, NSW 2785 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Provaccinators have short memories and they always come back to their past disasters. Once upon a time, there was a tetravalent vaccine. It had to be abandoned because straight from the start, many babies died from it, meaning many more than died from the individual vaccines or DPT (three in one). Then came another three in one: the MMR vaccine. It caused an enormous upsurge in autism and mumps meningitis all over the world in the countries that used this vaccine. In the UK the mumps component had to be replaced with a different mumps virus in the UK - the Urabe virus with the Jeryl-Lynn virus. However, the frugal manufacturers of the Urabe strain vaccine sold the MMR containing it to unsuspecting Brazil where it caused an enormous upsurge of meningitis in the recipients: they used it within a short span of time (days) in a mass vaccination programme. This time there was no choice but to admit that the meningitis outbreak was caused by the offending vaccine (Dourado et al. Am J Epidemiology 2000; 151 [5]). The logistics behind the switch to the injectable polio vaccine has been quoted as its inability to cause paralysis. Wrong again! Provaccinators forgot (or probably have never heard of) the Cutter incident. Within days of the first mass trial of the Salk injectable polio vaccine in 1.8 million children the United States in 1955, hundreds of its recipients and their contacts developed paralysis. The US Surgeon General stopped the trial and instead of proclaiming the vaccine not only useless but also causing polio, the provaccinators redefined the polio disease: the classical definition of polio as a disease with residual paralysis which resolves within 60 days changed into a new definition of polio as a disease with residual paralysis persisting for more then 60 days. The cases of paralysis which resolve within 60 days are then classified as viral or aseptic meningitis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, lower motor neuron disease, infective polyneuritis, symmetrical paralysis and other names. According to MMWR 1997 (Vol. 46, No. 10:221-222), the incidence of aseptic meningitis in the United States amounts to 30,000 to 50,000 cases per year. When one considers that that many cases had occurred only occasionally in the pre-vaccine era, vaccination actually increased the incidence of polio; these days it is 30,000 to 50,000 cases every year, year by year and not just twenty years apart. This explanation is feasible also because 99% of polio cases were not paralytic and even the paralytic cases mostly resolved within days and certainly within 60 days. Another major problem with polio vaccines is the contamination with monkey viruses (of which SV40 is just the one best known and researched) which typically cause brain tumours in their recipients. It is hardly surprising that Sweden has one of the highest incidences of these brain tumours in the world: they have been using the injectable variety of the polio vaccine, which bypasses the body’s vital defences more effectively (than does the oral vaccine), improving the chance of the virus taking hold. [Provaccinators , spare yourself a breath: polio vaccines are contaminated with monkey viruses to this day; the problem has not been resolved by the 14-day treatment with 1:4000 solution of formaldehyde: according to Gerber et al. 1961 (Proc. Soc. Exp. Bio. Med:108: 205-209) this treatment does not just result in inactivation of SV40 (and polio viruses) which then revert back to the original virulence in the recipients of such vaccines, but also is subject to asymptotic factor, meaning within about 40 hours most of such viruses are inactivated, but after that time there remains a viable residue of live virulent viruses in the vaccine brew indefinitely. (“The results obtained in this study indicate that the course of treatment of SV40 with 1:4000 formaldehyde was characterized by a biphasic reaction. The major portion of the viral population was inactivated progressively at a slightly slower rate than polio virus. The second phase of the curve indicated the persistence of a residual fraction which resisted inactivation.”)] Moreover, there is no benefit from the replacement of the wild polio virus with the modified, exotic vaccine polio viruses; according to data published by van Nierkerk et al. (Lancet 1994; 344: 661-664) and Biellik et al. (Lancet 1994; 344: 1776) in Namibia vaccination not only caused an outbreak of polio in the vaccinated, it also prevented the development of natural immunity to the wild virus as shown by the lack of an outbreak in the north health region: there was no vaccination in this region and no outbreak of polio. (“The outbreak was limited to the south health region; at least 80% of infants in this region have received four doses of oral polio vaccine (OPV) by the age of 1 year” and “…a higher proportion of northern children might have been protected, at least from type 1, by natural immunity, thus suppressing epidemics. In 1993 OPV coverage among infants aged less than 1 year was higher in the south than in the north. However, evidence suggests that a substantial pool of susceptibles especially among children ages 1-3, was created when coverage was low, and the apparent interruption of wild poliovirus circulation limited the acquisition of natural immunity.”). Drs Elliman and Bedford: yes the new vaccine Pediacel would have the same safety and reactogenicity as the standard pentavalent vaccine used in Canada (both statements unsupported by published facts): miserable. You only write about the “troublesome but minor side effects such as fever and soreness at the injection site”. What about serious