Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
SCARIER VACCINE STORIES MEAN LEGAL LIABILITY FOR GPs
- Clifford G. Miller (27 August 2004)
-
Obtaining consent for vaccination
- M R Gray (28 August 2004)
-
Re: SCARIER VACCINE STORIES MEAN LEGAL LIABILITY FOR GPs
- John MM Rumbold (29 August 2004)
-
Bunkum and society's job
- Adrian K Midgley (29 August 2004)
-
Re: Bunkum and Society's job
- Magda Taylor (31 August 2004)
-
Re: Bunkum and society's job
- Ruth E Acaster (1 September 2004)
-
The history of vaccination
- Janet D Harris (1 September 2004)
-
change the title
- Patrick Kiely (1 September 2004)
-
References please!
- Teik E Tan (2 September 2004)
-
Re: Bunkum and society's job
- John P Heptonstall (2 September 2004)
-
Children should prosecute Negligent Parents
- Carol Johnston (3 September 2004)
-
Re: References please!
- Ruth E Acaster (6 September 2004)
-
In "answer" to Dr Tan.
- Hilary Butler (6 September 2004)
-
Re: Children should prosecute Negligent Parents
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (6 September 2004)
-
Why do vaccinated kids get the disease?
- Hilary Butler (11 September 2004)
-
Wrong question
- Pat Rattigan (11 September 2004)
-
Re: Wrong question
- Adrian K Midgley (20 October 2004)
-
Re: Re: Wrong question
- John P Heptonstall (20 October 2004)
-
Re: History sequence and causality
- Adrian K Midgley (2 November 2004)
-
Re: Variola, Vaccina and Tb
- Adrian K Midgley (3 November 2004)
-
Re: Re: History sequence and causality
- John P. Heptonstall (3 November 2004)
-
Re: Re: Variola, Vaccina and Tb
- John P. Heptonstall (6 November 2004)
-
Wibble; history; science
- Adrian K Midgley (10 November 2004)
-
Re: Wibble; history; science
- John P Heptonstall (12 November 2004)
-
Re: Re: Wibble; history; science
- Adrian Midgley (15 November 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist & former examining lecturer in law London University Beckenham, Kent, BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
SCARIER VACCINE STORIES MEAN LEGAL LIABILITY FOR GPs Dear Sirs, Re 'Dutch doctors warn parents over whooping cough vaccine' BMJ 2004;329:476 (28 August) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7458/132-a#67642. As predicted ['Scarier Vaccine Stories Trump Mumps' [http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7464/476-c)], the governmental and associated establishment authorities will continue to trumpet vaccine 'scare stories' as soon as they arise. At the same time they continue to fail to properly record, acknowledge or deal responsibly with vaccine adverse reactions and continue to fail to make the facts and the risks known to the public. To do so would jeopardise any hope of achieving 95% uptake and 'herd immunity', as some parents would opt out if given hard fact on risks. So, medical practitioners have an opportunity to protect themselves and their patients and enhance their standing and respect in the community by ensuring full accurate and reliable information is given to parents and patients and allow them to take the decisions for their own care. As medical practitioners, you are ultimately responsible for the care you give your patients. If you administer a vaccine, with a resulting serious adverse reaction, unless you can show you gave proper information on the risks to the patient, you could be liable in negligence for the resultant damage. How many of you keep a record of advice given to the patient, including risk statistics and suspected adverse reactions (rather than just the ones the government will accept only after being proven to a scientific standard)? How many of you have a signed consent form from the parents or the patient when administering vaccines, or is it all just too much paperwork and admin for what conventional 'wisdom' says are minor risks? If I were a personal injury lawyer, which I am not, and with the greatest of respect to you all, I would have no hesitation suing a doctor who failed to give full and proper advice on the risks where a resulting serious adverse reaction occurred. Why take on a drug company? Look where it got the MMR kids. Go to source, and get those in front line practice to change their ways. I realise this is not really a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter and that it is another burden on those who work hard to deliver care where it is needed. I just know it will be a rapid and effective way of tackling the problem. There are those who say it is not a problem. There are those who claim the views are polarised with too much heat and not enough light. In February of this year I would never have considered questioning vaccination. Now, after considerable research, it is no longer a matter of question. It is quite clear that the damage (not risks) from vaccines outweigh the benefits and that a wholly different approach is needed. Establishment closes its eyes. Concerning dealing with issues of risk decision making, I commend readers to UNRELIABILITY OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AS EVIDENCE http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7440/602-c#52948, 11 Mar 2004. I am not the enemy. The enemy is the continuing state of ignorance encouraged by and the perverse disregard for facts by a system of governance, politics and control that should be, but never will be, better and that fails to operate in the public interest. We have been here time and time again in the past. Look at ME sufferers who were publicly ridiculed for having a non-existent ailment. And that is just a simple recent example. Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
M R Gray, GP Limerick, Ireland
Send response to journal:
|
Obtaining valid consent for an elective intervention like vaccination includes informing parents/guardians/patients of even remote recognised risks in a timely manner and reliably documenting same - as well as informing them of the benefits, particularly should they decide not to vaccinate, and documenting same. For those to be vaccinated, I suggest giving parents/guardians/adult patients the manufacturers patient information sheets that accompany the vaccine packaging in advance, assuming they can read, and documenting what was given. For infant vaccines this would be at the time of the two or six week check. The MMR/travel/other vaccine sheets should be given at the time of making the appointment for vaccination as information supplied too far in advance of an elective procedure (or just before) may be deemed untimely and invalid. On returning for vaccination any questions/concerns of parents/guardians/patients can be addressed prior to signing a consent form, which should confirm that current manufacturers information sheets were supplied and that Dr.XY explained the content (Dr. XY also signing the consent form). We have practiced this for some time using a proforma consent sheet with a list of all vaccines, relevant ones to be ticked. It is rarely time consuming, and I suspect would involve a most appropriate party in the event of a challenge - the manufacturer. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John MM Rumbold, n/a West Midlands
Send response to journal:
|
I suggest Mr Miller reads up on the ethics of vaccine provision. The reason there are vaccine damage payments adminstered by the government is because it is recognised that some individuals suffer adverse effects from vaccination. This is because individuals are not fully informed. As usual the legal profession do not make the world a better place. What does "fully informed" mean to Mr Miller? Fully informed by the conspiracy theorists like John Heptonstall? Patients having surgical procedures do NOT have to have every single possible adverse event disclosed to them - just the common and significant. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian K Midgley, GP Exeter EX1 2QS
Send response to journal:
|
Mr Clifford's posting is bunkum.
