GARDASIL: Safe, necessary & effective?

Gardasil is a new vaccine in the UK given to all 12 year old girls.

One of the lead researchers for the Merck drug has been speaking out about its risks, benefits and aggressive marketing and is shocked that this vaccine is being promoted in the developed world where the risk of cervical cancer is low and pap smears are successful in reducing mortality.

And I am very
concerned about this vaccine’s safety.

As my MP, would you be willing to vaccinate your daughter, or recommend to friends to do so, if you had been made aware of this recent discovery that
genetic fingerprint in post-mortem central nervous system samples of two girls who took this vaccine. Fragments of the HPV-16-L1 antigen used in Gardasil have been found in blood vessels within their brains?

1. Is it considered perfectly normal for an antigen of this vaccine, or any other vaccine, to be found in brain samples of two young people who died?

2. Can you find any evidence that recombinant HPV DNA is safe?
The other very worrying fact is that 100% of the Gardasil vials in 2011 tested proved to be contaminated with a recombinant HPV DNA attached to aluminum.  Although the government says now that this is safe, they have not provided any evidence that this is the case.  In fact they denied the existence until testing proved otherwise.  This is a vaccine cultured on Genetically Modified yeast.  As far as I am aware, it is too early to tell if GM products are safe.

3. Is it safe & necessary to be giving 3 doses of this vaccine to our teenagers?
There is no evidence that boosters are necessary, a study included in the ECDC report found there was no difference in antibodies in groups of girls 4 years later who had received 1, 2 or 3 doses.
Is £300 for 3 boosters a good value for money if £100 does the same job?  This is terribly important as many girls experience worsening side effect with the second or third vaccine.  Indeed, the JCVI is considering reducing the 3 shots to 2 next year but its own Phase 4 study will not be completed until next September.. this is a long time to continue testing out 3 doses on girls.

4.  Shouldn’t the nurses be vigilant for this Black triangle drug and not recommend subsequent doses if these possible ADRs are experienced?
Hundreds of stories, 2 in Reigate that I know of, share that serious joint ache and fatigue is suffered after the first dose for some girls, crutches after the second and a wheelchair after the second.  The government has responded to suggestions, that these symptoms are ADRs which have affected an unknown number for girls off school for months, by staing that ME and Chronic Fatigue is in normal prevalence in the teenage female community.  However, under the Freedom of Information act it has been shown that NO records for ME are kept and so the normal rate in society is not known.

5. Is is right to give a vaccine to a generation of girls before evidence that it will make them healthier? There are studies to show that the vaccine helps prevent infection of HPV virus but there are NO studies to prove that it stops cervical cancer – these results will not start to be known for the next 20-30 years when the first co-hort are screened over the age of 35 when most cases present. And there is no data showing the vaccine remains effective after more than 7 years (meaning you will need more boosters). The European Centre for disease prevention and control (HPV Guidance  JULY 2012) says “It is still unknown how long effective immunity will last…up to 7 years at present.  The HPV vaccine cannot replace cervical screening”  NHS choices agrees

6.  Shouldn’t the girls be tested first to ensure that the vaccine will not increase the risk of cervical cancer. Merck warned the FDA that Gardasil may increase cancerous cervix lesions who are “already infected” with HPV 16 or 18 by 44.6%.  Data from the US shows that abnormal pap smears, cervical cancer and cervical dysplasia have all increased during the last year each by over 20%, not conclusive of course, but worth considering the original warning.    p.13

7.  Shouldn’t we warn teenagers of this risk of ovarian failure?
Girls may even suffer ovarian failure after the HPV vaccination, like this girl, see the BMJ.  Cases will be hidden with the contraceptive pill being prescribed.

8.  Should safety information suggest that girls should rest if they experience fatigue or pain after Gardasil? Girls who are vaccinated during a period and girls who are extremely sporty and push through chronic pain after the vaccine.  The hormone levels and/or the high level of histamine in highly active girls may be an issue with ADRs.

As patients are not contacted for further information after filling in a Yellow card, who is looking at these possible factors?

