Vaccine Debate Page
"I'm so tired, I could sleep upsidedown!" - Yanny, aged 2.
Here I am posting commentary from readers of this site, along with my responses. If you want to discuss a vaccination, health or breast feeding topic and debate with other readers, please send your comments to my email address (on the contact us page) and I will post them on this website.
Please note I won't publish posts which are offensive, racist, sexually explicit or have foul language. Please only genuine debate.
Christianity And Vaccination
just a note, with regards to the bit you wrote about christians and vaccinations, it is incorrect and not what christians believe.
we believe what jesus said:
"Listen to me everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." ......."For it doesn't go into into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (And in saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean').
God seriously does not mind if we vaccinate ourselves or not! Its what is in our hearts that He cares about.
What you have written is everything that the 'old covenant' stood for, but now, because jesus died for us, we live under the covenant of grace, meaning the old law (old testament rules and regulations) dont count for us any more as we are covered in the righteousness of God. It says in Ephesians 2:8-9:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast."
So in my opinion, that section does need to be changed!
I have several Christian friends who don't vaccinate and know one in particular who believes vaccines are anti-scriptual which is what I base the article on. I personally believe there is a great deal of variation in the Christian religion in the way that the bible is interpreted, hence the different types of church (methodist, baptist, C of E, Christian Scientist etc). I think that the way the bible is interpreted is very personal to each individual person which in my opinion is a good thing, so what one person might take from it, another person might take something different.
Obviously no one can really know God's stance on vaccination since there was no such thing when the bible was written but since cleanliness is next to Godliness and he says your body is a temple, then it is my opinion (and I say opinion - others are fully entitled to disagree with me) that he wouldn't want us putting formaldehyde, which is a hazardous waste into our bodies, or aluminium, or anti-freeze or any of the other poisons that go into vaccines). These are all poisons. Just contact the poison's unit and ask for a list of side-effects relating to that chemical, they'll be able to tell you a long list. In all of the manufacturer's data sheets which come with the vaccine, they list death as a side-effect. Although it is rare, death and severe disability has occured as a consequence of vaccination and with that risk in mind I don't personally believe that a God who created us would want us to do something which may result in disability or death. But as I said in my article, it is purely philosophical debate and not intended to be scientific. In my opinion, as religion (any religion) is based on faith and philosophy, it is impossible to draw scientific conclusions about the subject in the same way that one can about medically based articles.
So I am leaving the article as it stands but am adding your comments and my own in a new page for debates.
Thank you for your comments.
New Debate With NHS Re Vaccination!
On the 8th March 2009 I wrote this letter to the Department of Health:
I am writing to the NHS to ask questions about vaccination. I hope I have the right email address.
have a copy of the 1996 version of Immunisation Against Infectious
Disease, the green book, and on the measles pages, it states that
measles encephalitis affects about 1 per 5000 children. I have
recently looked at the 2006 version of this book and it now states that
the rate for measles encephalitis is 1 in 1000 children. I would like
to know why have the figures been changed? Why has measles been
written as more serious than in the previous edition? If the rates for
encephalitis have indeed risen, why has there been such a big increase
in the 10 years between 1996-2006?
Can I ask where the NHS get
their rates for complications of infectious diseases? Are the figures
based on the UK or on third world countries?
Also, both copies
of the green book state that 'Before 1988, more than half the acute
measles deaths occurred in previously healthy children who had not been
immunised', quoting the paper 'Miller CL, Deaths from measles in
England and Wales, 1970-83, BMJ 1985;290:443-4' - but I have read this
paper and the author states that 'no attempt was made to establish
vaccination status', so in actual fact they didn't know whether these
children were vaccinated or not and it seems a misleading statement to
make about unvaccinated children. Why was this done? Can the green
book not be re-worded to reflect what this paper actually said? Or
have the section removed due to inaccuracies?