I took the trouble to read the reference he gives - which oddly enough turns out to be a rapid response by him and his argument there boils down to an assertion that the law is better at deciding scientific issues than any scientific process since it allows anyone who can get together 1000 people to say that something is so, to carry the day. Rubbish. The threat that unless we go through the whole of the evidence (surely not scientific evidence Mr Clifford, since your advice is that this is of no value outside a scientific experiment) with each individual parent and list every item of that advice for later inspection one of his erudite and estimable colleagues will sue us for negligence and personal injury is unconvincing. Some things are best done individually, and some are best done by society. Immunisation, in general and in bulk, where the same is expected to be given to each person is one of the latter. (Indeed, the process by which society arrives at such decisions has the elements that Mr Clifford offers as valuable - time for discussion, access for anyone to discuss it. It is clear that the result of those discussions has been that society prefers the scientific and medical view.)
Actual HistoryThe history of vaccination might be interesting here as well. The assertion that scientific investigation ignores what people know and say does not fit with the observation that dairymaids who had previously contracted cowpox were later immune to smallpox.This lead to the deliberate induction of cowpox, which produced immunity to Smallpox before exposure, and consequently made survival more likely. Similarly, in this country, Paralytic Polio was talked about widely, as was the fact after the introduction of immunisation with killed and then live viruses that paralytic Polio became rare and is now almost non-existent.
Evil and LiabilityWhat is also clear is that various people and groups for their own reasons seek to muddle parents, resulting in the persistence and recrudescence of Polio in some African countries recently and in this country in persistent vulnerability of some children, not all of them children of parents who make a deliberate decision to not immunise them.I would suggest that the position of anyone who an injured child can convince a court persuaded his parent to refrain from protecting him is in far more jeopardy than that of a GP or other healthcare professional who has been acting in accordance with the large body of opinion backed up by a scientific basis for belief in the effectiveness of the treatment. In fact I am disappointed that no newspaper nor anti-immunisation activist has yet been hauled befor the courts to account for their actions in respect of an individual afflicted by a preventable disease. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Magda Taylor, Director of The informed Parent P O Box 4481, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2WH
Send response to journal:
|
Society does not arrive at decisions regarding vaccination. This procedure has been decided for by a small number of so-called experts. For too long society has depended on various policymakers, in the belief that 'they' know what's best. Society does not 'prefer' scientific and medical views - it just depends on these views blindly, as society does not usually research these matters. I would strongly urge Dr Midgley to do further research into this subject and take a closer look at the 'actual history.' The law enforcing smallpox vaccination in the UK, in the late 1860s, resulted in approx. 275% INCREASE in mortality rates - why was that?? Death rates from whooping cough, measles, diphtheria, tuberculosis and scarlet fever (without any vaccination) had all declined dramatically BEFORE vaccination programmes, in some cases by 95% decline. The redefinition of polio helped eliminate many of the cases during the 1950s. And what about the numerous polio outbreaks that have occurred following vaccination campaigns in various parts of the world? Polio is a harmless gut virus in a healthy person. Isn't it about time the 'germ theory of disease' is seriously debated, especially since Pasteur himself apparently stated that 'the germ is nothing, the soil is everything.' Additionally, if the WHO acknowledges that antibody levels are not necessarily an indication of immunity, then how is one able to say, with any certaintity, who is immune and who is not?? Good health is the best prevention from disease, in my opinion. Whereas, injecting a cocktail of bacteria, virus, mercury products, aluminium products, formaldehyde, animal and bird products and so on, directly into the system, and by-passing the natural route of infection, does not sound like a health promoting procedure to a growing number of people, including some medical professionals. There does not appear to be any exact science surrounding this procedure, so society's primary job should be to base it's vaccination decision on a thorough study of the subject and make an educated choice. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ruth E Acaster, Full-time Mother Worthing, West Sussex
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Midgley stated in his response that 'various people and groups for their own reasons seek to muddle people', who are these people, nay Groups! When I decided to take responsibility for my daughters health and thoroughly research Vaccination I was shocked at what I discovered. I made the decision to not vaccinate as I could find no evidence from either GP, nor the numerous books I read and lectures I attended that Vaccines are either safe, effective in preventing the diseases they are meant to prevent. Also that the mortality rates for the diseases we now vaccinate against had declined by 95% before Vaccination was introduced in the 1960's. Noone has ever bullied me into NOT having my daughter vaccinated, these 'anti-immunisation activists'! I have however been bullied by a number of GP's and Health Visitors because of the Informed Decision I have made, Vaccination Activists? Each parents should be given information on side-effects before they decide to immunise, better still they should read books about the subject. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Janet D Harris, Retired Nurse n17 6xd
Send response to journal:
|