effects such as convulsions, epilepsy, encephalopathy and death? Just because you don’t mention these reactions it does not mean that there are none. Only irrelevant and flawed epidemiological research “showed” that thiomersal in vaccines is not associated with serious neurological problems. Serious and honest research has demonstrated that mercury is harmful to the young developing brains of children. Medicos happily warn pregnant mothers not to eat too much fish containing mercury. Mercury does not change into a pussycat in vaccines. Moreover, the mercury-containing preservative in vaccines has been in some circumstances claimed to have been replaced, the substitute being phenol which is just as toxic if not more toxic than thiomersal. Vaccines still contain aluminium compounds and other toxic substances, and, of course, the foreign proteins (antigens) which are toxic in themselves. Vaccines not just could, they do overload the immune system of the recipients. Even one vaccine “can” and “does” kill babies as witnessed by cot deaths occurring within days of birth after hepatitis B vaccine. Whether administered individually or together, a variety of vaccines cause serious reactions which can be summed up as anaphylaxis, sensitisation, increased susceptibility to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and also to a host of unrelated viral and bacterial infections. This is totally undesirable, considering that unvaccinated children as a rule do not suffer ear infections, tonsillitis, pneumonia, bronchiolitis, ADD, ADHD, autism and other modern scourges of children, which are a result of immunological injury caused by Vaccines. You do not improve health by destroying the immune system. Modern immunological research keeps demonstrating the harmful effects of vaccines (Jefferys, Lancet 2001;357:1451). There is only one immunity, natural immunity, which is achieved by going through the diseases, provided they are not mismanaged by over- and inappropriate medication, such as antipyretics and antibiotics which are prescribed indiscriminately whether there is any need for them or not. That’s quackery and iatrogenesis, not science (Scheibner: “Study first, judge later.” Australian Doctor, 2nd May 2003: Letter to the Editor). Vaccines and other medical interventions actually stop the body developing natural immunity. There is no need to try to “protect” children from natural infectious diseases, there is only a great and urgent need to protect children against the toxic orthodox medicine. The last paragraph in Bedford and Elliman’s article reflects the outrageous claims of vaccinators about “depriving children of the benefits of vaccines”. What benefits? What risks of delaying vaccination? Both are nonexistent. This is where parents should step in and start to use their common sense and learn the truth about health and sickness and, importantly, about their legal rights. Vaccination is not mandatory; even in the totalitarian US parents call legally avoid vaccinations. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP HMP Bedford
Send response to journal:
|
Yet another epidemiological study has failed to incriminate the MMR as the cause of autism. However, I do not believe that the evidence completely exonerates the MMR from doing wrong. The MMR cannot be let off the hook; its innocence has not been proven – there is an absence of evidence. This situation pertains to other vaccinations too; the charges against these others, though fewer in number are generally more serious. Autism is obviously a very complex disorder with a wide spectrum of behaviour and severity. It is an enigma. Though there is speculation, the cause is unknown. The MMR is clearly not the primary felon. But it could certainly be an accomplice or a sometime partner in the felony - a trigger-happy criminal in this wave of crime. The MMR is not guilty of misdemeanour - the evidence is absent. However, medical expertise must surely want to nail the blighters that are causing so much havoc and social disorder - and are producing so many victims of this crime of passion and conflict of interest. Pending further inquiries, the MMR must remain on remand and in custodial care until innocence is proven with evidence that can be trusted. Can the public be confident that the current medical expert can conduct this investigation properly? Will these clever medical sleuths look in the right place and round up these dreadful criminals and bring them to justice? I no longer believe it so. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
It is a sad commentary that Dr James simply gets his science from a BBC report. But he might also have noticed that the report in question cited new evidence in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons that the previous study on which the DOH had banked its epidemiological case was flawed. So perhaps it was not "yet more evidence" but just another stab. On the Today programme last Friday (interview around 6.40am) the BBC correspondent Karen Allen also noted the criticism that adverse reactions were not being properly monitored. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Carol Johnston, Carer Carshalton, Surrey UK
Send response to journal:
|