I have two further
questions about vaccination. I have tried to get information on the
ingredients of vaccines from the NHS's website on immunisation but I
can't find any section on your FAO's or anywhere else on your website
where you list the ingredients. Why is this? I think any parent
deserves to know what is in the vaccine they are giving to their
child. Parents are advised to check the labels of medicines they give
to their child. Why is it any different with vaccines?
I am aware that GP's get bonus payments for vaccinating 90% of their
child patients. Can you tell me, are these bonus payments for each
individual GP or for the whole practice? And are they as part of the
wage packet or are they for the surgery itself?
Thank you in advance and I look forward to your answers to my questions.
(Parent and Patient Advocate).
Four weeks later......
Our ref: DE00000396126
Dear Ms Karpasea-Jones,
Thank you for your email of 8 March to the Department of Health regarding questions about vaccination.
In order to provide a full response to the questions that you
raise, I am currently seeking advice from colleagues. I expect to
receive this information shortly and I will write to you again as soon
as I am in a position to do so.
I am sorry for the delay.
Customer Service Centre
Our ref: DE00000407028
Dear Ms Karpasea-Jones,
Further to my reply of 6 April, the
Department is now in a position to provide a full response to your
original email of 8 March regarding questions about vaccination.
Please accept my apologies for the long delay.
You raise a number of questions that I will answer in turn:
The overall rate of encephalitis is one in 1000 quoted in the 2006
edition of Immunisation Against Infectious Disease (the Green Book) is
taken from a paper by Perry and Halsey, 2004. The data used is from
reported measles cases in the USA between 1987 and 2000. Data used in
the Green Book comes from the UK or other countries such as the USA
that have equivalent immunisation programmes and healthcare levels.
Data from Third World countries is not used as this is not necessarily
applicable to the UK situation. The rates of complications may change
over time as they are affected by a number of factors such as age,
immunosuppression or improved data reporting and collection. For
example, measles encephalitis affects three in 1000 adults over 30
years of age and a higher proportion of measles cases are now seen in
2. Thank you for bringing this to the Department
attention. The Department will be contacting Dr Miller, the author of
the article you quoted, and it will redraft this section of the Green Book if necessary.
3. Vaccines are no different to all other medicines and are
supplied with a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL). This is the leaflet
which is included in the pack with a medicine. The PIL is written by
the pharmaceutical company and is a patient-friendly version of the
Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) which contains a detailed list
of the ingredients. All PILs and SPCs are checked and approved by the
UK or European medicines licensing agency. Unlike other medicines,
vaccines are only purchased and administered by healthcare
professionals and they will have copies of these documents for you to
look at if you have any queries regarding a vaccine or vaccination.
The SPCs and PILs for all UK licensed medicines including vaccines are
also publicly available on the internet at http://emc.medicines.org.uk/
4. GPs receive payments in several ways for delivering the UK
vaccination programmes. GPs receive an overall payment for carrying
out general work as part of their GMS contract. This payment is called
the Global Sum and covers many different activities. Approximately 2
per cent of the Global Sum is removed from a GPs annual payment if the
GP opts not to provide any immunisation services for children or
adults. In addition, GPs receive a target payment if they manage to
vaccinate 70 or 90 per cent of their registered two year olds with the
vaccines that protect against Meningitis C (men C), Diptheria, Polio,
Pertussis, tetanus, Hib (DTap/IPV/Hib) and Measles, Mumps and Rubella
(MMR). The sums for an average GP practice are approximately ?00 for
achieving 70 per cent and ?000 for achieving 90 per cent. Details of
how this is calculated can be found in the Statement of Financial
Entitlement, which is available on the Department of Health website at:
A GP also receives a target payment for vaccinating 70 and 90 per
cent of five year olds with the vaccine that protects against
Diptheria, Polio, Pertussis, Tetanus, and Hib (DTaP/IPV/Hib). GPs
receive no additional payment for delivering the second dose of MMR.
It is considered to be part of the Global Sum payment.
