Search This Blog

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

Autism and Vaccines. An exchange on Linkedin. The reason I have got the link all wrong. Apologies to everyone.

This blog has consistently linked Autism with Vaccines. But apparently I have been wrong all the time, so I must apologise, and allow Mike Harris to explain why anyone who blames vaccinations for the autism epidemic are just plain wrong.

It began after I published this comment on Linkedin a few days ago, alongside a link to this webpage from my DIE's (the disease inducing effects of pharmaceutical drugs) website.

AUTISM An illness unknown in 1940’s Now it effects 1 in 58 children in places Autism strikes normal children Only after routine vaccinations do parents become aware Conventional medicine refuses to accept link Parents of healthy children must refuse them

Mike Harris wrote back to inform me that "there is no repeat no evidence linking vaccination with Autism. The reality is that autism has always existed, we just labelled it differently as personality disorder , neurosis etc. We are in the middle of a massive increase in very serious infections which are life altering and life threatening and entirely preventable by vaccination".

I realised that Mike was an apologist for conventional medicine, possibly even a medical fundamentalist (= "I believe in nothing other than medical science"), but for once I broke my rule - to never to engage with such people. I responded mainly because I am always amazed (and angry) when supporters of conventional medicine say that parents of previous generations were so stupid they didn't realise their children were sick, or failing to develop normally.

"Then I think we need to differ! I really think it is stretching things to believe that parents in the 1940's did not notice that their children were not communicating with people normally. And I just wish I knew what this other label was. Moreover, to deny the experience of so many parents who have had children who developed normally until they were vaccinated just beggars belief".

Mike came back to me, quoting his medical qualification, perhaps suggesting that his view was a authoritative pronouncement on our disagreement.

"I am a fully qualified medical practitioner who has been practising psychiatry for the past 43 years. I have no doubt parents did notice their children were different. They would have been differently labelled as behavioural disorder, subnormal, challenging, mute, personality disordered, psychotic, epileptic personality etc. The issue has been present long before vaccination. I’m afraid that posts such as yours are causing huge damage to children who are now becoming seriously ill with entirely preventable diseases. This whole meme started with the disgraced physician from the Royal Free hospital who peddled this dangerous nonsense."

Well, Andrew Wakefield is able to defend himself. But Mike is now saying that its not the vaccines at fault, it's posts like mine that are causing huge damage to children. So I wrote back.

"Dreadful that people like me, a fully qualified homeopath, should listen to parents, and come to the conclusion that they are not telling me lies about their children who were developing normally until they were vaccinated. I must be causing a huge amount of damage, I have noticed all these children who become seriously ill with whooping cough, measles, mumps, et al. Dreadful. And incidentally, don't tell me that vaccines have reduced the incidence of these killer diseases, that reduction was happening, long, long before the vaccines were introduced. I regret that I take an old fashioned view of medicine. I listen to patients, and what they tell me."

And then Mike came back this morning with this devastating insight into what was happening, and why it's not just parents prior to the 1940's who are misguided in their views.

"Steven, of course I’m sure you do listen but to a self selected group who choose to come to you."

So Mike has been kind enough to share his wisdom with me. I fully understand now. My mistake, it would seem, has been to listen to parents and not realise they were a 'self selected' group. Presumably they had a particular axe to grind, an axe that pointed the finger at conventional medicine, so it is they must be singled out for criticism. So I wrote back to Mike, apologising, and informing him that I now knew the error of my ways.

               "Ahhh! I've not heard that one! It's the people I associate with that are getting it wrong. Now I understand. I will let them know! Thanks for the information, and for sharing your wisdom!

So that's Wakefield, me, all parents of autistic children, and presumably anyone who dares to suggest that there is a link between vaccines and autism. And this blog is me, getting in touch with all parents of autistic children, letting them know that they are wrong!

Clearly these misguided parents should not be saying what they are saying, they should be warned that there are people around who KNOW that you are telling lies. After all, as we all know, doctors are always right.

However, I have another apology to make to Mike, and other defenders of conventional medicine. I deeply regret to say that this morning, before I read Mike's final correction, I did send this message on social media after reading a Dr Mercola article on vaccine injuries. I expect Mike will want to put me (and Dr Mercola) right on this too, but I haven't heard from him yet. I will keep you informed!


Vaccine Induced Injury. The USA governments pays out $4 billion to victims. But conventional medicine denies that vaccines injure anyone! What's to be done?

According to the Dr Mercola website Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the USA National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has denied that vaccines cause injuries and death. This is not a surprise - it exactly mirrors what conventional medicine consistently tells us - vaccines are entirely safe!

At the same time the USA Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), in their latest release of data and statistics, states that approximately $4 billion has been paid to vaccine-injured victims since 1988.

There can be only two conclusions drawn from these two contradictory facts. Either...

  1. Conventional medicine is seeking to cover-up, lie about the dangers of vaccination, and is in denial about the harm vaccines are doing.
  2. The government is spending public money inappropriately, and taxpayer money is being misappropriated by a government agency.
Which is it?

Every USA citizen needs to know, and it is time that they started to demand an answer to this question from their elected representatives, and the Federal government.