To: Hughes H Bogaerts and Norman Begg of GSK. Since you manufacturer this new 5-1 vaccine I have a question: Are their traces of mercury in this product from the manufacturing process? I refer to a post on a previous thread "The New MMR" Response [1] entitled "Thimersol Free Vaccines": Wolfgang M Maurer, Dept of Pediatrics and Juvenile Medicine. Medical University Vienna A-1090 VIENNA I quote extract below: [QUOTE]The Hepatitis B component is also used in combined vaccines. The production process of the HBsAg- bulk as component of combined vaccines is the same as for the monovalent vaccine in Infanrix-Hep, Infanrix-Penta and Infanrix-Hexa B manufactured by GSK. Infanrix Penta is licensed in the EU; in US it is marketed under the trade name Pediarix. There the TM traces are mentioned by the manufacturer (8). However this fact is not mentioned in the EPAR (European Public Assessment Report), nor in the SPC or PL of Infanrix Hexa/Penta, but is mentioned in the SPC of Infanrix-HepB But according to EMEA regulation (9) the warning statement “ Thiomersal (an organomercuric compound) has been used in the manufacturing process of this medicinal product and residues of it are present in the final product. Therefore, sensitisation can occur” was obligatory to be implemented in the SPC and PL with submission deadline April 2000. " [UNQUOTE] I would be most grateful if you could clarify whether or not the composition of the new "mercury free" vaccine to be introduced later this month in the UK has traces of mercury from the production/manufacturing process. Look forward to your reply. Regards [1] "Thimersol Free Vaccines" http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7442/773 Competing interests: Parent of two vaccine damaged children (MMR). |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK based
Send response to journal:
|
Whilst answers are being prepared about the new vaccine and traces of mercury, it would also be helpful if manufacturers could also come clean about the use of Thimerosal/thiomersal in the manufacturing process of MMR over the years. Competing interests: Expert in Autism |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Leo W James, Physician Scotland
Send response to journal:
|
John Stone has managed to both miss my point and illustrate it. My concern was to highlight the enormous amount of data and analysis that has failed to incriminate the MMR vaccine, not to comment on an individual study. The truth is that there is no such thing as a perfect study and it is in any case logically impossible to prove the absence (however rare or unlikely) of a particular link or phenomenon. Just ask the purveyors of Loch Ness Monster memorabilia. When this problem is applied to a poorly understood disorder such as autism and allied to the inherent hysteria of the British media, the potential for confusion and misconception is almost boundless. It is truly sad that autism continues to blight so many lives. It is tragic that so many have been misled by a modicum of poor science and massive hyperbole. It is unforgivable that so much time and effort has been wasted trying to prove the unprovable while autism goes unexplained and vaccination rates fall. No vaccine is flawless. Do I worry about the proven side effects when vaccinating my own children? Of course I do. However, the inescapable truth is that the risk/benefit analysis is firmly in favour of vaccination and will continue to be so. Competing interests: Previously declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I have to admit that I really can't detect all much that intellectual acumen behind your original point, Dr James. And your present reply could have been written by the Department of Health propaganda machine, abrasively dismissive of parental concerns, full of professional assertiveness, but without a single scientific argument. Pretty strong stuff for someone who just heard it on the radio. Well, ten bad studies don't make a single good one. And so long as you refuse to look at the children that may have been damaged and persecute those who do, exclude the evidence of parents, and fail to record and monitor reactions they will not be worth much. The present study states: "We were not able to separately identify the subgroup of cases with regressive symptoms to identify the hypothesis that only some children are vulnerable to MMR-induced disease and that this is always regressive." [1] So the fact that it does not demonstrate a link between MMR and autism is unsurprising, since the database provided no information on the subject - not because there was no such subgroup but because the database did not differentiate it. This did not stop seven people embarking on the three year exercise at public expense, knowing that this was the case. Still, someone got their money's worth. Smeeth et al, MMR vaccine and pervasive development disorders: a case control Study, The Lancet 11 September 2004 p.967. Competing interests: As above |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist & former university examining lecturer in law Beckenham, Kent, England BR3 6QX
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, Regrettably, Leo W James, Physician, Scotland is wrong on several counts. There is currently only one epidemiology paper still standing in the government's pile. All the main prior ones have either trashed each other in sequence or been trashed by the recent Goldman/Yazbak offering in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and so far formally unreported in the BMJ and ignored by it. The latest paper (Smeeth) will not last too long either. Further, you can only be sure of the risk/benefit equation when you know all the risks and all the benefits. The government is not counting adverse drug reactions and is not recognising adverse drug reactions as adverse drug reactions in order to count them. MMR adverse reactions are only one example. We do know that MMR causes autism, but it is one of a number of risks that the government and its advisors chooses to ignore. It can be and has been demonstrated, 1) clinically, 2) epidemiologically and 3) pharmacologically with extremely strong challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge proof and those interested can search this site for articles I have authored pointing out where the references can be found for item 3). It is not compulsory to read items which have succeeded in remaining on the BMJ website totally unchallenged but it is recommended. No one has managed to find fault because challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge is such strong science and epidemiology is very weak, and it gets weaker and weaker. Epidemiology becomes even the more so if you add medical people who flatter themselves that they can do maths when some cannot seem to add up properly or get the logic of their own arguments right, especially in medical 'scientific' papers. And there seems to be no such thing as medical science, or if anyone practices it are they new to this planet? The only problem is that the government really really does not want to believe it is doing more harm than good and the pharmaceutical companies have too strong an influence. It is a religion and it and its advisors cannot let go. Unfortunately children are being killed and injured in greater numbers by vaccines than by natural diseases and again, the religion of vaccination is the culprit. C'est la morte. Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L. Travis Haws, Dentist Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
|
Editor: Peter Flegg states that "USA data from the CDC show that in the decades prior to vaccine introduction in 1963 (you know, before anyone was vaccinated and everyone was so healthy!) there was a stable incidence of measles at 400-500 thousand cases per year, with all its attendant morbidity and mortality (20% admitted to hospital with complications and 450 deaths annually)." Such data completely contradicts one of my earlier responses and what renowned pediatrician Robert Mendelsohn has stated in a book that prior to 1955, the death rate had declined by 97.7% to .03 deaths per 100,000 (you know, on its own before the first measles jab--but you attribute the decline to vaccines). (1) These figures are also confirmed in International Mortality Statistics: from 1915 - 1958, death from measles in the U.S. and U.K. had declined by 98 percent prior to measles vaccination programs (figure 8). (2) A link to the U.S. reported measles cases as cited on the WHO website is also given. The highest number of reported cases in the U.S. from the provided WHO link, between 1980 and 2003, was in 1989 and 1990 with 18,193 and 27,786 cases reported respectively. Data from Infect Med, in 1997, demonstrate that 89% of all school-aged children in the U.S. that contracted measles in 1989 were "successfully" vaccinated. (3) Of course, we’re told it was vaccine manufacturer error, or improper storage of vaccines rather than the obvious repeated failure of vaccines to control “preventable” diseases. Perhaps Flegg can enlighten us on vaccine introduction and the subsequent more severe form of atypical measles? Oh, the Hypocrisy just revealed and evident in another thread where Peter Flegg tries to set “straight” a Mark Bartlett on “HIV”—as quoted below: “Perhaps he means it is communicable, but that he subscribes to the school of Perth Group epidemiology, which states that if a disease is sexually transmitted then absolutely everyone is equally susceptible to it and equally liable to acquire infection irrespective of their behaviour? This is patently untrue, and the fact that different subpopulations with different behavioural characteristics can have different disease prevalence should not come as a surprise to him in his profession…Infections do not always behave in the way the general public and newspaper editors predict. For that matter, they may not always behave as public health officials and epidemiologists may predict either.” Let me see if I understand this statement by Flegg correctly. Infections don’t always behave as health “officials” and epidemiologists predict and that differing subpopulations with differing behaviors (substitute in nutrition, hygiene, health care—Vitamin A in the case of measles etc.) have differing disease prevalence. So disease behaves different among subpopulations with differing lifestyles, immune responses etc. And we’re supposed to have confidence, keeping in mind the aforementioned Flegg quote, in the efficacy of HERD IMMUNITY??? Let alone the pathogens ability to mutate and surprise. A further hit on confidence comes with the constant denial of very obvious causal relationships with severe life-long debilitating reactions, the consistent display of numerous conflicts of interest with "non-incriminating" "studies" and fettered access to data. The same Flegg quote applies to adverse reactions to vaccines. Everyone will react differently, but absolutely no attention is given to that fact. Preemies, siblings of adverse reactors (if even the adverse reaction is acknowledged), mild colds, prior health histories etc. are all disregarded as the herd will certainly react the same. The immature developing infant immune system can tolerate thousands of these cocktails at once??? Save your breath Flegg, I know you’re going to tell me that they only behave differently among vaccinees and non-vaccinees. Nothing could be further from the truth. During epidemics it hits vaccine recipients with just as much percentage of incidence as it does non-vaccine recipients. You’re belief that 100% of non-vaccinated individuals will contract the disease, if exposed, is completely baseless and unsupported by the literature and history. Good luck in eradicating pathogens that have the ability to mutate or can develop resistance to antibiotics, for example. Earlier this spring, in my state of Colorado, it was printed in the local newspaper, that