GPs also receive incentive payments for other activities that they
carry out, such as offering nutritional advice to diabetic patients.
GPs have an ethical duty to their patients and no doctor would
recommend a course of medication (or a vaccination) that they did not
believe was clinically appropriate just because they were receiving a
payment for it.
Customer Service Centre
My Response to the NHS:
Thank you for your answers to my questions about
vaccinations. I have some queries regarding your reply. You said a
higher proportion of measles is now in adults, when it is more
serious. Would this not be due to babies being vaccinated and then the
vaccine wearing off, leaving them open to getting measles in adulthood
and therefore changing the age distribution of the disease?
document from the Advisory Commitee on Immunization Practices in the
USA, talks about the higher rate in older populations and the fact that
in a mumps outbreak, between 93%-100% were vaccinated with two doses
and they wondered if we needed 3 doses of MMR because of this:
This shift of a childhood disease into adulthood in already vaccinated populations, surely points to vaccine waning as a cause?
I read the abstract of the study you mention where the NHS got their rates of encephalitis after measles. The study said:
'Forty years after effective vaccines were licensed, measles continues
to cause death and severe disease in children worldwide. Complications
from measles can occur in almost every organ system. Pneumonia, croup,
and encephalitis are common causes of death; encephalitis is the most
common cause of long-term sequelae. Measles remains a common cause of
blindness in developing countries. Complication rates are higher in
those <5 and >20 years old, although croup and otitis media are
more common in those <2 years old and encephalitis in older children
and adults. Complication rates are increased by immune deficiency
disorders, malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, intense exposures to
measles, and lack of previous measles vaccination. Case-fatality rates
have decreased with improvements in socioeconomic status in many
countries but remain high in developing countries.'
the measles encephalitis occurs mainly in older children and adults,
again, raising my question of whether waning vaccine antibodies could
cause this? Do you know what the vaccine status was of these
patients? If they were older, would they not have already been
The study said that ear infections and croup were
common side-effects of measles in those less than 2 years, but the NHS
say that babies are protected in the first year or so from their
mother's breast milk and placental antibodies, which is why the MMR
isn't given until about 15 months old. Most mothers now will have had
measles vaccine or MMR if they are young mothers and I am aware if you
have not had a disease naturally you cannot pass the immunity through
breast milk. Do you think this could be a reason why babies younger
than 2 years are getting measles? This country has an appalling rate
for breast feeding and most mothers don't feed their babies beyond 6
weeks. Do you think lack of breast milk might contribute to infants
getting measles at very young ages and having complications from that?
said that the study got its data on complications from the UK and USA.
However, they mention blindness being a problem in developing countries
and that fatalities are high in developing countries and that
malnutrition is a cause of measles complications, so it sounds to me
like the study is using data from third world countries also. Would it
be possible to have an email copy of the whole paper so I can confirm
this or not?
As measles rarely causes fatalities in countries
such as ours, and the paper says that vitamin A deficiency is
implicated in measles complications, would it not be advantagious to
give children vitamin A supplements?
2. I am aware of the
package inserts for vaccination, but most parents are not offered these
when their baby is vaccinated and if they are not offered, they would
not know they exist. When I asked for them, my GP informed me they
were meant for the doctor and would be 'too technical' for me to
understand. None of my friends who vaccinated, were offered package
inserts either and there is nothing about them mentioned in the
immunisation chapter in the red book given to parents. Your
immunisation site is supposed to be an in depth resource guide for
parents who want to know more about vaccination, so you should be
informing them of the package inserts or putting PDF links to them on
3. So the global sum payment is part of the GP's
wage? That's how I understood your response. You say that this
wouldn't influence a GP's support of vaccination, but I read an article
in the Nursing Times (24th November 2005) which said that 1 in 7 GP's
were considering stopping their childhood vaccinations due to
government plans to reduce their pay? I looked at nursingtimes.net to
attempt to show you this article but they have taken it offline. It
lists 22nd November 2005 and then skips to the 29th. There is also a
similar newspaper article here for GP's in Australia:
financial bias is obviously present in GP practice. Can you respond to
this? Why is money even important in childhood vaccination?