Dr Halvorsen on the flu jab for children

Children to be given yearly flu jabs to prevent flu in older people…
The UK government has announced that all children in England and Wales aged between 2 and 17 years of age are to be offered yearly flu jabs.1 This has been described as “cost-effective” as a result of complex mathematical models that predict the vaccine will reduce the burden of influenza on GPs’ work and will reduce the number of deaths and hospital admissions from flu.

However no one is pretending that it is the vaccinated children who are going to benefit. Children, especially healthy children, very rarely die from influenza; in fact in many years there are no deaths at all from flu in children under 15 years of age.2 Nevertheless, the chief medical officer is predicting that, even with only 30% uptake of the vaccine, 2,000 deaths and 11,000 hospitalisations from flu will be prevented every year. This is a very suspect prediction and is itself based on no hard evidence but rather extremely complex mathematical modeling relying on many questionable assumptions. If, and it is a big IF, this prediction is correct it is not the children who are being vaccinated and risking adverse reactions who are benefiting but primarily the elderly over 75 years of age.

I have no objection to reducing illness and deaths in the elderly – indeed if I am fortunate I might reach that age myself – but a high proportion of the hypothetical 2,000 deaths saved is likely to be in frail elderly who, if spared influenza will, sadly, only go on to die from some other cause in subsequent months. In other words, many, if not most, of the deaths ‘saved’ are not really saved but merely postponed for a short time.

Many of us already have concerns about the burden of immunisation in children and its possible contribution to the rise in immune related disorders.
This proposal would increase the number of vaccines a healthy child receives  by 18 years of age from 35 to 59 4 boys and from 38 to 62 in girls. This massive increase in the vaccine burden is untried and untested with regards to both safety and effectiveness.

It is symptomatic of the medical establishment’s gung-ho attitude to vaccines.

It has been suggested that vaccinating healthy children against flu may cause them more harm than benefit; indeed a flu vaccine given to children in Australia was withdrawn in 2009 because of the high incidence of adverse reactions.3 The proposal is not only suspect scientifically but is also questionable on moral and ethical grounds.

All children are to be offered a total of 24 flu shots in their childhood with no pretence that this is of any great benefit to them.

I do not believe children should be given such an avalanche of vaccines with unknown long-term consequences to benefit those two generations older than them. Introducing flu vaccination for all children in the UK is unnecessary, foolhardy and potentially dangerous.

1. JCVI statement on the annual influenza vaccination programme – extension of the programme to children. JCVI. 25 July 2012.
2. Hardelid P. Pebody R. Andrews N. Mortality caused by influenza and respiratory syncytial virus by age group in England and Wales 1999-2010. Influenza and other respiratory viruses 2012: DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2012.00345.x
3. Collignon P J, Doshi P, Jefferson T. Re: Adverse events following influenza vaccination in Australia – should we be surprised?
BMJ Rapid response. 11 March 2011

Campaign for vaccination freedon of choice in Greece

In Greece, all vaccines on the National Immunisation Programme (including Hep B and chickenpox!) are compulsory for admission to school (school is compulsory as well by the way!). The only exemption is a medical exemption reports Sandrine.

We have just launched a petition (within Greece) requesting freedom of choice
regarding vaccination of our children. We also have a lawyer who is putting
together a file of scientific and legal arguments to support our case. Towards
the end of May, after the elections, she will present our case at various
relevant bodies such as the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, the
Institute of Child Health and the National Immunisation Committee.

I am really excited about this and I hope that it will at least help open the
debate on this issue and prepare the grounds should a Court case arise in the

The Campaign is relying on donations (we need to raise 5,000 euros). If you are
willing and able to help, we’d be really grateful!

Please use the Arnica Paypal account to send your donations stating “Greek Vaccination Freedom Campaign”.

We also have a special bank account for this purpose in Greece, but I believe that the cost for an
international transfer is quite high. In any case, if you don’t have a paypal account and still wish to make a donation, please email me and we will find another way.