I am writing in response to the letter from Magda Taylor on the history of vaccination and agree with her wholeheartedly. We are constantly being warned of 'measles epidemics' because of low vaccination uptake yet, when there are cases of measles, the figures are so small as to be derisory, as the recent 'scare' in Wales showed. Three infected who made a good recovery and three other 'possibles', who never made the headlines. Now in my late 60's, as a child I had the lot - measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, whooping cough - all caught by natural means, contracted from other children and passed on to more by yours truly. We all made full recoveries, blissfully unaware we were building up our immune systems. In those days, such illnesses were a childhood rite of passage and accepted as such by our parents and grandparents, who had also survived the diseases. Yes, there were deaths but how many other factors were involved? Ongoing bad health, poverty and malnourishment of a kind not seen today - these were the elements that played a major part in childhood mortality, not an infectious disease alone. My great-grand-daughter (7) had the MMR vaccination after much soul searching, as two of my grandchildren are on the autistic continuum, and who both received the MMR. My great-grand-daughter had the infant shot and the pre-school booster which, theoretically, should have given her immunity. Yet last Christmas she (and some of her also immunised classmates) was seriously ill with a bad case of measles! I look forward to one of your vaccination proponents explaining this phenomenon. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Patrick Kiely, Hospital Consultant Limerick
Send response to journal:
|
Having had my attention grabbed by your headline "Dutch doctors warn parents over whooping cough vaccine" I realise the problem isn't the vaccine itself, rather a lack of vaccination uptake. Would you consider altering your title to read "Dutch doctors warn parents over whooping cough"? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Teik E Tan, Anaesthesiologist Penang Adventist Hospital, Malaysia 10450
Send response to journal:
|
" Also that the mortality rates for the diseases we now vaccinate against had declined by 95% before Vaccination was introduced in the 1960's. " Can we have the reference for this claim? I know this was stated in an internet 'anti-vaccination' website. Did the few people who believe this read this from the internet? Please bear in mind anyone can claim just about anything and put up a respectable looking website. Just like the authentic looking website (with movie clip) claiming the Americans did not land on the moon! I am neither pro nor anti vaccination but I believe public health officials in so many countries are not induced by financial or other benefits to promote vaccinations as primary prevention (as some anti- vaccine websites claim). Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Midgley and Rumbold both take Clifford Miller to task yet both appear to be way off the mark in their assumptions, especially Rumbold who again fails to provide any evidence for his apparent erroneous statements - vaccine damage payments are made for vaccine damage; and physicians and other medical personnel responsible for infecting/injecting the patient who is subsequently damaged, who has carried out the procedure in accordance with rules and regulations but has failed to provide for proper informed consent of that patient, would be negligent and should face prosecution. Midgley fails to see that the law is better at deciding scientific issues that cause harm than any science, especially in the case of vaccine science as it is at present so flawed. Neither safety nor efficacy of any vaccine can be guaranteed for any person, that is why the vaccine damage payments (a flawed system I believe) scheme exists thanks to revelations about serious ADRs to the DTP vaccine in the 1970s that led to the creation of that scheme. I believe the scheme is flawed because it places the onus on the victim to prove damage from vaccine not on the vaccine distributor to prove safety and innocence of damage – when a parent experiences a child being hit and damaged by a vehicle it is the victim’s right in law to have the vehicle driver defend the damaging action, not the victim. When a parent experiences a healthy child’s demise after vaccination it should be the vaccinator who faces legal questions not the child who is damaged. A more equitable system would be the creation of a body of completely independent autonomous (of government and industry) public defenders paid through the public purse from legal and scientific backgrounds whose role is protecting the public interest through prosecuting anyone whose intentional infecting of another through vaccination causes harm to that person; through that special prosecution a vaccine damage payment scheme can arise. Midgley continues his bunkum by intimating that doctors need not ‘detail advice given’ to evidence their obtaining of fully informed consent before vaccinating – I suspect that in the ever increasing climate for sueing for negligence GP M R Gray’s response contains much more sensible advice. I would further suggest Midgley studies ‘Actual History’ more carefully, especially about the oft-repeated Jenner smallpox episode where Mr Midgley’s rose tinted spectacles would immediately cloud over if he realised the scale of damage the smallpox vaccines caused globally since their inception. The Encyclopaedia Britannica was bought out lock stock and barrel in the late 1890s by vested ‘vaccine creating’ interests to erase and rewrite any note of the public outcry against the damaging vaccines of the 1800s that led to its demise. If I remember correctly both Jenners’ key ‘guinea pigs’, his son and another lad, died of TB before their 20s. Midgley’s ‘Evil and Liability’ fails to evidence his claims of the ‘muddling of parents’ as if the only message is the current scientific model – as if that is not enough to muddle parents. Recently science reminds us that vaccines are not necessarily safe, that attenuation of pathogens may be unleashing ever more types of pathogen into our communities hence from Hep A we now have B, C, D, E and from Meningitis A we now have B, C, X, Y and who knows how many others, and suggests that the efficacy of vaccines can no longer be deduced by measuring antibody status (1)! So why is there no independent investigation on behalf of our unsuspecting public into the true value and safety of vaccines which appears now to be so crucial as disease of many kinds, that may be largely vaccine-induced, ravages our children in ever greater numbers? The true evil is in the denying of an open, independent enquiry into this ‘scientific fiasco’ that Mr Midgley places so much faith in. Long before any 'vaccine realist/activist' is prosecuted science and public defenders need to get their act together to find out just what 'science' is being played out and what role it has in protecting and damaging public health. Regards John H. References 1. http://www.utu.fi/research/tic/projects/mertsola.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Carol Johnston, Carer Carshalton, Surrey