I am sorry for the length of this letter, but your respond brought up more questions.
I look forward to hearing from you.
I find this part particularly interesting: Thank you for bringing this to the Department attention. The Department will be contacting Dr Miller, the author of the article you quoted, and it will redraft this section of the Green Book if necessary
They were already aware that the study quoted in the green book did not know whether the children were vaccinated or not and they had been informed of this by Dr. Jayne Donegan and others
Thank you for your further email of 20 April regarding questions about vaccination.
Firstly, with reference to a question you raised in your previous email about the Immunisation against infectious disease (the Green Book) and vaccination status, the Department has checked with Dr Christine Miller, the author of the British Medical Journal paper. She has commented that:
since vaccine coverage at the time of the study showed that less than half of the children were vaccinated against measles, more than half of the deaths occurred in unvaccinated children. The deaths that did not occur in previously healthy children occurred in those with conditions such as leukaemia that prevented them being vaccinated.
Turning to your recent comments, there is little evidence of waning immunity leading to major resurgences of measles. Serological studies conducted mainly in developed countries have shown that antibody levels remain in the vast majority of vaccines, many years after vaccination. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) document that you mention refers to mumps and not measles.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) publishes quarterly reports describing the measles cases in England and Wales. Almost all the cases of measles in adults are in unvaccinated individuals. These HPA reports are available at www.hpa.org.uk by searching for measles and then the link to epidemiological data.
As I mentioned previously, data used in the Green Book comes from the UK or other countries such as the USA that have equivalent immunisation programmes and healthcare levels. The Perry study is a review and also looks at data from developing countries.
Newborn infants are especially vulnerable to infection, having had no prior exposure to the microbes in the environment they enter at birth. IgA antibodies are secreted in breast milk and are thereby transferred to the gut of the newborn infant, where they provide protection from newly encountered bacteria until the infant can make its own protective antibody. IgA antibodies prevent the attachment of bacteria or toxins to the cells lining the gut and therefore stop foreign substances being absorbed. However, it is the IgG that a mother passes to her baby through the placenta that helps protect against measles in the first year of life. Maternal IgG is transported across the placenta directly into the bloodstream of the fetus during intrauterine life; human babies at birth have as high a level of plasma IgG as their mothers, and with the same range of antigen specificities. However, the protection offered by these antibodies against measles slowly wanes and therefore at around a year old the child needs to be vaccinated so that it can start producing its own antibodies. The level and time of protection offered against different diseases varies depending on the disease and the levels of antibodies passed onto the baby.
As regards vitamin A supplements, people should be able to get all the vitamin A they need by eating a varied and balanced diet and too much vitamin A can be harmful.
Summary of Product Characteristics (SPCs) and Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) for vaccines are all publicly available at:
GPs have an ethical duty to their patients and no doctor would recommend a course of medication (or a vaccination) that they did not believe was clinically appropriate just because they were receiving a payment for it.
Customer Service Centre
My Response To NHS:
Thank you for your reply. I am confused as to Christine Miller's response, though, because I've read her paper and it says:
'To establish the age, primary cause of death, and proportion associated with previous abnormalities, copies of death certificates were obtained from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 270 deaths from measles and 175 from subacute sclerosing panencephalitis over the period. Where information on death certificates was inadequate or ambiguous inquiries were made to the hospital or notifying doctor. No attempt was made to establish further clinical details, vaccination history, or social class.'
It says no attempt was made to establish vaccination history, so when she says that since only 50% were vaccinated back in the 1970's and 80's, she must only be guessing that it was the unvaccinated half who died? How can she make that statement if she wrote in her paper that she doesn't know the history?
Also she writes further down in her paper, 'Clearly measles still carries a risknot only of complications and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis but also of deathwhich is not confined to abnormal children.4 Vaccination has reduced the number of deaths, but 90% of deaths in those previously normal occurred in those over the age of 15 months, when vaccine is usually given.'
