bmj.com Rapid Responses for Bedford and Elliman, 329 (7463) 411-412

Rapid Responses to:

EDITORIALS:
Helen Bedford and David Elliman
Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine
BMJ 2004; 329: 411-412 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

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)

MEDICAL 'SCIENCE'? INFECTED BEYOND CURE 20 August 2004

Clifford G. Miller,
Practising lawyer, graduate physicist & former examining University lecturer in law
Beckenham Kent BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
Re: MEDICAL 'SCIENCE'? INFECTED BEYOND CURE

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

Progress 20 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Progress

David Elliman and Helen Bedford have declared their competing interests.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Selective Research 20 August 2004

Alan Challoner,
Retired
LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
Re: Selective Research

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.

Re: Progress 20 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Progress

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

Thimerosal - a case of non-disclosure in The Lancet 20 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal - a case of non-disclosure in The Lancet

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

How safe is safe? 21 August 2004

Richard Lanigan,
Chiropractor
Park Clinic KT2 6DQ
Send response to journal:
Re: How safe is safe?

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)
MSc Public Health and Health Promotion.
157 Park Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 6DQ
Competing interests: None declared

Pay attention to - the MERCURY story 21 August 2004

Lisa C Blakemore-Brown,
Psychologist
Based in Uk
Send response to journal:
Re: Pay attention to - the MERCURY story

"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

Misconceptions 22 August 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Misconceptions

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

DESTRUCTION OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH 23 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: DESTRUCTION OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH

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

Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine 23 August 2004

Raymond Gallup,
Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project
Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034, USA
Send response to journal:
Re: Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine

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

Personal communications aren't evidence. 23 August 2004

GH Hall,
Retired physician
EX1 2HW
Send response to journal:
Re: Personal communications aren't evidence.

"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

Re: Misconceptions 23 August 2004

Ellen Goudsmit,
Chartered Health Psychologist
London TW11 9QX
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Misconceptions

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

Re: Misconceptions 23 August 2004

John MM Rumbold,
n/a
West Midlands
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Misconceptions

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

Re: How safe is safe? Come off it, Dr Salisbury! 24 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: How safe is safe? Come off it, Dr Salisbury!

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

Re: Misconceptions 24 August 2004

John F Bolton,
Clinical Fellow in Urology
Bristol Royal Infirmary, BS2 8HW
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Misconceptions

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

Re: Re: Misconceptions 25 August 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions

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

Re: Re: Misconceptions 25 August 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions

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

Re: Re: Misconceptions 25 August 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions

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 Heptonstall's call for a public enquiry 25 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: John Heptonstall's call for a public enquiry

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

Re: John Heptonstall's call for a public enquiry 26 August 2004

Lisa C Blakemore-Brown,
Psychologist
UK based
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: John Heptonstall's call for a public enquiry

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

Conspiracy theories 26 August 2004

Peter Flegg,
Consultant Physician
Blackpool, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
Re: Conspiracy theories

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

Independent Judicial Enquiry Before More Deaths 26 August 2004

Michael D Innis,
Director Medisets International
Home 4575
Send response to journal:
Re: Independent Judicial Enquiry Before More Deaths

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

Re: DESTRUCTION OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH: A CORRECTION 26 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: DESTRUCTION OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH: A CORRECTION

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

Re: Misconceptions 26 August 2004

Ellen Goudsmit,
Psychologist
London TW11 9QX
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Misconceptions

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.

UNAVAILABILITY OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH 26 August 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: UNAVAILABILITY OF DATA = INVALIDATION OF IOM RESEARCH

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

Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma 26 August 2004

L. Travis Haws,
Dentist
Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma

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

Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma 27 August 2004

janet d harris,
retired nurse
London, N17
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy theories vs. Unproven Poor Theoretical (not theatrical ?) Dogma

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

Re: Re: Misconceptions 27 August 2004

Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS,
Retired
LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions

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

Re: Conspiracy theories 27 August 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Conspiracy theories

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 experimentat