The petition can be found at:åëåõèåñßá-åðéëïãÞò-ãéá-ôïí-åì.html
It is in Greek and we are only collecting signatures from within Greece at the
moment, but here is a translation of the text in English for your information.


Target: Greek Ministry of Health, Greek Ministry of Education
Region: Greece

In Greece, all school-age children are required to provide proof that they have
received all vaccines listed on the National Immunisation Programme in order to
be admitted to school. The only exemption to this requirement is a medical
exemption. According to the latest National Immunisation Programme (2011), this
amounts to a total of 14 different vaccines, with many requiring multiple doses.

According to the authorities, compulsory vaccination is necessary in order to
protect public health. However, each vaccine comes with a list of potential
adverse effects and we believe that no one should have the right to force
parents to take such risks for their children.

Most parents who claim freedom of choice regarding vaccination have serious
concerns over the short term and long term safety of vaccines, as well as doubts
over their efficacy.

Vaccines contain toxic ingredients, such as aluminium derivatives, known to
cause brain damage, formaldehyde, which is carcinogenic, Monosodium Glutamate
(MSG), which is a neurotoxin and polysorbate 80, which is linked to severe
anaphylactic reactions. Additionally, the Package Insert and Patient Information
Leaflet of each vaccine list a number of possible short term adverse reactions
ranging from redness at the injection site to a high fever, seizures and
anaphylactic shock. Studies have also associated vaccines with autism, as well
as auto-immune disorders such as Diabetes Mellitus, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid
arthritis and Gillain-Barre Syndrome to mention just a few. Additionally,
vaccines have not been tested to see whether they cause cancer or fertility

Much of the research carried out on vaccines is funded by the pharmaceutical
industry. In its December 2009 Factsheet (no. 335), the World Health
Organisation reported: “Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occurs
throughout all stages of the medicines chain, from research and development to
dispensing and promotion”.

There is now an increasing number of medical experts, such as those belonging to
the International Medical Council on Vaccination, who openly disagree with the
generally accepted view that vaccines are safe and efficacious. The conclusions
of the Council have been reached individually by each member, after rigorous
personal research, study and observation.

Finally, many of the “vaccine-preventable” diseases are either so rare or so
mild, that a parent should have the freedom to decide whether or not they want
to vaccinate their child. Most vaccination exemptions are only given after a
child has already been damaged by a vaccine. It is the parents who will have to
live with and take care of a vaccine-damaged child. Therefore, parents should
have the freedom to choose what risks they are willing to take.

We, the undersigned, request that vaccines are no longer compulsory for
attendance to school. Since the pharmaceutical companies admit (in their package
inserts) that vaccines may cause serious side effects, including permanent
injury, we believe that forcing parents to take such a risk is unconstitutional
and an invasion of our human rights.

We therefore petition for freedom of choice regarding vaccination of our

OFCOM complaint re ITV Tonight Programme 12th April

The way that non vaccinating parents were wrongly accused made the viewer believe that child death from disease (in this case a baby from whooping cough) was because of non vaccinated children.

Friends and relatives, and the wider community, will judge non vaccinating parents and their children. The topic is emotive already (a mother on line shared that she was spat at after a mother & toddler group because she does not vaccinate) but this accusation needs retracting by the program makers as already on line some parents have been incited to be aggressive towards others.

Clearly the presenter lead the question to the parents of the baby who died, and did not have the facts to back up the allegation which are..

1. 95% of UK children are fully vaccinated which is the level required as set down by the WHO for herd immunity

2. This vaccine is not effective, ‘lasting’ for around 3 years, and so the Dept of Health is considering an extra booster

3. Whooping cough appears in the vaccinated

4. If a mother has had whooping cough then her baby is less likely to contract whooping cough at such young age (before the vaccines at 4 months) and if she breastfeeds the risks of complications from whooping cough (and Hib) are reduced

One baby a year tragically dies from whooping cough each year but the show’s omission to say this would imply that these deaths are more widespread. They misrepresented the risk of disease and were scaremongering.

I will keep you updated on this compliant.  Meanwhile I have included more detail below.