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Midgley is of a mind that children damaged by vaccine preventable diseases should take legal action against their parents/caregivers. This course of action should also be open to children damaged by the vaccines. Children like mine should prosecute their parents for making an "uniformed decision" which lead to severe autism, bowel disease. I stand guilty as charged. Knowing that the problems my children suffered resulted from a decison based on the belief that vaccines were indeed the best way to prevent lifelong disability. I held my son whilst they injected him with the vaccine that changed the course of his life. Gone are the dreams of standing on the side lines watching him play football on a Sunday morning, going to University, travelling around the world, having a relationship, bringing his mates home, nagging at him to tidy his room, getting married having children of his own. He had so much potential. The future which once looked bright now holds uncertaintanty and a sense of fear and apprehension. What will the future hold for children like mine? A residential home? My daughter is not so severely affected. She has learning difficulties and is delayed but is high functioning autistic. There is more hope for my daughter - although I doubt if she will ever live an independent life. If my son ever learns to communicate and he finds out that it was my fault that his life was ruined. Will he hate me for not finding out more? I would not blame him as noone could possibly match the anger I feel against myself for not finding out more about these vaccines. My daughter when she realises will she hate me? These children have had their lives ruined by these so called miracles of modern medicine. Is the death or loss of quality of one child's life a risk worth taking? How can anyone possibly justify the statement the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks? My son could have gone through life without catching a natural infection - he was a strong little boy. He probably would have weathered the infection without any long term complications. I could have lived with the natural infection knowing it was fate. I had measles and mumps as a child I am sure my son would have fought the infection as I had done as a child. If I could turn the clock back I would never have given either of my children any vaccine. I failed in the one of the most basic duties of a mother, I exposed my children to harm. I should be prosecuted for negligence and I hope they throw the book at me. Its no good anyone saying "I should not blame myself" - I blame myself and nothing anyone can say or do will change the fact that the blame lays with me. I made the decision to have them vaccinated. What words of hope would you offer for children like mine Dr Midgley? Perhaps you would like to reassure them of the benefits of vaccination- whatever they are? Incidentally both my children have had mumps. My son developed measles 5 days after MMR. Competing interests: 2 children ASD post MMR |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ruth E Acaster, Full-time Mother Worthing, West Sussex
Send response to journal:
|
I apologise for not referencing my statements! I hope you find the following of some help. 1) 20th Century Mortality, 1907-1997. CD-Rom. Office for National Statistics. Crown Copyright 1999. ISBN 1857742397. 2) The Role Of Medicine, Chapter 8-Medical Achievement. T McKeown (1979) ISBN 0631112618. Thank you for your interest! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hilary Butler, freelance journalist Home 1892, NZ
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, In answer to Teik E. Tan, from Malaysia, who wants a reference that whooping cough, measles, TB, diphtheria etc all declined by very substantial amounts prior to vaccination, I am surprised he would need any references at all. In England this data would be compiled from the annual reports of the Registrar General (who in one of his reports in the late 1800's commented on the death of a man from smallpox, who he said, had had smallpox nine times before "but this time, he died"...) In Australia, the data is readily available in many universities, and much can be gleaned from a book called "Health Sickness and Soceity" by Dr Douglas Gordon who was Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Queensland. I found a graph for the decline in Tetanus in the USA from 1900 to 1964, ironically, in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1969, which certainly did not prove the contention that vaccination contributed to the long term decline of this disease. There have been many many medical articles written on the issue, and even some of the older text books discuss in great detail, this phenomenon of not only drastic reduction in mortality, but also attenuation of disease. I have only done the work comprehensively for New Zealand. And I cannot give him a medical reference for what I found. And here is why. I got all the statistics for this country from 1872 onwards, from the following sources. 1) Appendices to parliamentary journals, remitted by the Health Departments of the time. I cross references these with: 2) Official year books, which contained a vast array of carefully broken down data, including hospital admissions,discharges and deaths by disease. 3) Official morbidity and mortality handbooks. 4) A book called "Challenge for Health" published in 1964, by Dr F. S. Maclean I took all the raw data, and compiled the graphs for this country myself. Apart from some early graphs, published by the Health Department of this country in, ironically, the appendices to parliamentary journals in about 1930, comprising statistics from 1872 - 1929, the graphs I compiled, as far as I know, are the only ones for this country, in existence. Many years ago, I sent them all to the Health Department, along with an accompanying journalist. They somewhat grumpily admitted that the graphs were indeed correct, but considered such information "irrelevant" to life today. However, for Dr Tan's edification, I will give him an extract from the New Zealand Appendices to Parliamentary Journals, 1932, page H-31: "An outstanding feature noteworthy over many years is that the death- rates from the common infectious diseases appear to show a steady and definite reduction. The greatest example is typhoid fever. A five year average taken fifty years ago, gave a mortality more than forty times that for the five years ending in 1931. We still experience epidemics of scarlet fever, diphtheria, measles and whoopin-cough, but these epidemics give an annual deathprate very much lower than that expereinced in former epidemics, while in the intervening non-epidemic years the sporadic cases have assumed a milder type and give a reduced death rate.... These reductions are so great and so sustained that one is forced to the conclusion that good