So when she says that 90% of the deaths in previously healthy children occured in those over 15 months when the vaccine is normally given, this reads to me like she is implying that those children may have possibly already been vaccinated.
I have read the HPA measles death rates between 1940-2007. It says at the bottom of the report
'Other measles deaths shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.'
So they are saying that with the exception of one immuno-suppressed boy with a lung disease and 1 death in 1992, there have been NO childhood deaths from measles since before 1940? Because it says older individuals? Obviously measles is more serious the older you get. I also find it somewhat misleading, because they say the deaths were from 'late effects', i.e, the person had recovered from measles but then got another illness down the line from a weakened immune system. For instance, someone could die of pneumonia but still be recorded as measles. The CDC say that 36,000 people die of flu every year but they are including all the pneumonia deaths, respiratory illnesses and even cardiac problems in that figure. I think as nearly all the deaths from measles are in adults, parents should be informed of this.
Admittedly the ACIP document I showed you did refer to mumps, which is part of the MMR vaccine, but there are many other studies I have read in medical journals which say that MMR does not last and wanes. Here is one study from the journal Vaccine, showing that antibodies wane after 5-6 years:
'The levels of antibody against measles, mumps, and rubella were determined at 56 years postimmunization in 468 children vaccinated with two different trivalent vaccines. The proportions of children without detectable antibody levels were 12 and 3.6% for measles (p<0.001), 14.9 and 7% for mumps (p=0.006), and 3.3 and 3.1% for rubella (p=0.88), respectively, in MMR® II and Trivirix® recipients. A higher proportion of those vaccinated at younger ages had undetectable or low levels of measles antibody. These data indicate that a large proportion of children vaccinated under routine conditions do not have detectable measles and mumps antibody.'
This is only one of many similar that I have read. As I said, would that not put children at risk of measles complications by shifting the onset of the disease to teen years or adulthood?
You said that the green book uses data from the UK and USA etc and previously you cited the Perry paper as the source for the 1 in 1000 measles encephalitis cases, but you've now said the Perry study looked at data from the third world, so if that is the case, then the green book does have data from developing countries in it.
Is the NHS against giving vitamin A to children? Because medical professionals know it helps the immune system and have even been giving it out with vaccinations in the third world. For instance, in the public health journal, they gave it to babies getting their MMR:
'Childhood immunization programs have been suggested as an infrastructure to deliver vitamin A supplements to children in developing countries. The effects of giving vitamin A, a potent immune enhancer, with measles immunization to nine-month-old infants is unknown.
A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial of vitamin A, 100 000 IU at the time of standard titer Schwarz measles immunization was conducted with nine-month-old infants in Bogor District, West Java, Indonesia. Antibody titers to measles were measured at baseline and one and six months following immunization.
Results: 394 infants received measles immunization, and 37 infants (9.4%) had baseline antibody titers > 1:120, which is consistent with previous natural measles infection. Of the remaining infants, 98.8% seroconverted to measles, and 99.3% had titers consistent with protection against measles six months postimmunization. Seroconversion rates were similar in vitamin A and placebo treatment groups.
Conclusion: High dose vitamin A supplementation can be given without reducing seroconversion to standard titer Schwarz measles immunization in nine-month-old infants.'
If they know it is a 'potent immune enhancer', to use their words, why not give this to babies to help protect them from measles or even from MMR side-effects?
All vitamins, with the exception of vitamin C, are dangerous if you take too much. If such a programme were implimented, doctors would obviously chose a dose which was safe for the child. Children's multi-vitamins also have levels of vitamin A in them that are safe for a child, so I don't really think that is a reason not to do it.