Whooping cough goes in cycles – please look at the HPA website to see that we are not experiencing unusually high cases of whooping cough during this generation. As for vaccination coverage, 95% of UK parents use this vaccine so the WHO level for ‘herd immunity’ has been reached. So why are babies still getting whooping cough and why does a baby die from whooping cough every year here?

This vaccine is the least effective, the UK gov is planning on bringing in another booster, as the number of cases of whooping cough has risen in the older age groups as it is thought that the effects of the vaccine ‘wear off’.

Whooping cough often goes undiagnosed as parent and GP thinks that the persistent cough can’t be whooping cough. This means that contagious children are going to school with whooping cough and spreading the bacteria around. Non vaccinated parents are more likely to be aware of disease symptoms and not take their children out if they are suspected of having whooping cough.

Why are babies getting whooping so young? Naturally the mother would confer natural immunity for the early months if she had had whooping cough, and if she was breast feeding would see a baby through any respiratory infection without complication. Well less mothers are able to pass on that immunity and less are breastfeeding their babies.

Why are the authorities and the media implying that non vaccinating parents are to blame for the increase then? It doesn’t seem logical that if most ARE vaccinating how can the non vaccinated be blamed. Why isn’t the Q. asked about this vaccine efficacy? And why aren’t the authorities asking us to be vigilant and informed about our children’s cough before mixing with tiny babies and why aren’t parents told more about the benefits of lower infections and hospitalisation when a baby is exclusively breastfed?

If you don’t have time to research vaccines then please accept that there are 2 sides and the government will only tell you one side of a story. Did you know for example, that formaldehyde is added to vaccines in the attempt to make the animal DNA, animal protein and virus inactive. That the placebo in vaccine safety trials are always OTHER VACCINES, it is never benign. That there is not a control group and that the health outcomes for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated have never been officially compared.

Dear ED, The Today Program @ BBC…


There is a very different side of this news item that mainstream UK news is not mentioning, and I would like to know why?

New Delhi, Jan. 15:
“India’s health ministry, celebrating a year of freedom from wild polio, now faces a dilemma that public health experts had predicted years ago: the very vaccine it is using to fight polio is causing more polio paralysis than the wild poliovirus.”

…. in reality, the incidence of limb-paralysis in children has increased after the Polio Eradication Initiative!

The Web site of the National Polio Surveillance Project (NPSP) reveals that the number of cases of Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) in children increased from 3,047 to 60,466 (20 times) during 1997 to 2011!

With many stories of forced vaccinations in the Developing World, where there is no compensation for ADRs, surely this makes a mockery of informed choice and state responsibility. For example, there were recently some arrests of teachers refusing entry of armed Polio vaccination teams to the school..

“We arrested some staff members but released them after they swore to cooperate with us.”

The ‘data’ may show less Polio in the developing World but at what cost?  Are the children healthier?  Is paralysis any less or is it just called by a different name?  Where is the journalistic quality here?  The UK found that the chances of developed polio from vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV) were higher than from wild polio and changed to the inactive vaccine in 2004 …..

Furthermore, Polio is very much associated with poor clean water & sanitation and nutrition.  The WHO puts water as a first priority overall as a prevention to reduce mortality (vaccines are placed second) and UNICEF puts exclusive Breastfeeding first for reducing child mortality in the under 5s.  So why has UK spending on water programs reduced and where is the investment in promotion of Breastfeeding?

In comparison, £800,000,000 tax payers money was given to GAVI last June to increase the vaccination programs but where is evidence of better health outcomes overall?  Vaccines are not necessarily linked to better long term health but the presumption is left unchallenged.  Why is the UK Government not independently assessing this GAVI contract and why are your journalists not asking questions?

Please explain why the BBC does not even scratch the surface.

I look forward to your reply.

Samson & Goliath

Nicola Adolphe, Arnica member and researcher, had 45 minutes with Stephen O’Brien, International Development Minister in December. She was presenting data from the The Spirit Level which looked at breast feeding, water & sanitation, and nutrition having far greater outcomes than vaccines in all countries.  Dr Jayne Donegan was her partner.  The fact that this meeting even took place is an amazing start, thanks to Nicola and her MP Oliver Letwin.