environemtn (to use a comprehensive terms which includes measures taken to improve diet and hygiene) is steadily removing these diseases. This same tendency in lesser degree is noticeable in the vital statistics of closely populated England and is coincident in both countries with improving nutritional and hygienic conditions, including welfare measure directed mainly to those in special need of guidance or protection. The thought then arises, despite the prophesies of certain epidemiologist who, on historical ground, predice a recurrence of high infectious disease virulence and mortality and perhaps undervalue the influence of improved environments, and those of the immunologists who regard the subject as essentially one of acquired immunity, whether or not New Zeland, and even closely populated England, can by the maintenance, or even the improvement of a good environement retain the natural resistance of their peoples to these diseases. The Dominion is now, unfortunately, experience a period of want and poverty, and, pending necessary adjustments, there will be some overcrowding of persons in dwellings. Doubtless this will in some measure mar our vital statistics, but such effect is not yet noticeable. It is to be hoped that restoration of the economic balance can be achieved in order that the beneficient influence over many years of steady improvement in the nutrition and hygienic environemtn of the poorer people will not be greatly lessened." A man, ahead of his time, I would say. I have seen identical compilation of mortality data for the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Germany, and it is equally as "impressive" as that available for New Zealand. Yet this phenomen, well documented in all countries that cared to keep the data, has become a taboo topic to discuss or even attempt to quantify in the medical world today. I would suggest to Dr Tan, that instead of wanting someone to spoon feed him data from elsewhere, which is there if he knew where to look for it, perhaps he could request the same data from his own health officials, and when he has compiled the graphs for Malaysia, submit them, and the raw data for independant review, and when the data is certified as verified, he should submit them to the BMJ for publication. If we could all have this data published OFFICIALLY from all countries, perhaps we would then be in a position to really discuss the issues. Instead of attempting to shoot the messenger rather than look at the actual issue. Sincerely, Hilary Butler. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK based
Send response to journal:
|
Carol Johnston is one of vast numbers of parents who are suffering many times over because they have children who became ill/developed autism after vaccine. One strand of that suffering is that they are forced to also blame themselves as the system no longer accepts blame. It has no reverse gear. This is of course, legal speak. Its nothing to do with science, or morality or compassion. Carol wrote "Its no good anyone saying "I should not blame myself" - I blame myself and nothing anyone can say or do will change the fact that the blame lays with me. I made the decision to have them vaccinated." Just over a week ago Alan Yurko was freed from prison in Florida where he had served 7 years of a life sentence. The evidence on which he was jailed was so poor, that the Judge was compelled to order a new trial. Baby Alan Yurko died 10 days after his triple DTP vaccine. Instead of staying in prison to await a new trial, there was a plea bargain. This led to Alan being freed immediately and there will be no trial. In this `plea bargain` he did what Carol and so many others do - he totally blamed himself for allowing his child to be vaccinated, and so accepted negligence for the outcome. What kind of society have we built, in which systems can force parents to vaccinate their children, through threats, `research` spin and propaganda, then step back in silence as they allow them to take the blame for the outcome? It's one I am ashamed to be part of. Until the negligence of a system blinded by power and money is exposed, it will continue to take advantage of parents and children and I have no doubt lawyers will work out how children can proceed to sue their parents for doing what the system coerced them into doing in the first place. It will be easy - not because they are guilty - its obvious it's the system which is at fault, and grossly so. But because 'the system' is increasingly proving to us that it is incapable of accepting it's responsibilities, and parents always will. Competing interests: Specialist in Autism and associated spectrum disorders |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hilary Butler, freelance journalist home 1892 NZ
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, Janet Harris, writes with good sense and practicality. However, she states, and I quote: "My great-grand-daughter had the infant shot and the pre-school booster which, theoretically, should have given her immunity. Yet last Christmas she (and some of her also immunised classmates) was seriously ill with a bad case of measles! I look forward to one of your vaccination proponents explaining this phenomenon. " Our two children both went through the remarkable phenomenon of getting Measles twice. The first time, they caught it from children who four weeks before, had had the MMR, and subsequently got measles. We happened to be staying with them at the time the spots came forth. In due time, our children got it, with classical symptoms, and were diagnosed amongst much "tut-tut"-ing, that we hadn't vaccinated. Two years later, they both got it again, about a month after the local school had their 11 year old vaccination campaign. The youngest one got bronchial complications, and for whatever reason, the doctor decided that since you can't possibly get measles twice, it must me meningitis. Never mind that he showed no symptoms of meningitis. However, to keep him happy, we duly complied, and took said child to the hospital, where, joys of joys, they saw the koplik spots etc, and declared it to be measles. Until, that is, they saw that their colleagues had likewise diagnosed measles two years before, on the same set of symptoms. More "tut-tut"ing about not vaccinating followed, whereupon I asked if one bout of measles didn't prevent a second, exactly what value did they consider a vaccine? Particularly as the vaccine was the only place our children could have got it from both times. After consultation with a higher up honcho, the registrar duly informed us that it was not measles. It was a morbilli-like infection, and that there were around 25 other viruses which could cause measles like symptoms. So I asked for a blood test to confirm whether "this" was the real measles, or the one two years before was. This request was refused, on the basis that it was a waste of public resources, since my child obviously wasn't going to die. But before I left, I asked the registrar a question. That, if the vaccine only contained one virus, and there were 25 more out there, how then could they sustain the argument that the measles vaccine wiped out measles, if the vaccine only related to one-twenty-sixth of potential causes? There was silence. I have to wonder which coat was cut to fit which cloth. Sincerely, Hilary Butler. PS About a year after this, I came across a doctor, who for years had blood tested every child who had measles like symptoms. This doctor informed me, that they had at least 10 year's laboratory proof that children can and do, get measles more than once. But that no journal would agree to publish the results of their careful serological compilations. Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Pat Rattigan, Writer naturopath herbalist Chesterfield S41 0HH