I am aware of emc medicines. That still doesn't explain why the vaccine ingredients are not listed on your immunisation site, or even just a link to emc medicines. If your site is supposed to be the place for UK parents to refer to, wouldn't the NHS want it to be as thorough as possible? I am a parent and I know I would have found it very much more helpful when I was deciding about vaccines for my children, if I could have found that from the NHS instead of having to go to my pharmacy and ask.
I had a baby in 2007 and there was also no information on ingredients in the booklet I was given on immunisations, and no references either. I thought it lacked information and I would make a suggestion to the NHS to improve the information they give to parents.
THE NHS FAILED TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ON THE CHRISTINE MILLER STUDY OR ON THE FACT THAT THE HPA SAY THERE HAS BEEN ONLY 1 CHILD DEATH FROM MEASLES IN ENGLAND AND WALES SINCE 1940 (THE SECOND CHILD HAD A LUNG DISEASE)
Dear Ms Karpasea-Jones,
Thank you for your further email of 14 May regarding questions about vaccination.
The Department tries continuously to improve the information it provides. Measles is a leading cause of death among young children worldwide. Key facts are available at:
Immunisation prevents infection and the success of the UK s immunisation programme against measles is illustrated by figure 21.1 on page 211 of the Departments guidance Immunisation against infectious disease (the Green Book).
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation gives advice to Ministers based on the best evidence reflecting current good practice and/or expert opinion. The process involves a robust, transparent, and systematic appraisal of all the available evidence from a wide range of sources.
I am unable to add to information I have given previously.
Customer Service Centre
The WHO page they refer to also states that over 95% of measles deaths are in the third world - that leaves 4% of deaths in developed countries and according to the HPA nearly all of these are in adults
DIAGNOSING 'SWINE FLU' ON THE PHONE! MY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH A MAN FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Me: 'I read on the NHS direct site that the symptoms of flu and swine flu are the same so how do you know if the person has swine flu if you are diagnosing them over the phone?'
NHS Guy: 'That's for the medical professional to decide.'
Me: 'Yes, but how do they know, because they're the same?'
NHS Guy: 'They recieve guidance from the HPA over what classifies as swine flu and if the HPA think they meet the criteria, they will be diagnosed with swine flu.'
Me: 'Over the phone? Your site says doctors are diagnosing it over the phone without even seeing the patient and that if they have this set of symptoms that are the same as flu, they will be prescribed Tamiflu?'
NHS Guy: 'Yes, that's right.'
Me: 'But, don't you have to isolate the bug in a specimen, or something, so you know it's swine flu?'
NHS Guy: 'The information on our site is for patients, the medical professionals will have their own information.' (That came across like it's none of your business, you're not a doctor, type of thing).
Me: 'Okay, but with meningitis you take a lumbar puncture and check the spinal fluid before you diagnose meningitis, so don't you need a sample to know if it's swine flu?'
NHS Guy: 'No, we made a decision not to do that.'
NHS Guy: 'Because we are trying to contain the illness so we thought it was best to treat everyone who has symptoms and not wait for confirmation.'
Me: 'So then you don't really know if it is swine flu if you haven't isolated the bug? And what about Tamiflu? People could be taking Tamiflu when they don't need it, if they've got regular flu?'
NHS Guy: 'As I said, that's for the medical professional to decide.'
Me: 'What about the vaccine? Will that be voluntary or mandatory?'
NHS Guy: 'We haven't made that decision yet.'
Me: 'If it is mandatory, how can I opt out if I don't want one?'
NHS Guy: 'I'm afraid I'm not commenting on that.'
So then I phoned the regional HPA to find out what their 'extra criteria' are for diagnosing swine flu and I asked that question and the HPA lady said
'Who are you?'
Me: 'A member of the public.'
HPA lady: 'We don't answer your questions here, go to NHS Direct.'