The GAVI message of 5 million lives saved was embedded into the political mantra and as Comic Relief is now supporting GAVI I guess we have our work cut out!

The main item to follow up is that Oliver Letwin MP said that the WHO should monitor and compare the vaccinated countries and the unvaccinated, with the variable of breastfeeding uptake.   Unicef states on their site that Exclusive Breastfeeding is the single most effective intervention for preventing child deaths under a year.  And I much rather see a breast feeding mother poster any day, compared to a starving child with a needle in their arm.

The girls asked that the outcomes should not just be linked to ‘numbers’ of vaccines given but on health outcomes overall.  There was some stuttering but yes health outcomes were of course important.  As with any pledge I wonder if the ‘agreement’ has a ‘change of mind’ clause, just in case the health outcomes were not improved.  But it seems that monitoring this money and the safety of delivering millions of doses of vaccines is not a concern to Mr O’Brien.

The Minister wanted to leave all policy to the WHO and responsibility to GAVI, but considering that many GAVI board members have financial interests in the manufacture of vaccines and the WHO has missed some vital safety issues in the past, we shouldn’t be complacent.  It was admitted in the meeting that there is no evidence that live vaccines are safe for Aids sufferers (indeed the manufacturers advise against giving live vaccines to HIV and Aids patients).   The WHO sanctions this practice based only upon one study looking at HIV sufferers, not Aids.  A UK government aide offered that there also was no evidence of harm…. mmm, we will send them the Merck manual which states

“Immunocompromised patients should not receive live-virus vaccines, which could provoke severe or fatal infections.”

Anyway, thank you to all who wrote letters to your MPs, we will keep you in touch with the next phase.

Water will still be hot on the agenda as water is officially THE most effective intervention in the world say the HPA, yet just a few percent of Aid goes to water programs and this has dropped over the years.  Something just does not add up.

p.s.  I don’t suppose these news items will ring any bells for any one…
New neurological ‘Nodding Syndrome‘ in S Sudan – the CDC are looking into malnutrition as a possible cause.  I guess they will not look at the Polio vaccination as a possible cause?  6 million children were vaccinated in 2010 after mass drive, many of whom had several doses.  Malnutrition will be indicated of course but not to investigate a live vaccine, when neurological ADRs are the most reported serious ADR with vaccines, is a glaring omission.

Working together to Protect the nation… Paranoia and Protectionism

There’s so much I could say about the conference ‘Immunisation, Working Together to Protect the Nation’; the disagreements between the speakers, key items lacking in current knowledge, the blank gaze of the chair, Dr Helen Bedford, when I asked her about long term health outcomes, or the smugness of Dr Heidi Larson, former anthropologist, dissecting the Psychological reasons for the resistance to vaccines.

I could have focused on Professor John Oxford, virologist, who used the word witch and a non-vaccinating mother in the same sentence.  Who showed Blake’s painting of a family meeting in heaven, so we would understand the gravity of the flu.  Who told another speaker that he wouldn’t want to be vaccinated in his pharmacy if he had just vaccinated a Hepatitis B patient due to the risk of catching Hepatitis B!  No comment.  I will leave this to another speaker who was overheard calling him paranoid…

But they were passing details to the real message that I took with me from this conference.  Which was that the immunisation program does not work together with the people it reports to serve and protect.  And that this prophylactic intervention, that has never been tested with a benign placebo but other vaccines and never a control group, may have paid a price far greater than its success claims.  No intelligent comment was offered from the speakers on the lack of safety testing.

The lack of compassion for Jackie Fletcher and Alli Edwards from the JABS support group will haunt me forever.  Jackie, a beautiful dignified woman who introduced herself, as a mother of a vaccine damaged child.  She asked questions about the lack of opportunities for parents’ groups to get involved in vaccination policy and challenged them on the current ineffective monitoring system with its inherent failure to follow up on the limited yellow card reports.  She respectfully asked how do they expect to get accurate safety data if they don’t monitor and follow up on serious side effects.  Alli Edwards, a most elegant mother, trying to rein in her passion, again asking legitimate questions.