Send response to journal:
|
Unless I am missing the obvious, the latest MRC advert. for the MMR vaccination seems to be telling us only that not all MMR-jabbed children develop autism : we know that. What they should be doing is looking at the MMR and at the original cause of autism, the pertussin vaccine : also, at children who have had no vaccines at all. Pat Rattigan N.D. 1 Quarrybank Chesterfield S41 0HH 01246 230474 Trustee Vaccination Awareness Network Competing interests: Anti-vaccination campaigner |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian K Midgley, GP Exeter EX1 2QS
Send response to journal:
|
MMR - looked at
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I think "looked at" for that reference needs more than a little qualification by Dr. Midgley... Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian K Midgley, GP Exeter EX2 1QS
Send response to journal:
|
Magda Taylor asked for a closer look at the history of vaccination, and then demonstrated a need for it herself:-
She said: "look at the 'actual history.' The law enforcing smallpox vaccination in the UK, in the late 1860s, resulted in approx. 275% INCREASE in mortality rates - why was that?" (above here) Vaccination is the use of the Cowpox - Vaccinia - virus. Ms Taylor is conflating this with Variolation which is the innoculation of the Smallpox - Variola - virus which is considerably more dangerous. So the the answer to the specific question, or challenge, is that that isn't, historically, what happened. It would be interesting to look at Leicester, to see why Variolation continued after Jenner's work was published, and probably someone has done so. I've not looked for figures on the effectiveness of variolation in preventing subsequent death from Smallpox, because it was superseded by vaccination. It is interesting though to look for a moment at it though, as a failed procedure abandoned by scientific medicine. Pardon me if I lump several people together, but one recurring argument is something about "natural immunity" and the repeated assertion that exposure to the real pathogenic virus of various diseases produces a better quality of immunity than the attenuated virus or components of the virus (eg in Measles, Rubella and Polio). That sounds remarkably like the process of variolation. This particular conflation is repeated many times in various tracts, along with various other simply untrue assertions. If this is accidental then the standard of work is appallingly low, if not then no other part of those writings should be considered reliable either. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian K Midgley, GP Exeter EX1 2QS
Send response to journal:
|
Heptonstall relates that Smallpox Vaccine has been linked to Tuberculosis. A note on the effect on Tb immunity testing of giving Smallpox vaccination at http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/tb/notes/TBN_2_03/timing_tb_testing.htm may be one source for this trope, which is copied many times in anti- vaccination web pages. A fine example of these tells us about it a little distance up the page from the information that Christians will all see that all immunisations are "a Satanic Assault upon the Blood". I think that page is serious, and given its high position in the Google ranking order, quite enough people have linked their pages to it that I suppose they must want to associate themselves with it. A problem for Mr Heptonstall is that if vaccination (which he conflates with variolation) causes deaths from Tuberculosis, then in the period after Jenner when vaccination took over from variolation and then became generally used, he would have to show us an increase in Tuberculosis. The problem arises because he would have it that Tuberculosis was declining during that period, due to {some handwaving} and prior to the introduction of anti-tuberculous drugs and the BCG immunisation. Heptonstall can't have both arguments, unless he presents them far enough away from each other that people forget one before meeting the other. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I suggest it's Dr Midgley whose "standard of work is appallingly low" and not that of Magda Taylor or "others" who disagree with him:- Variolation, which Midgley "has not looked for figures on the effectiveness of in preventing subsequent deaths from smallpox" but introduces this as having something to do with smallpox interventions in Leicester, was said by the NIH to have been "used in Asia....and saw between 1% and 2% of those variolated die as compared to 30% who died when they contracted the disease naturally" (1). Vaccination superceded variolation in the UK after very questionable deals between government, Jenner and the medical fraternity involving large monetary rewards (sounds familiar). Due to public mistrust, and refusals, mandatory vaccination was enforced then later repealed when the UK public strongly resisting vaccination which they, and concerned physicians at the time, claimed spread smallpox like wild fire. The evidence and statistics are available for everyone to see (2)(3) so Midgley might be inclined to improve his work standard by reading, absorbing and commenting on them - perhaps try to refute them? Leicester refused VACCINATION of it's children "and smallpox became about the least dangerous of all diseases" (2) - a telling extract from the free press of the time. I am suprised that medics persist in being deluded by the commercial vaccination lobby despite evidence, such as the smallpox vaccination truths, that is available for them to educate themselves. Why accept without question that attenuation of a wild pathogen merely recreates a safe version of the same pathogen that induces a mild form of the same disease in the vaccinated when studies have shown that attenutaed pathogens are able to recreate