Later this week the BBC screens its documentary The Conspiracy Files: Vaccination Wars. While vaccine program critics on both sides of the Atlantic have cooperated with this production do not expect any fair reporting: in fact the BBC long ago committed itself to the doctrine of false equivalence i.e. it does not matter how strong or rational the evidence is they will defer to the government-industry consensus. Even the use of the term "conspiracy" has slid into innuendo. Meanwhile, the documentary has been shared with the media but not the participants. Betrayal is their watchword.
One of the people to be interviewed for the documentary is Jackie Fletcher of JABS, pictured with her son Robert on the Wigan Today website. Even the British government was forced to acknowledge Robert's vaccine damage after an 18 year battle, which is unlikely to stop the BBC program makers sneering or being patronising. Earlier this month Jackie wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, regarding talk in the British media of compulsory vaccination for the under 5, and is awaiting a reply:
An Open Letter to The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care,
Houses of Parliament
London SW1A 0AA
I refer to the recent press coverage in the Guardian and Daily Mail newspapers (September 2019) where GP chairpersons of clinical commissioning groups in London have written to you promoting compulsory MMR vaccines for four and five year old pre-school children. It is reported that this suggested “shift in policy” is to “tackle ‘complacency’ among parents”.
In my experience parents are anything but complacent when it comes to the health of their children. It is the parents who hit a brick wall when they ask their doctors important questions about the real risks of the vaccines compared to the real risks of the illnesses.
In my opinion the signatories to the letter, and Mr Stevens (NHS Chief Executive) and the writers of these one-sided biased articles present a very simplistic understanding of the capacity of vaccines to prevent disease, and show either ignorance or callous disregard for the harm vaccines can and do sometimes cause.
To give an example of the harm caused by vaccines Professor Peter Aaby, ASc DMSc reported on a retrospective study for mortality in children given the DTP vaccine in Guinea Bissau, Africa: The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.
The conclusions stated: “DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP3 is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.
It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”(1)
History demonstrates that in the early part of the 20th century measles was indeed a killer, however, by the time the single measles (1967) and MMR vaccines (1988) were introduced it had become a relatively mild disease and mortality was very low. (2) (3)
Natural measles led to life-long immunity for most people and provided maternal immunity for babies under twelve months of age. MMR vaccines do not create sufficient maternal immunity which has resulted in measles being potentially much more dangerous for babies of this age group. Measles could also be more dangerous in adults where vaccine immunity has waned (4)
In 1988 the Government’s health minister promised only one MMR vaccine would be necessary to provide life-long immunity. (5) That turned out to be wrong as a second MMR was soon deemed necessary at pre-school age to offer ‘full’ protection. (6)
Mr Stevens has accepted recently that children vaccinated with two MMR vaccines can still catch mumps as teenagers and adults which also contradicts Government’s claims of efficacy for the MMR vaccine.
Public Health press statements have claimed that: “…[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]….” (7) (8)
These statements 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, over £74 million has been awarded to date. (9) (10)
And the questions being asked by parents?
Have MMR products ever been trialled against inert placebos, widely accepted as the gold standard for testing of medicines? (11)
Has the government forgotten that parents are supposed to be allowed to make an informed consent for any vaccine? Parents, if they are given anything, receive Public Health England’s (PHE) pamphlet on MMR rather than the vaccine manufacturers’ patient information leaflets. The standard for Informed Consent is apparently set by the Montgomery decision of 2015 and currently seems to be ignored. (12)
Has the government forgotten that health professionals only report between 2% and 10% of vaccine adverse reactions? (13)
Do the government’s ministers know that the medicines watchdog, the MHRA, fails to follow up on every adverse reaction reported? During meetings with the MHRA which I have attended, officers have stated that they do not routinely contact the reporting health professional, six months to 12 months later, to determine if the child fully recovered from the reaction or has further deteriorated.
Do government ministers not find it odd that PHE can tell us how many laboratory confirmed measles and mumps cases there are but not how many serious adverse reactions to vaccines have occurred?