At least no one questioned why they were there, like Professor David Salisbury did last year.  But the answers were hollow.

The Flu Fairy from West Suffolk was one of the speakers.  Elaine spent her happy hours persuading employees of the local Hospital to get their flu jab, Hepatitis B or MMR.  She was very proud of her 1,000th flu shot.  Alli asked her what she would do if one of the employees suffered an adverse reaction to the vaccine.  Unfortunately this senior nurse answered, rather shamefully, that she didn’t think that adults suffered ADRs from vaccines.

Alli reminded her that there was a Hep B support group for employees who had debilitating injury after this vaccine and I offered that the Department of Work and Pensions paid dozens of such compensation to adults for vaccine damage.

That a medical person was administering potentially life threatening and debilitating products without knowledge is extraordinary.

I take this to imply that the employees were not fully informed.  I have subsequently found these figures.
“One victim wrote:

“The injuries we suffered as a result of the Hepatitis B vaccination are devastating. We have permanent serious health problems, lost our jobs, our careers, independence, ambitions, family life and the joy of life.”
Stated by a medical doctor suffering from vaccine damage.

However, I applauded Nurse Ramsden on allowing employees to check their antibody levels before unnecessary vaccinating, say for the MMR.  Some health authorities demand vaccination in the contract and it is rare to give this option.

Then what followed was unbelievable.

Dr David Elliman turned to the nurse and gently scolded, ‘That is concerning, this could give the wrong message to parents.’ Heavens forbid the parents realize that they could accept fewer vaccines for their children.

A shaking Jackie stood up and said that blood tests were a very useful tool and could reduce the risk of children being needlessly exposed to risks of severe damage.  She stated that she could cite many accounts and gave two examples.  One was a little boy who had started with seizures 10 days  after his MMR and ended up in a drug induced coma to try and stabilize him.  When he was five the immunization consultant at the local hospital had contacted his parents to ask about his ‘booster’ MMR.  The parents and the boy’s GP were reluctant to risk giving it again.  JABS advised a blood test which the GP happily undertook.  The results showed the boy had good antibody levels so did not need to be exposed to any further risk.

Jackie also told of her own boy who had suffered a catastrophic reaction to his MMR vaccination.  This hadn’t stopped three different branches of the D o H contacting her when his ‘booster’ MMR was due.  Blood tests showed that he was covered for the three diseases.  She said it was wrong of Dr Elliman to negate the value of blood tests. Incidentally Jackie’s son is now 20.  He is in a wheelchair, has no speech and regular epileptic fits.   Finally this year his damage was officially linked to the MMR and he received a (pitifully small) payment from the Vaccine Damage Payment Fund.

Apparently testing the blood would just tie up resources that could be better spent elsewhere added Dr Jenny Harries, JCVI, Joint Committee for Vaccines and Immunisation.

Tie up resources to potentially save lives?  Now did I miss something?

Here is a valid point made by a paying member of the conference, (nearly all others would have been covered by their employer or drug company.)  By a mother whose child was not protected but permanently damaged by the recommended vaccines.  What a difference a simple blood test may have made.  Instead, several boosters are given of most vaccines when they ‘work’ in 95% of recipients.  Boosters for all are to cover those 5%.   So again the end justifying the means argument rises again.  Most children are at further risk of adverse reactions in order to cover the small minority for which the vaccine has not ‘worked’.

Jackie Fletcher’s experience and idea was totally walked over.  David Elliman told us how we needed to up the vaccine rates to protect those vulnerable children.  His background is in child protection and community child health.  Since 1996 two children had tragically died and two had sadly suffered serious damage from measles, all immune suppressed children, he shared.  David’s role would understandably be to protect those groups of children by arguing for mass vaccination.  However, in his noble pursuit, is he and those around him blinded to the cost?