we are the state with lowest rate of vaccination in the U.S. at 63% and have had low rates for quite some time. Just another predictable ploy to play on the fears of the “ignorant”. I'm still awaiting the epidemic (other than the flu one that hit us last year—with a confirmed non-match between vaccine and flu strain—although I doubt an ideal match would have helped anyhow) and the very predictable mass media hysteria associated with it. Perhaps the 37% of the unvaccinated should not be allowed to travel out of state as they will surely infect the 95% vaccinated that are 95% “protected”? At the end of the day, nothing is more evident than the non-ending hurdle of circular reasoning the provaccinators "enjoy". Hopefully dodgeball and running hurdles keeps the provaccinators in good shape, their arteries free of cholesterol sludge and their brain matter free of mutated man-made cocktails. Besides vaccines complete dismal failure of eradicating the remaining 5% or less of disease that nature flattened off at before vaccine programs; I wonder if, for those among us entrapped in circular reasoning, the world rotates slower about its axis? I hypothesize that it is so as it’s a little hard to move forward when you’re stuck, quacking about in a vicious cycle. 1) Mendelsohn R. How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of Your Doctor. Ballantine Books 1984 p. 236-37 2) Alderson M. International Mortality Statistics (Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981 pp 182-83 3) Infect Med 1997; 14(4):297-300,310. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Peter Flegg misrepresents me when he says, “I first raised the issue of conspiracies”. He raised that issue; I merely used the word “conspiracy” in its correct context as a legal term. He incorrectly quotes me as referring to “the” Health Department sanctioned conspiracy when I wrote, “what might be” a Health Department sanctioned conspiracy. Contrary to his assertion, he is not calling a spade a spade; in order to redirect the debate away from my call for an independent enquiry he tries to obfuscate the issue with “I wonder if Heptonstall is referring only to childhood immunisation, or is he perhaps seeking to have an independent judicial enquiry into his most recent pet theory”. Michael Innis had no problem accurately quoting me in context when he wrote, “John Heptonstall says, ‘What is required is an independent judicial enquiry into what might be a Health Department sanctioned conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally infect UK citizens with disease causing agents’. Concern that the Health Departments, not only of Britain, but of America and Australia too, are engaged in a cover up of the adverse reactions of some of the vaccines to which children are exposed, is widespread”. Why did Flegg distort my statement? In the context of my call for a judicial enquiry into the legality of intentionally infecting UK citizens with disease-causing agents through vaccination (eg. SV-40, nvCJD) a precedent exists for intentional infection by HIV. If a judicial enquiry found it illegal, any individual who intentionally infects another through vaccination commits an offence and any group of people that colludes to do so conspires, hence my choice of “Health Department sanctioned conspiracy”. Flegg says that my submissions “are not necessarily well referenced and they often contain inaccuracies” then again inaccurately quotes me as saying, “medicine is the biggest killer and maimer of mankind”. I wrote “Recent studies suggest that modern medicine is now the biggest killer and maimer of mankind” referencing Null G et al whose new data suggests that the claims of recent studies and articles in the US (1) (2), UK (3) (4) and Australia (5) that modern medicine is the 3rd or 4th biggest killer and maimer should be overhauled with new considerations which, due to the global distribution and dominance of modern medicine, must suggests that modern medicine is now the world’s biggest killer and maimer. Flegg says he dismisses 8 of the 9 references I gave him - despite the facts therein supporting “smallpox vaccine killed tens of thousands in the Philippines” and “governments are probably testing vaccines on our unsuspecting populations” - because “they were internet links, most of which contained anti-vaccination polemics within anti-medicine and anti- establishment web sites, opinion pieces sandwiched between articles about scientific ‘hoaxes’ such as the germ theory, HIV and evolution or between articles on great ‘conspiracies’ such as mind control and contrail/chemtrail conspiracy”. It is Flegg’s opinion that germ theory, HIV and evolutionary theory are ‘hoaxes’ and that mind control and contrail/chemtrails are conspiracy; his opinion is not shared by many people, and he disagrees with some fine scientific minds that still debate these issues without conclusion. Flegg must know that most of what he refers to as “anti-vaccination”, “anti-medicine” and “anti-establishment” is well-researched and that little, if any, of it claims to be anti-vaccination, anti-medicine or anti -establishment (whatever that is) yet he smears it as such, presumably because the data criticises vaccination and medicine. Despite Flegg, medical researchers are aware of how difficult it can be to publish data critical of perceived wisdom or vested interests (6) (7). Noted autism researchers Vijendra Singh et al produced excellent follow-up (8) to their work identifying antibodies to measles virus in the brains of autistics and not controls (9). They had then identified antibodies to MMR vaccine in the brains of autistics and not controls (8), yet I understand that paper was constantly refused publication. If