themselves from host DNA into more dangerous pathogenic forms? There is sufficient evidence for Occam's Razor to suggest that vaccination with live attenuated pathogens creates new diseases that in some cases do, and in others do not, bear resemblance to the diseases of the original wild pathogen. These diseases are given names such as MS, ME, CFS, ASD, PDDs, and those of known diseases such as diabetes, meningitis, encephalitis, and paralysis all of which have at some time been implicated by researchers as possible outcomes of vaccination. Disease terminology that excludes "vaccination" as probable cause obfuscates the issue - against the best interests of society - and is analogous to ignoring the knike which pierced the heart by calling the resulting outcome 'heart failure'. National statistics would be adversely affected by that ignorance, and the concept of heart failure, yet the simple addition of "knife induced" to 'heart failure' provides a true perspective that, with patho-physiological data, can inform future practice. Were one to analyse each vaccination outcome objectively one would apply an appropriate classification to each outcome associated with vaccination. They would necessarily have taken account of individuals traits such as state of health at the time of vaccination, immunity, blood type, physical make-up, genetic and familial characteristics etc. that, together with vaccination, led to a "vaccine-induced" disorder that might then be diagnosed as a known, similar, or unknown "vaccine induced" disorder - the emphasis being on "vaccine-induction" as opposed to currently inadequate labels bearing no sign of cause, so common to medical labels. The public in the 1800s were not stupid, they saw smallpox following vaccination and said so. The public of the 21st century is equally astute so let's see if vaccinator Midgley is capable of supplying any credible evidence to refute the evidence provided in abundance by those astute citizens of the 19th and 21st centuries. Regards John H. References 1. www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/smallpox/sp_variolation.html 2. www.whale.to/vaccine/tebb1.html 3. www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox4.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I can find no scientific evidence in Midgley's response to refute, if that was his intention, his statement that "Heptonstall relates that Smallpox Vaccine has been linked to Tuberculosis". I have no idea whether Christians saw all immunisations as "A Satanic Assault on the Blood" in the days the links between TB and Smallpox Vaccine (SV) were originally established. I doubt it's true now. I doubt their views had anything to do with links between TB and SV. He opines that if vaccination causes deaths from TB there should have been an increase in TB when vaccination took over from variolation - possibly of course but not necessarily and if one actually reads the evidence provided one understands why - then continues saying "he would have it that TB was declining in that period ...prior to anti-TB drugs and BCG immunisation" and presents these as my arguments. When did I argue this? I can assure Adrian that, although he may think he's a mind reader, in this case he's (not surprisingly) off base. To return to his opening gambit in which he probably refers to one of my references - an interesting slant on Smallpox and Vaccination written by a Susan Claridge and found at www.archetypeltd.co.nz/Smallpox.htm Susan Claridge says that vaccination (with cowpox), as opposed to variolation (with smallpox), carries/d a strong risk of TB. Using data collected and collated from authoritative sources from during, before and beyond the 19th century, she uses an old quote that "cowpox is not natural to the cow, it never occurs in bulls or steers, nor in young heifers that have never been milked; it is a disease of milking cows which has been communicated to them from syphillitic milkers"...therefore cowpox cannot induce immunity to smallpox (but perhaps for syphilis?) and actually increases the probability of developing smallpox due to immune deficits caused through cowpox vaccination - and seen in the 19th century when cowpox vaccine led to the spreading of smallpox nationwide. If that is not true, statistics, immunology, microbiology and pathology ought to refute this; could Midgley provide the scientific evidence for refutation? Claridge evidences her claims through eg. McBean 1959; "Comparison of symptoms and progression of cowpox and syphilis are exactly the same, whereas the symptoms and progression of smallpox differ markedly" E. M. Crookshank, a renowned biologist; "Cowpox has never been converted into human smallpox, their clinical history and epidemiology are so different" Hence the belief that cowpox is bovine syphilis - not something one wishes to be injected with. The TB link is derived from the statement "not only did smallpox vaccination not prevent smallpox...it contributed to the spread of other diseases, most notably syphilis and tuberculosis, but also leprosy, scarlet fever, tetanus and polio....TB is a widespread problem in cattle and it is only logical that in inoculating people with the pus from a diseased cow, or from the vaccine lesion of a person already vaccinated, that more than 'cowpox' virus was transferred. James Phipps and Edward Jenners son, both guinea pigs for Jenner, both died of TB at 20 and 21 years of age having been subjected to multiple inoculations". In order to disprove the link between 'smallpox vaccination and TB' one has to compare rates for all disorders (scarlet fever, syphilis, polio etc.) with cowpox vaccine spread. This has not even been done with MMR. We have seen a string of epidemiological studies considering autism alone as a possible outcome of MMR whilst ignoring public experience of MMR-related ASD/PDDs, juvenile arthritis, epilepsy, asthma, allergies, meningitis, SSPE, encephalitis, etc., potential outcomes of MMR vaccination which, though surprisingly ignored by researchers, easily confound the epidemiology. One requires scientific objectivity and clarity - could Adrian Midgley perhaps demonstrate this by providing scientific refutation of Susan Claridges claims? Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian K Midgley, GP Exeter EX1 2QS
Send response to journal:
|
"Why not look at someone who does viruses in Leicester?" I thought. This looks like a carefully thought out tutorial at the University of Leicester http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/Tutorials/Pox/ I am making further enquiries, history is interesting, but one needs primary records, or at least material written by people who have seen them. Some weirdness crept into Mr Heptonstall's account after the first few lines. The bit about Cow Syphhilis is too stupid to tackle.