So I phone NHS Direct to be greeted with a pre-recorded message saying not to call unless you're deathly ill with swine flu or something else....AARRRGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My Rebuttal of Health Protection Scotland and Scottish Minister for Health, Nicola Sturgeon
This rebuttal was in response to this article:
Direct Rebuttal To Health Protection Scotland and Scottish Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon re Their Comments on Our Protests
Dear Health Protection Scotland
I would like to directly challenge you after you asserted in a newspaper article in the Scotsman, by Richard Bath, that my organisation was 'persuing a reckless cause' that would lead to the deaths of babies and mothers from swine flu, due to my organisation heading protests against the untested vaccine.
There is NO PROOF for your assertion that my organisation would do any such thing and ample proof that you, Health Protection Scotland, are being reckless with the lives of thousands of unborn infants and their mothers.
According to this NHS training pack for immunisers, here:
both vaccines, Pandemrix and Celvapan HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED for side-effects or contraindications so it is basically a big experiment and you have no idea if the patient you are injecting is contraindicated or what type of side-effects they might experience. It has also NOT been tested on pregnant women so to recommend it for pregnant women is irresponsible, particularly when the Pandemrix version contains mercury which has been detected in evalated levels in autistic children (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 8 Number 3 Fall 2003) and Merck, a vaccine manufacturer, say thimerosal can cause 'considerable damage to health and may even be lethal' -
My question would be why you are injecting a potentially lethal substance into a pregnant woman?
Another study found that even tiny injections of thimerosal can cause autism - 'As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism' - (Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection, Cell Biology and Toxicology, 0742-2091 (Print) 1573-6822 (Online), 9 April 2009).
The Journal of Pediatric Infectious Diseases also said that governments should bring in laws that prevent the use of thimerosal in vaccines - (Journal of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Volume 4, Number 3 / 2009) and in many other countries in the world, H1N1 vaccine is NOT recommended for pregnant women. In fact, a data sheet for Afluria H1N1 vaccine shows that the vaccine SHOULD NOT BE USED IN PREGNANT OR NURSING MOTHERS and has not been tested in such groups:
Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine or AFLURIA. It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.
Neither Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine nor AFLURIA has been evaluated in nursing mothers. It is not known whether Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine or AFLURIA is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is administered to a nursing woman.'
Although this brand is not being used in the UK, they are all very similar H1N1 vaccines.
According to a 10 November government document, plans are in place to mandate H1N1 vaccine and exclude unvaccinated children from school -
This is a violation of human rights and since the drug is clearly experimental, admitted in the NHS document, it is against the nuremburg code. The first directive of the nuremburg code states that:
'The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.' - (http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html).
So even suggesting that vaccines could be coerced is illegal.
The JCVI meeting minutes for 18 February 2009 said that they would only introduce influenza vaccines for pregnant women if it was cost effective and reduced respiratory disease in neonates:
'the vaccination of pregnant women was only likely to be cost-effective if there was evidence to suggest that vaccination in the late stages of pregnancy reduced influenza in neonates.' - http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_097411.pdf
So in actual fact, they introduced a vaccine that had NO EVIDENCE of reducing disease in newborns and were only interested in introducing it if it made enough money. It seems money is more important to this government than the health and wellbeing of mothers and their babies.
A report in Le Parisen newspaper in France told of a mother who lost her baby at term after being vaccinated and the baby had H1N1 in his tissues (Le Parisien, 14 December 2009) and another report in a Swedish paper told of a previously healthy mother who had a brain haemorrhage after vaccination and her baby had to be delivered two months early - http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article6283276.ab
There are dozens of women in the UK writing to the newspapers with similar stories, so you, Health Protection Scotland, are endangering the lives of many, and all for an illness that is as mild as normal flu. If you look at NHS choices flu and swine flu pages, you will see the symptoms are exactly the same:
Doctors are NOT taking swabs for this so they have no idea if the person actually has H1N1 or not and the person gets diagnosed over the phone without even being seen just to boost up swine flu notifications to encourage sales of your untested vaccine and misdiagnoses over the phone line have actually led to children dying of meningitis.
This for an illness that has killed far less than regular flu. One in three people get cancer, yet you don't scream from the roof tops about how everyone is going to die in the same way you have done with swine flu.