No acknowledgment, let alone compassion, was shown towards vaccine damage, quite the opposite.  He told me in a break that if Jackie had her way, parents could be asking for whichever vaccines they wanted.  He also looked panicked when I told him proudly of Healthwatch’s part in the new White Paper where patients had a greater involvement in their care.  Patient choice sat uncomfortably.  I wanted to remind him that Evidence Based Medicine has three strands of which patient experience and choice was an important part but I sure he had just forgotten.

Jackie could have stood up again and told the audience that since that time the government had paid out on 4 children’s death from vaccines.  She could have said that the government has paid out £3.5m to patients left disabled by vaccinations just since 1997.  In fact, 917 payments have been made since the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme was introduced in 1979 until 2005 when The Evening Standard demanded this information under the FOI.  (The US has paid out $2 billion for vaccine damage by the way.)

Would it have made any difference?  I doubt it.  Surely, managers and policy makers know the figures.  But the maths just does not add up.  2 million children unvaccinated with MMR in the UK, a further million without the booster.  Only 2 deaths and 2 serious complications from the wild measles but dozens more damaged by the MMR officially.  I wish I had been on the ball with my questions at this point.

Now lets consider the potential true figure of vaccine damage.

Dr Harries, Joint Director of Public Health, and JCVI member, had proudly told us in her presentation that the UK has one of the best records for reporting of ADRs and that patients could report an ADR for themselves.  I had to challenge this because at the first ADR conference in 2011 we were told by the MHRA (where the Yellow Cards are sent to) that only 6% of the public knew about this system and speakers said that they estimated only around 10% of ADRs are reported.  The Brussels hearing on Pharmocovigilance, that I attended in 2009, had warned of the same and called it an epidemic of ADRs.

I suggest that 2 measles deaths and 2 complications is the sum of it since 1996.  Yet the official figure of 4 for vaccine damage payments where the child has died following MMR and 4 for severe vaccine damage from the MMR is just a small proportion.  Jackie Fletcher’s JABS support group holds reports for approximately 2,000 children.

The multi-party MMR legal action, at its peak in 2003, had 1,400 live legal aid certificates which showed that the cases were compelling enough to have the support of the Legal Aid Board.  Has anyone ever contacted her about them she asked?  Has anyone ever contacted anyone who filed a Yellow Card for more details?  NO she told us.

Most in public health have a duty to protect the weak and to reduce disease, and indeed the professionals and many committee members come from this background.  However, where is the ADR Czar?  Where is the voice of the parent in this?  Defenseless otherwise healthy babies have no voice.

And what about Dr David Elliman, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, our Immunisation spokesman?  While he was preparing the hearing against Dr Jayne Donegan, accused of peddling junk science in 2006 in supporting a non-vaccinating mother in a custody hearing, for which she was totally cleared by the GMC, Baby P died.  Dr Elliman was one of the senior managers on the case and found to be lacking by The Evening Standard investigation in 2009.

Interesting that the slogan on Haringey’s headed paper was Working together for Childrens’ Health.  It has left me wondering.  You should wonder too.

UNICEF’s role in prosecution of non vaccinating parents

Dear Sir / Madam, (To the UNICEF reps in Nigeria)

I am most concerned about Officials in Nigeria’s northern Kano state insisting that parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated against polio may be prosecuted and could face jail time.

(And that 131 children were vaccinated at gunpoint in Nsanje, Africa

The reason I am contacting you is that this government order issued this week comes as UNICEF had been pressuring Nigeria’s northern states to promote the polio Vaccination.

I was at the GAVI conference where a journalist asked about compensation and the question was avoided.  However, I am concerned that ‘promoters’ of health and vaccines would still want informed choice and a damage payment scheme, especially as many thousands of cases of paralytic Polio are vaccine induced.   If health prevention is forced surely it means ethically that you need to have a good safety surveillance in place, treatment and compensation, like we attempt to do in the West.

Polio can harm but so too can the vaccine…There are many cases of vaccine injury but here is a rare case of compensation

Further concern is that immunosuppressed individuals should not take the live Oral Polio Vaccine, including people with AIDS, HIV infection, other immunodeficiency diseases. Please see the vaccine insert from the manufacturer for contraindications.  Therefore, I wonder how babies are being tested for HIV and AIDs before being vaccinated with Polio.

