Saturday, June 15, 2013

BMJ: Easier to character assassinate than to tell the truth about vaccines

Re: Measles in the UK: a test of public health competency in a crisis

14 June 2013

In my opinion public health competency has been tested and it has unequivocally failed the British public.
The authors refer to 'Wakefield's legacy' and seem to imply that problems with MMR vaccine started with the publication of The Lancet case series report in February 1998. This is their preferred start of the MMR controversy because it is more convenient to destroy one man's character than deal with the failings of the DH policy makers.
The DH and JCVI knew before the MMR programme began in October 1988 that 2 of the 3 brands carried a risk of meningitis and the third brand was linked with neurological complications, yet they sanctioned the use of all three brands. [1] [2]
During the first week of the new MMR campaign in 1988 an eighteen month old infant was given it, started with severe convulsions and subsequently died during a seizure. This child was one of a number of children awarded Government recognition of MMR vaccine-damage through vaccine damage payments following medical assessment of the individual cases.
The two Urabe mumps containing brands were subsequently withdrawn in September 1992 after four years of use and having had an 85% share of the MMR UK immunisation programme. As mentioned, the DH and JCVI knew of the link with mumps meningitis from these brands. They also knew it was down to a chance finding due to a cluster of meningitis cases in a short period of time coming to light in a Nottingham hospital which finally led to the full exposure of the problems. The hospital had a strict policy of routinely conducting lumbar punctures whenever a child was brought in following a febrile convulsion and the Urabe mumps vaccine strain showed up in the spinal fluid samples.
And what of the Urabe mumps MMR withdrawal? Did the DH contact every doctor in the country to cross check their patient records to determine if each child who had received either of the brands was developmentally well and thriving to the same degree as before the vaccine was given? The answer is no!
In 1995 the vaccine policy-makers were advised by the Health Protection Agency that the adverse event reporting system needed to be urgently improved because there was a serious under-reporting of side effects. Did they act urgently to make it absolutely compulsory for every serious side effect to be reported and investigated thoroughly. The answer is no!
During a meeting in 1997 with the health minister and top level DH officers the details of 1200 children suspected of suffering MMR/MR life changing or life ending adverse reactions were provided and a specific clinical investigation of each of the children was requested. Did they do this? The answer is no!
The parents of these children called for the continuation of single dose vaccines on the NHS as an acceptable alternative for any new parents concerned about MMR vaccines. Did the DH policy-makers do all in their power to stop the single vaccines from being phased out when the licences came up for renewal? The answer is no!
There was also an attempt to remove the licence from the importers of vaccines for private clinics just for the single measles, mumps and rubella components. Extreme measures to negate parental choice.
And now, when we are told there is an outbreak of measles in the UK there is no let-up by the DH. They continue to spend huge amounts of tax-payers' money to press home the MMR or nothing policy when the simple and money-friendly solution would be to re-instate the single dose vaccines ordered from the same companies currently supplying MMR for the UK market.
The World Health Organisation states in relation to measles vaccine [3]:
'...The measles vaccine has been in use for over 40 years. It is safe, effective and inexpensive. It costs less than one US dollar to immunize a child against measles.
The measles vaccine is often incorporated with rubella and/or mumps vaccines in countries where these illnesses are problems. It is equally effective in the single or combined form...'
Even now, after almost 25 years of the MMR controversy, Public Health spokespersons refer to MMR vaccine as 'perfectly safe'.
Recent press statements include: "...[MMR] is perfectly safe and perfectly effective." "That may mean that some young children will have three MMR jabs....That is not a problem. It is perfectly safe and perfectly effective." and one of the strongest claims: "There's no adverse effect to this extra jab [3rd MMR]....".
These statements should be challenged by everyone as they are totally at odds with the MMR vaccine manufacturers' product sheets and dismiss out of hand the acceptance and payments made by the Government's DWP Vaccine Damage Payment Unit.
The DH vaccine policy-makers continue to blatantly mislead UK parents about vaccine risks putting the MMR programme above informed consent.
Parents should not have to accept their children being sacrificed and dismissed as insignificant casualties by vaccine policy makers in an effort to promote MMR vaccine. These people take no responsibility for vaccine damaged children and then add further insult to injury by denying their very existence.
Sir Liam Donaldson stated this in his opinion piece:
'..The question society needs to answer is whether it is ethically acceptable to tolerate any serious complication, or death, from measles when an effective vaccine is available...'
As the mother of a child brain damaged by MMR vaccine I would re-phrase his words:
The question Sir Liam Donaldson needs to answer is why it is ethically acceptable to tolerate serious complication and death from MMR when an effective single dose vaccine is available for those parents who shun the MMR?
And while we are on the subject I would be very grateful if Sir Liam could explain why the answers to my questions are 'no' instead of 'yes'.
***
References:
[1] JCVI minutes of meeting February 1988
[2] Joint Sub-committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation
Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 8 March 1988 at 10:30am in
Room 1612, Market Towers
'...8. Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccines
(c) Five cases of mumps encephalitis following MMR have been reported from Canada. Four of these cases definitely followed the use of vaccine containing Urabe 9 mumps virus and the fifth probably did. This corresponded to a frequency of one per 100,000 doses and no sequelae had been reported in the sufferers. [name omitted] had discussed the incidence of mumps related complications from MMR with the Communicable Disease Center, Atlanta, whose data were unfortunately only superficial on this issue. In the United States, Jeryl Lynn mumps virus is included in MMR but no data were available on parotitis following MMR and many of the reported neurological complications were clearly related to the measles component....'
Competing interests: Mother of MMR vaccine damaged son

Re: Measles in the UK: a test of public health competency in a crisis

15 June 2013

Following up on Mrs. Fletcher's well documented remarks, I would like to add that both the FDA and Merck have always stated the following:
From the MMR-II package insert:
Clinical studies of 284 triple seronegative children, 11 months to 7 years of age, demonstrated that M-M-R II is highly immunogenic and generally well tolerated. In these studies, a single injection of the vaccine induced measles hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibodies in 95%, mumps neutralizing antibodies in 96%, and rubella HI antibodies in 99% of susceptible persons.http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
From the Attenuevax package insert:
Extensive clinical trials have demonstrated that ATTENUVAX is highly immunogenic and generally well tolerated. A single injection of the vaccine has been shown to induce measles hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibodies in 97% or more of susceptible persons.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedpro...
The monovalent measles vaccine would have been a smart addition to the MMR campaign in the recent measles outbreak,because:
1. It is much cheaper than the MMR
2. It is more effective against measles
3. It has been more extensively investigated in clinical trials
4. It would have been acceptable to those who still had concerns about the triple vaccine
It is regrettable that the decision makers opted again to completely ignore this information that they have always been aware of.
Competing interests: Grandfather of a young man with Regressive Autism who was perfectly fine until age 15 months

No comments: