Last week a High Court judge in the United Kingdom, Mrs Justice Theis, ruled that two sisters aged 15 and 11 should be given MMR vaccine against their will and that of their mother, after an application by their father (now divorced). This replicates earlier ugly cases of this kind, however – as the girls’ lawyer pointed out – it is still hard to see how they can be vaccinated without their cooperation, as the law properly makes no provision for physical constraint. She told the Mail on Sunday: “One of the interesting aspects of this case is the question of taking two healthy people and forcing them to submit to a medical procedure which they don’t want to submit to”. The decision may also go to the Court of Appeal.
The judge ruled that the girls were not competent to make a decision on their own behalf but you wonder at the wisdom of the judge when successive Cochrane Reviews have concluded “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate”: while the rhetoric of these papers was pro the vaccine, they failed to disguise the underlying failure to ensure that the product is safe . Likewise, the bureaucratic line that MMR does not cause autism has been contradicted by a number of decisions in the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) , and notably in an Italian court case last year, uncontested by the Italian government.
Presently, the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists 63,438 events for MMR and 322 deaths: the limitation of the system is that as a passive reporting system cases are unconfirmed but also likely to be under-reported by fifty or a hundred times . Although the British state has largely rigged itself against the acknowledgment or compensation of vaccine damage the UK’s Vaccine Damage Payment Unit were forced in 2010 to acknowledge the grotesque damage to Robert Fletcher from MMR after a battle of 18 years. Most years (in contrast to the US’s VICP which has paid out $2.5b since 1989) there are no payments at all, and any payments that are made do not exceed £120k (less than $200k). In the UK vaccination takes place effectively entirely at the risk of citizen, which is another unreasonable feature of the present system given the moral pressure on citizens to comply.
In an earlier episode British medical doctor and homeopath, Jayne Donegan, was brought into the defence of two similar cases, and was subjected to rough treatment by the courts. The reviewing judge, Lord Justice Sedley, dismissed her evidence as “junk science” and she found herself before General Medical Council on a charge of serious professional misconduct. In a remarkable reversal, however, the GMC panel completely vindicated her stating:
The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants.
You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this. You explained to the Panel that your approach in your report was to provide the court with an alternative view based on the material you produced in your references. That material was largely drawn from publications that were in fact in favour of immunisation.
It was clear from your evidence and the evidence of your witness that your aim is to direct parents to sources of information about immunisation and child health safety to help them to make informed choices.
You told us that there are many books by doctors and others in this and other countries who seriously question vaccination and they cite a lot of history, proofs and medical papers to support their arguments. You did not use any of those publications because you did not think that the Court would regard those as satisfactory support or references for your recommendations. You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals.
The Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased.
Accordingly, the Panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct.
This weekend Jennifer Horne-Roberts with her husband Keith Roberts, parents of the much missed Harry Horne-Roberts , wrote to the London Times:
The Judge who ordered that children be given the MMR vaccine against their wishes and that of their mother is gravely mistaken.
I was Counsel in the MMR/autism litigation in the UK, in a challenge in the High Court and ECtHR to the withdrawal of legal aid in 2004, which led to the abortion of a case crying out for trial in the interests of all the world's children. I am one of a handful of lawyers who read all the expert evidence in the case--which was a strong one, for the 1,000 plus Claimants.
I was also UK Counsel for the Claimants--advising on evidence--in the US OMnibus MMR/autism litigation,some of which cases were won or conceded by the Defendant the US Government. The US Governemnt has conceded the principle that MMR vaccine can cause autism (as do other multi-vaccines). in numerous cases since.
I am also the mother of a beautiful,brilliant son, Harry, whose life was wrecked by MMR jab Pluserix in 1990, a drug previously banned in Canada as dangerous under the name Trivarix,but licensed by the UK Government in 1988. Harry grew up autistic, after a very bad reaction to the MMR jab. His great talents in art and music and elsewhere shone through. It was obvious to all who knew him that he had a brilliant mind behind his autism. He was most difficult to bring up, was hypersensitive and often very anxious, a common trait of ASD people. Most tragically Harry died aged 20 as the result of administration of psychotropic drugs without the knowledge or consent of us his devoted parents. Psychotropic drugs are not appropriate for anxous ASD people, who are not psychotic, yet they are commonly in use as a chemical cosh. Our darling son lost his life to the wrong-headedness of the medical profession under the auspices of the British State, and as guided by the pharmaceutical industry.
The Judge's decision in point, if not overturned on appeal, also evidences a society which is neither free nor democratic.
You are unlikely to publish this letter, which in itself is evidence that we do not live in a democratic and free society, but one dominated by vested interests and the vast profits they make at public expense.
We should expect more from the members of our judiciary.
Jennifer Horne-Roberts, Barrister, Temple EC4.
Keith Roberts, Architect...........Parents of our most beloved Harry RIP
A version of this letter has now appeared in the Daily Mail October 18 2013 (added October 19).
For more on the unrespectable history of the British state and MMR vaccine visit the ChildHealthSafety website .
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.