an eminent scientist like Singh (10) (11) finds great difficulty obtaining publication for results about the presence of vaccine antibodies in the brains of autistic persons that are so important to society, but may be damning to the vaccine industry, does Flegg rant against the protectionist industry or label VK Singh an anti-vaccinist? The facts appearing in the references I gave Flegg (12) (13) telling of damage to tens of thousands of Filipinos through smallpox vaccination was in accord with “the Philippines suffered disastrously through US smallpox vaccination campaigns, its peoples dying in their tens of thousands from a disease that had historically hardly touched that nation”. The information is easily checked, but unlikely to be sourced from 'big pharma', so why does Flegg smear the sources I gave which included an excerpt from the Philippines Health Service and research physicians who attended the Philippines to investigate? Flegg says I provide references to scientific publications that are “not valid and appropriate” and uses my response to GSK “at least 35,517 children may have died within 7 to 9 months due to acellular pertussis vaccination” as an example. I had posed the question to GSK Dr Bogaerts “‘successfully administered' means what? If a child dies or is seriously afflicted by a vaccine, was it successfully administered?”. I used the reference accurately and it was valid. The paper does not state, as Flegg insists, that the 3 children died of heroin, pneumonia, or any other infection but says that undiscovered infections were found in 3 children who died unexpectedly after vaccination. Unlike Flegg the team concluded that vaccination, as a cause of their deaths, could not be ruled out. Hence my quote that “at least 35,517 of 6-11 month old children alone may have died within 7 to 9 months due to the vaccination” is valid and accurate. Flegg ironically evidences his claims with references that are hardly valid. His ref. 3. Flegg says, “one of these deaths was actually due to pneumonia following heroin overdose” yet the researchers did not confirm that in the study. 4. 5. 7. 8. Flegg says are evidence that “3 child deaths were not due to vaccination” yet these references are for studies using DPT whole cell vaccine not acellular which was referred to in the Swedish study; his references do not compare like with like. 6. Flegg claims this study shows that immunisation protects against bacterial disease but the researchers say, “Other preventive health care measures may have been responsible for the apparent immunisation positive effect”. 9. Flegg refers to the IOM statement 2002. The IOM agrees that compelling scientific evidence and arguments for damage to biological mechanisms by vaccination exists, but then appears to have been unreasonably swayed by epidemiological studies despite the US Federal Judicial Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence stating that epidemiology is concerned with incidence of disease in populations and does not address the question of cause of an individual’s disease. Specific causation is beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology, it addresses whether an agent can cause disease not whether it did cause disease. If such studies cannot determine ‘cause’, they cannot determine ‘non cause’. Flegg should take note. The attempt by medical researchers like Flegg to distort and obfuscate facts that may be of extreme public import is one reason why I believe that a judicial enquiry into the legality of intentionally infecting another by vaccination is needed. It is acknowledged that successive UK governments allowed suspected nvCJD-causing bovine material to remain in vaccines, and authorised them for millions of vaccinations, for over a decade (14) Bovine material-containing polio vaccine was not banned until 2000 despite the risk of nvCJD existing in such vaccines being known since the late 1980’s. ‘Big pharma’ did not remove potentially lethal material and in some cases sold its product interests to ‘small pharma’ that continued to facilitate injections of suspected nvCJD-causing agents into millions of unsuspecting children (15). Links between disease and vaccinations, as with autism, are distorted by many epidemiology studies Government and the DoH parade before the public despite such studies being incapable of addressing causation while calls for prospective studies and clinically valid trials are rejected. Hence I believe an independent judicial enquiry is essential to restore public confidence, and decisions made by DoH and Government should be subjected to judicial review. When the DoH Head of Immunisation can claim on National TV that children could be administered 1000 vaccines at once without harm (16), having absolutely no proof for his statement, we have reached a cross- roads where science (17) (18), politics and public health interests must be separated and the latter given prime consideration. These issues can only be resolved by judicial enquiry that must be autonomous of government and the civil service, and selected with no hint of cronyism. It must work solely in defence of the public, and public health interests, without political or commercial agenda. I leave Flegg with this old quote from Adam Smith (1723-90) the Scottish Economist who lectured on logic and moral philosophy. “People of the same trade seldom meet together but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some diversion to raise prices”. Regards John H. References 1. “Clinton acts to reduce medical mistakes” Charatan, BMJ march 2000; 320:597 2. “Incidence of ADRs in hospitalised patients; a meta-analysis of prospective studies” J Lazarou et al, JAMA April 1998; 279:1200-06 3. “Medical errors ‘kill thousands’”, BBC Saturday 18th March 2000, Dr. Richard Smith, BMJ 4. Sunday Times 19th Dec. 1999 ‘Blunders by doctors kill 40,000 per year in UK’ 5. “The Quality of Australian Health care Study”, RM Wilson et al, Med J Aust 1995 Nov; 163(9): 458-71 6. The Guardian 14.1.04; a review published in 2003 found 30 studies compared the results of trials funded by drug companies with those funded by other sources. The former were four times more likely to have results favourable to the drugs companies than were the others; 70% of trials reported in medical journals were funded by drug companies - result is that information on drugs is distorted. 