Both the Vaccinia and the Variola viruses genomes have been sequenced, and the evolutionary diagram from that is interesting. (link from Dr Cann's excellent website)
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I’ll begin with Midgley’s final comment “vaccinia’s closest relative appears to be camelpox” and refer him to (1) “The sequence of camelpox virus shows that it is most closely related to variola virus, the cause of smallpox” – now who’s confused? Midgley’s comments about “weirdness” and “too stupid to tackle” conflict with (2) - was Midgley ‘too stupid to tackle’ the ‘weird’ data? I quote, “From the introduction of smallpox vaccination approximately 200 years ago up to its discontinuation (1980), reports by physicians and scientists about side-effects such as healing of chronic skin rashes, reduced susceptibility to various infectious diseases eg measles, scarlet fever and whooping cough, even the prophylactic use of vaccination eg against syphilis…..”. Midgley notes from Cann “the vaccinia and variola virus genomes have been sequenced, and the evolutionary diagram from that website is interesting” but fails to mention that Cann says “all the modern vaccine strains are vaccinia” then continues, “ there’s a slight problem. Although we administered more than a billion doses...it’s a bit embarrassing, this...we don’t actually know what vaccinia virus is, or where it came from”. Apparently vaccinators have been spreading a virus globally for years without knowing what it is or where it comes from – except that it is not smallpox or cowpox – but are convinced “it works”! There are people who do not think it works, who may have reason to discount dogma reinforced by the disappearance of smallpox concurrent with essential sanitation, reduction of poverty and eg. disappearance without vaccination of concurrent diseases like scarlet fever. Did smallpox disappear along with ‘vaccination’? To facilitate Midgley's quest for “material written by a person who has seen them”, I propose the physician, Dr Walter S. Hadwen, who comments from experience (3). Hadwen remembers, ..."26 years ago there was an outbreak of smallpox at Redruth, in Cornwall. The Press in all parts of the United Kingdom was immediately supplied with exaggerated reports, and scares were created by public vaccinators hundreds of miles away. I went down to investigate the affair on my own account. There were altogether 44 cases; 84 per cent occurred in vaccinated persons. ...the epidemic in Gloucester in 1895-6. I was in and out of the smallpox houses throughout that visitation of nearly 2,000 cases. The echo of it is still heard among the ranks of Jennerian followers, and always with the tragic whisper, "Gloucester was an unvaccinated city!" Never in all the history of professional scaremongering was such a determined effort made to boost vaccination, and never a word was uttered as to the shocking insanitary conditions which produced the tragedy. In fact, those conditions were persistently denied by the officials who were responsible for them. ...Sheffield and its epidemic in 1887-8. No less than 98 per cent of the population had been vaccinated; it was the best vaccinated town in the kingdom the public vaccinators had reaped a richer harvest of bonuses for "successful vaccination" than those of any other town, and yet they had 7,000 cases of smallpox. It originated and clung to an unsanitary area of 175 acres covered with cesspits -- which was called The Croft. The medical profession helplessly cried "vaccinate" and "re-vaccinate" -- as if the pubic had not already had enough of it. At last the floodgates of heaven were mercifully opened, and the bountiful rains suddenly accomplished what 56,000 vaccinations had failed to effect. ...visiting Glasgow in two of its smallpox epidemics. The slums in which they occurred; the overcrowded and unsanitary condition of the tenements told, the same tale as elsewhere. Nothing but sweeping away, the rookeries, where smallpox invariably, takes hold, can ever save those parts of the city from periodical visitations. ...before the passing of the Public Health Act of l875 in this country, every succeeding epidemic of smallpox was worse than its predecessor in spite of more and more compulsory vaccination; but with less and less vaccination and more and more sanitation smallpox has become a comparative curiosity. It is only in unsanitary quarters it can gain a hold. Regards John H. Reference 1. “The Sequence of camelpox virus shows it is most closely related to variola virus, the cause of smallpox”, Gubster C, Smith GL, J Gen Virol 2002 Apr; 83(Pt4): 855-72 2. “Taking advantage of the positive side-effects of smallpox vaccination”, Mayr A, J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health 2004 Jun; 51(5): 199-201 3. ttp://www.mercola.com/2001/may/5/vaccination_smallpox.htm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian Midgley, GP Exeter EX1 2QS
Send response to journal:
|
Who is confused asks Heptonstall. Heptonstall is, I think. Lets try to stop it spreading. The thing about references is to read them, not just quote them. Dr Cann, who gives the appearance of being somewhat knowledgeable about viruses as one would expect from an appointment at Leicester appointment gives a map based on a 2004 reference. <b>Variola (smallpox) virus is most closely related to camelpox (Gubser C, et al. (2004) Poxvirus genomes: a phylogenetic analysis. J.Gen.Virol. 85: 105-117).</b> The detailed literature on sequencing is not one I, or probably anyone else with a proper job in something else is going to have time to keep up with, but reading the date on a paper should be within our powers. Heptonstall's reference is to a 2002 paper. It seems quite likely to me that in 2002 the relationship between the various Pox viruses was known to be close, and by 2004 some further refinement in the map was accomplished. But it isn't my work, so any further efforts to present the 2002 view as being correct over the 2004 view should be best addressed to the journals that published the papers, or the authors, and preferably accompanied by new lab work by the person putting it forward. For the moment I'll go with the view that Dr Cann is presenting in his tutorialas being the current state of the art. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