You are highly irresponsible and put money, profit and government agenda ahead of the health of mothers and their babies.
You should be ashamed of yourself,
Vaccine Awareness Network UK.
CITATIONS FOR VACCINES SHIFTING AGE ONSET OF DISEASE AND MAKING THEM MORE DANGEROUS
Numerous studies, particularly from the United
States, have documented how a sustained vaccination
program leads to major changes in the transmission
pattern of measles (1), including increases in the average age at infection and in the proportion of vaccinated cases.
Source: American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 149, no. 4, 15 February 1999. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/4/295.full.pdf
Early waning of maternal measles antibodies in era of measles elimination: longitudinal study
Vaccinated women had significantly fewer IgG antibodies (geometric mean titre 779 (95% confidence interval 581 to 1045) mIU/ml) than did naturally immune women (2687 (2126 to 3373) mIU/ml) (P<0.001). Maternal values were highly correlated with neonatal values (r=0.93 at birth). Infants of vaccinated women had significantly lower antibody concentrations than did infants of naturally immune women.
The coverage of universal immunisation programmes influences the amount of maternal antibodies: a higher coverage reduces the probability of natural boosting.
Results of previous studies show lower starting concentrations at birth and faster decay of antibodies in infants of vaccinated women.8 As many countries implement universal measles immunisation of infants at the age of 12-15 months, the possibly increasing gap of susceptibility due to the early loss of maternal antibodies is of increasing concern.
Source: BMJ 2010; 340:c1626 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1626 (Published 18 May 2010) - http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1626.full
Argument with Reader of Pocono Record
Readers Vaccine Argument
Obviously you haven't learned the lesson. Everything you've written in your post is inaccurate at best and completely false at worst. Only multidose vials of vaccines contain thimerosal -- which you misspelled, by the way -- and pediatric vaccines no longer contain it in any presentation (vials or or prefilled syringes). And yes, Wakefield has been *completely* and *thoroughly* debunked, through both examinations of his data and methods and replications of his so-called studies. However, both he and you are in denial of that fact- again, you haven't learned the lesson. I suggest you use a more reliable source for your information, like the FDA and the CDC. Web sites of holistic medicine clinics are highly questionable sources - they tend to contain a high proportion of BS.
My (Joanna's) Response:
Please see the CDC Pink book, dated March 2010, that states thimerosal is still present in some vaccines in smaller amounts, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
They didn't remove it, they just reduced it. They also added routine yearly flu shots for children into the schedule (that contain thimerosal) at the same time as they reduced it in other vaccines.
The south Dakota Department of Environment issued guidelines for waste management and say in their document that used vaccine vials of supposedly thimerosal free vaccines are to be classed as 'hazardous waste', but it's okay to inject into a baby. http://www.iaomt.org/news/files/files372/Thimerosal%20-%20South%20Dakota%20Waste%20Mgmt%20Guidelines.pdf
I do check my facts about vaccines (they are from the CDC, FDA etc) and I'm still against them. As for Wakefield, his was not a study but a case paper of 12 children together with his observations about inflammatory bowel disease with autism after MMR. He merely suggested doing a study to figure out what was going on and said that his 12 patients DIDN'T prove an association between MMR and autism. Have vaccine advocates even read the paper? Since that time there have been dozens of studies done that show concern, for instance, this that was published 2011
And this from 2010 shows how low levels of mercury could contribute to ASD:
I chose not to vaccinate my children back in 1995 before Andrew Wakefield's case paper and before I'd heard much about autism. All of my sources of information were medical and that was enough to make me decide not to. Perhaps vaccine proponents should consider that parents are actually educated and it isn't enough to keep parroting 'read the FDA website, believe what the doctor tells you'. The medical information is out there for all to read and it isn't that black and white.
The comments were written after a pro-vaccine article on polio and the reader's comments were aimed at another poster. http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20110812%2FNEWS04%2F108120313