Without this information the government has no accurate safety data on vaccines. A point that has been raised with the government time and time again. (14) (15)
And on the subject of safety data, a recent study sponsored by vaccine-makers compared two MMR vaccines: Merck’s MMR II and GSK’s Priorix (16). The children in the study were given a version of MMR and other vaccines and the results of the study were published. Adverse events resulting in emergency room visit: 10.1% in one group 10.4% in the other group. New onset chronic diseases following the vaccinations: 3.4% in one group 3.7% in the other group. Given that our vaccine policy-makers usually quote the chance of a severe reaction as 1 in a million, using the figures in the study this could mean if you vaccinated 1 million children with either MMR vaccine, 34,000 in one group and 37,000 in the other group were at risk of new onset chronic diseases. See Supplementary table 6 (17).
Do these figures give anyone in Government cause for concern?
Media reports have stated that the uptake rate for the first MMR is currently 92% but it falls to 87% for the second. Has anyone asked the parents why they didn’t return for the second dose?
My son suffered a severe reaction to his first MMR vaccine leaving him with devastating brain damage and long-term disabilities. (This has been accepted by the Government’s vaccine damage tribunal system.) When he reached pre-school age we received notifications that his second MMR dose was due. We refused, therefore you surely have to ask how many of the current pre-school children’s parents have declined for similar reasons?
And on the subject of compulsory vaccines: mandatory vaccinations were tried once before in the UK in the late 1800s. It did not go well. There was great hostility and considerable resistance and the plans had to be abandoned.
There is no mandate in the UK for any government to impose compulsion for any vaccine. Without democratic consent such a policy would face escalating opposition.
You only need to see what is going on in Italy, France, Germany, Poland, the United States and other countries following government plans to pass laws quickly, without proper public consultation, for mandatory vaccinations and the removal of exemptions. Threats of heavy fines, children to be excluded from nurseries, potential prison sentences for non-payers and the diabolical suggestion that children could be forcibly removed from their parents and vaccinated. Ever since plans were announced people have been taking to the streets of their major cities to protest against this attack on civil liberties. Is this really the way UK doctors want to take us?
And how could compulsory vaccinations be enforced? My son, who is severely vaccine-damaged (by MMR), has had many hospital emergencies because of his conditions. From being a baby through infancy to adulthood every time we are in the A & E department bloods need to be taken and staff have told us many times over the years that they are not allowed to restrain our son. My husband and I are expected to hold and calm him whilst they draw blood with our consent. If a doctor is faced with parents who refuse to give such consent and are under pressure to vaccinate a distressed child who is refusing to co-operate, how does the doctor vaccinate the child safely? And how does the doctor expect that child or the parents to ever trust him/her again?
Why does it need to be MMR or nothing? Dr Liam Fox when he was shadow health secretary stated that a Tory government would fund single dose vaccines to increase the inoculation rate. "We will be less doctrinaire and more pragmatic,” “…we would have to see whether we should make single dose vaccines available in certain areas to certain groups to get inoculation rates up…” (18)
What needs to be remembered is the question of MMR safety has never been resolved in the UK courts. Despite a multi-party MMR/MR legal action involving some 1400 children being brought over a number of years, the cases ended in 2007 because legal aid was withdrawn. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Keith stated in his closing remarks: “It is important for the claimants’ litigation friends to understand why their children’s claims are not being allowed to proceed. It is not because the court thinks that the claims have no merit. Although this litigation has been going on for very many years, the question as to whether the claims have merit has never been addressed by the court. The reason why the claims have not been allowed to proceed is because everyone has realistically recognised for some time that it is just not practicable for the claims to proceed without public funding…’ (19)
The way to resolve this issue is, not to accuse parents of complacency, or to attack those who question the safety and efficacy of vaccines or to smear them as “anti-vaxxers”. The majority of those people have vaccinated their children and have suffered the consequences. I believe the way forward is to hold vaccine manufacturers and policy-makers accountable and seek the answers to the points raised.
To conclude: In a recent presentation of his work Professor Peter Aaby stated: “I guess most of you may think we know what our vaccines are doing - we don’t.” If such an eminent vaccine expert holds this opinion on a number of widely used global vaccines how can anyone claim, including the Government, the science is settled with regard to the safety and effectiveness of any vaccine. Science is never settled, therefore no childhood vaccine should be made compulsory.
Mrs Jackie Fletcher
JABS Founder (Justice, Awareness & Basic Support, a support group for parents of vaccine-damaged children)
c.c. Jo Platt MP Lab. Leigh