7. The Guardian 10.9.01; 13 of the world’s main medical journals mounted an outspoken attack on the rich and powerful drug companies accusing them of distorting the results of scientific research for the sake of profits – tying up academic researchers with legal contracts they are unable to report freely and fairly on the results of drug research. 8. “Positive titre of measles and MMR antibody are related to myelin basic protein autoantibody in autism” VK Singh, University of Michigan, College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI48109; abstract provided to American Association of Immunologists, 1998. 9. “Serological association of measles virus and HHV-6 with brain autoantibodies in Autism”, VK Singh et al, Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, October 1998; 89(1): ISSN: 0090-1229. 10. http://64.41.99.118/vran/vaccines/autism/aut_singh.htm 11. http://www.autism-arch.org/june2003-2.htm 12. Facts derived as extract from Philippines Health Service document 13. Facts derived from “Second Thoughts on Disease” by Kalokerios and Dellman 14 http://www.mad-cow.org/00/Oct00_inquiry.html 15 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,386177.00.html 16 www.telegraph.co.uk/.../news/2004/08/ 15/ndrug215.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/15/ixnewstop.html 17 The Independent 28.2.04; drug companies knew HRT risks 5 years before the public, experts who tried to raise concerns about HRT were ridiculed. 18 Heptonstall, Vaccination Mythology; www. bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7229/ 240#6390 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant physician Blackpool, UK FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
Travis Haws concedes that CDC data on measles contradict his earlier responses. So whose data does he think we should rely on? I know who I would rather believe. If he studies my response more closely, he will find that I refer to the dramatic reduction in measles incidence that followed vaccination in the USA, and was not referring to mortality. I agree mortality from measles was declining prior to vaccination, but as I indicated in my response, measles was still killing 450 children annually in the USA. Last year there were only 42 measles notifications compared to the annual pre-vaccine incidence of 400000. This represents a ten thousand -fold decline in incidence to 0.01% of prevaccination levels (and not 0.1% as I erroneously stated). Go figure. Travis Haws tries to make much of the fact that vaccinated children can still get measles. I am unable to locate his truncated reference for the incidence of measles in vaccinated children in the 1987 outbreak, but the fact that some children are not protected is no argument against vaccination. In the UK one is required to wear a seat belt because it dramatically reduces the chances of serious injury in a car crash. Pointing out that some people who are involved in a crash still get injured despite the presence of a seat belt is not a valid argument in favour of their removal. I can see the scenario now: Minister A: "Since this new seat belt law, injuries to car drivers are down to 0.01% of the previous levels of four hundred thousand a year - remarkable, no?" Minister B: "No, actually. You see 42 people were still injured this year - and some of those were actually wearing seat belts! And what's more - we haven't got much evidence, but some people say they were hurt by the seatbelts even though they were not involved in an accident. I say its definitely time to scrap them!" Now while I fully support attempts to make seat belts safer, I have no sympathy for the view that seat belts should be scrapped. Travis Haws seems quite put out by my comments that infections do not always behave in the way people predict and can have different prevalence in different populations. How this relates to herd immunity is unclear. If I knew what point he is trying to make, I might be in a better position to respond. There are still more contradictions in Travis Haws' arguments. According to him, all these childhood infections are meant to have been virtually eradicated by natural means. Yet in the absence of vaccination everyone still seems to get them. Hands up anyone over 40 who has not had measles as a child. Has anyone never had mumps, or chicken pox? Before the days of vaccination, virtually all children caught measles or these other infections. On the one hand, many respondents in this debate talk of how trivial the illness such as measles are, and how they "never harmed me". (They never harmed me either, but those whom they did harm probably don't get to post many BMJ rapid responses). Yet they regard measles in a vaccinated child as some major medical crisis. My view is that ANY measles can be bad - and we can help prevent it with vaccination. Travis Haws' statement that measles incidence in vaccinees is the same as in the unvaccinated is complete nonsense, as is his implication that it is not that infectious. I repeat, almost everyone susceptible who is exposed to measles will get the disease. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Blackpool, UK. FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
The original context of this debate concerns the possibility that vaccines (MMR) may trigger reactions that lead to or unmask autism, which is something that cannot be completely refuted by epidemiological studies alone. Many of the correspondents here have valid points to make about this. Letting the debate drift into the murky waters of “vaccines have never benefited anyone, medicine is the biggest killer and maimer of mankind, all infections are trivial and already disappearing naturally, and that the powers that be are conducting secret vaccine experiments on the entire population” lends nothing to the credibility and validity of the arguments that MMR may induce autism. As I have indicated previously, persistent intervention in this debate with such alarmist and false claims is only likely to further antagonise researchers in the field of medical science/vaccine research whom we wish to be active partners in the process of determining the causes of autism. The strategy currently being pursued by some in the anti -vaccination camp is doing no favours whatsoever for the proponents of a link between MMR and autism. I am not going to be dragged into a “my references are more accurate than yours” debate by John Heptonstall. Judging by past correspondence, I am unlikely to convince him of the weakness of his case. I can however hope that other readers of this debate judge for themselves, and I strongly urge them to look at all the references in question, not merely accept Heptonstall’s interpretation of what they say. (See my response of 9th September [“Re: re: Conspiracy theories] for details). Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
John Heptonstall cites the remarks of David Salisbury in a BBC Newsnight interview (10 August 2004) concerning an infant's ability to deal with multipe challenge as quoted by Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday Telegraph (15 August 2004). I have a transcript of Dr Salisbury's precise words: "The immune system of a baby has got huge spare capacity to deal with challenge. If we didn't, the human race wouldn't survive. But let's look specifically at vaccine. This has been studied carefully. A baby's immune system could actually tolerate perfectly well 1,000 vaccines". I subsequently had the opportunity to ask Dr Salisbury about this statement, and while I cannot quote him directly he made a distinction between overload - which was the point that he was apparently making in the interview - and the enhanced risk of adverse reaction which he accepted would be the consequence of such an action. I hope this clarifies the point. Competing interests: As above |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Signing off as Peter Flegg is with assertions about "debate drifting into murky waters", "persistent intervention in this debate with such alarmist and false claims", "my references are more accurate than yours" that are devoid of valid argument of any kind just about sums up much of his postings, including that he cites "Re. Re. Conspiracy theories". I agree with him that one hopes that readers of the debate look at all the references but I would add, unlike Peter Flegg, please keep an open mind. Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ruth E Acaster, Full-time mother Worthing, West Sussex
Send response to journal:
|
I have read the numerous responses, debates about vaccines, whether single or combined. Neither Doctor/pro-vaccinator has convinced me and it appears many others of the safety nor efficacy of vaccinating people. I would love to see independant studies, not funded by drug companies, evaluating babies from birth. Viera Scheibner set up 'Cotwatch' in 1985, monitoring, non-invasively, babies breathing from birth. Without setting out to do so, she recorded babies breathing before and after vaccines were administered. With the MMR vaccine for example, this may seem basic, but could a control group of children be rigorously assessed prior to having the vaccine and for an agreed period after. The same assessments, health checks being given to the unvaccinated group of children. If the Dept of Health want to gain trust from concerned parents then they need to do something drastic, the MMR Adverts are insulting to many, intolerable to those families that have suffered because of the vaccine. My daughter is 6 yrs old, if such a study was undertaken when she was a baby I would been more than happy for her to be in the 'unvaccinated' control group. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Saadedine Tebbal, Lab Manager Texas, 77477
Send response to journal:
|
How about testing this "new and improved" vaccine on its believers first starting with patent holder kids, the manufacturer kids and whomever believes in it. As for us "ungrateful" "vaccine nuts" and "unhealthy" individuals who dont believe about bargains like Five-in-One!! (It looks like an ad for garnments sale in Christmass). We will wait three years, check the results and then decide. We dont believe in express testing of one week or two when deciding the health of our kids. Since we have been mislead before and some of our kids are autistic, our trust in the medical establishment is none (zero, zip). Our kids are at risk because they play with your kids whom you loaded with toxic chemicals and viruses called vaccines. However, we accept the risk because we believe that you should be free to make your choices. So please let us make our own choice and dont force us to do the wrong thing. Saadedine Tebbal, Ph.D. Competing interests: Parent of an Autistic Kid |
|||