My questions therefore are:

Do you support forced vaccination with threat of jail or at gunpoint?  If this is happening how will you respond?

How are vaccines delivered safely in response to the manufacturers own recommendations which are not to vaccinate those with infection?

How will vaccine damage monitored and be compensated?

I look forward to your considered reply,

Many Thanks

GAVI – UK pledges £800 million ringed for vaccine aid

One minute I am outside with banners, protesting,
the next in the Press Conference.

I directed my question to the board chair of GAVI Dagfinn Hoybraten

“You have raised an extra 0.6 billion dollars today, would you consider setting up water & sanitation projects to increase health outcomes”

“NO” was the blunt answer, “we are only purchasing vaccines”.

Thankfully Sally Beck was there and asked the key question.

“The US and the UK have vaccine damage payment funds,
what will you have for the Developing World?”

“Vaccines are safe and magic” was the general reply.  There was Psychosis over the whole panel at that point.  Andrew Mitchell needs educating.

A Reuters reporter asked “How can you assure us that this is not just another way of lining the pockets of the Pharmaceutical companies?”

CBS chose the same angle…

Daniel Berman, a vaccines expert at Doctors Without Borders, said it was exciting so much money had been pledged towards saving lives. But he questioned whether the millions of taxpayer dollars would be spent properly.

“Why are we lining the pockets of big pharma like this?” Berman asked.
“That just screams conflict of interest and corporate welfare to us.”

A 2009 study published in the journal “The Lancet” showed dozens of developing countries exaggerated figures on vaccination rates, allowing them to get more money from the alliance. Researchers said these countries immunized half as many children as they claimed.

Other experts warned that donating vaccines to countries with broken health systems might mean they just end up sitting in warehouses.  “We need to be mindful of the fact that investment in vaccines is not the magic answer to global health issues such as pneumonia and diarrhea,” said Sophie Harman, a public health expert at City University in London. “Without proper funding commitments to health infrastructure…any investment in vaccines will be redundant.”

Shame the UK press did not do their investigating.  They mostly questioned if £800,000,000 for vaccine aid was fair to the UK people at a time like this, rather than questioning the whole concept.  If they want ‘value for money’ then it will be up to us to give them the data…

Working on that!

HPA warns of considerable risk of contracting measles

…sent to the HPA
Please justify the use of the word
considerable in your statement “there is considerable risk of catching measles if they are not protected”

There are 3 million such children made up of nearly 2 million totally unvaccined and a million without full boosters.  Actually, the confirmed cases of measles is very small at 20 per month in England and Wales (From the HPA site) so I would suggest that the chances of an ‘unprotected’ child contracting measles very small.

2010* 4th 370# 456 123.2% 33 7.2%
2010* 3rd 579# 645 111.4% 132 20.5%
2010* 2nd 736 639 86.8% 68 10.6%
2010* 1st 543 446 82.1% 10 2

Please also provide figures for the “serious consequences” from measles as I can’t seem to find any.  There were just 19 complications in 2007 for mumps but it is impossible to find out the type and serious nature of the complications.  The HPA said they ” are unable to provide this information to you as it falls under deductive disclosure due to a smaller dataset, and we would be in breach of patient confidentiality if this information is disclosed.”.

I understand that the role of the HPA is to reduce the spread of disease, however, this letter implies that if a child is not vaccinated then they are at considerable risk of contracting Measles when the data does not support this.

Many thanks…

….The reply was that they were acting within national policy… well that’s OK then!

With 2 million children under 18 years old totally unvaccinated and a further million children not ‘fully protected’ with just one jab, the several hundred confirmed measles cases each year year is akin to the risk of being struck by lightening.  With 1 in 15 complications with measles reported in the Green Book, I am guessing that again, like mumps complications, the subset will be too small to release data for.  I wonder if the 1 in 15 complications are taken from the UK of the states, which is significant.

Back To Main Website