Friday, 8 February 2019

Equine Flu. An outbreak leads to all horse racing being cancelled. Mandatory vaccination, so all horses had all been vaccinated.So much for 'herd immunity'!

A bout of equine flu has led to the cancellation of all horse racing in Britain for the next 6-7 days by the British Horseracing Authority. Three horses from a Cheshire stable were tested positive for the disease, and (remarkably) it has been admitted that each one of them had been vaccinated. The result is that several racing events have been cancelled, and various people in the industry have said that it will have a huge impact on the sport, commercially.

Two aspects of this situation have implications for the health debate, and certainly not for horses alone.
  1. Mandatory Vaccination. I understand that all horses engaged in horse racing have to be vaccinated. There is, in other words, mandatory vaccination within the industry, something that many people in the conventional medical establishment would like to see happen with human vaccines.
  2. Herd Immunity. Conventional medicine, for many years, has promulgated this rather strange theory - that a very large percentage of the at-risk population for a disease have to be vaccinated before vaccines are fully protective!
So, with mandatory vaccination, and 100% coverage, these three horse have still contracted equine flu. Only two conclusions need to be drawn.
  1. The equine flu vaccine does not work.
  2. The theory of 'Herd Immunity' is utter nonsense.
The same conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of human vaccines. 
  • Doctors vaccinate for whooping cough (pertussin) but children still get it (although it is now called to the 48 day cough).
  • Doctors vaccinate against measles, mumps and rubella, but children continue to get the three diseases.
  • People of all ages are encouraged to vaccinate against the flu every year, but flu continues to affects large numbers year by year.
Often, when there are outbreaks of these and other diseases, they are blamed (loudly, publicly) on people who have NOT been vaccinated, only for it later to be found (surreptitiously) that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated were equally involved!

This is when the herd immunity is theory is put forward. It's not the vaccine, we are told, it's the people who refuse the vaccine! How can we expect the vaccine to work unless a certain percentage of the at risk population is vaccinated? In other words, vaccinated people aren't protected, they can still get the disease despite having had the vaccine!

Does this not sound like a rather weak excuse?

This bout of equine flu blows both these arguments away. This is a relatively small 'at risk' population, all of whom have had the vaccine - surely a perfect situation to study the effectiveness of this vaccine. The conclusion seems clear. The vaccine does not work!

Nor do human vaccines. For the past several years there have been admissions, quietly made, that the flu vaccine does not work. I noted in this January 2018 blog that the doctors e-magazine, Pulse, reported Public Health England's announcement that the flu vaccine (used in winter 2017) was not ‘significantly effective’ in older patients." One doctor was quoted as follows:

               "We know from the PHE publications that last year, the effectiveness of the conventional influenza vaccines in the over-65s was not apparent. Over-75s fared particularly badly to the point that the JCVI called the effectiveness of the conventional vaccine in the elderly 'disappointing'." (My emphasis)

So are we being taken for ride? Have these horses been taken for a ride? We are all pressured by doctors to vaccinate our children, and ourselves, against an ever-increasing number of diseases. They tell us that this is the best way to avoid contracting them. Certainly they give no indication that the vaccines are anything but effective.

And then, of course, there is the question of vaccine safety.............. but that is quite another issue!

POSTSCRIPT
This morning 11th February 2019 there is more news that more VACCINATED horses have contracted influenza. The messages above are confirmed.

* Flu vaccines don't work
* They have serious side effects without any benefit
* Herd immunity is nonsense concept
* They are a vehicle for pharmaceutical industry to make money

Monday, 4 February 2019

Homeopathy in the Garden. Yes, it treats plants successfully too! And any gardener, or farmer, can utilise it

For many years I associated homeopathy with the treatment of illness in people, and animals. I had not even thought that it might be useful in the garden, with plants. Fortunately, other people had connected to two.

In my garden I have an Olive Tree, in a pot. Olive plants are able to survive the British climate, but they do not like extreme cold, and they need protection against long periods of cold weather. When I failed to do this with my lovely plant I was annoyed at myself. So for a time I nurtured the plant, with my very best care I could muster, but as the weather warmed up, I decided that the plant was clearly dead.

So I had given up on it when I read an article by Valkunathanath das Kaviraj on homeopathy and plants. I researched more into his work that he was doing, and quickly bought his book ‘Homeopathy for Farm and Garden’, published in 2006. I also contacted him by email. Kaviraj told me that he had accidentally stumbled on the idea but quickly discovered that it worked. He had studied the subject in considerable depth, and had a brilliant knowledge of remedies. I mentioned my Olive tree to him, and said how annoyed I was about it. He suggested that I tried the remedy Carbo Veg, made from charcoal. Immediately his suggestion made sense to me. I knew the remedy, applied to humans and animals, as 'the great reviver' something that would work with people whose energy was low. In his book Kaviraj described the remedy.

               "Charcoal is, both in crude form and potencies...... (indicated by) the signs of decay and putrefaction are leading indications. Carbo vegetables may also be much more than a rescuer of near-death plants...."

So I tried it, adding the remedy in liquid form to the pot. Kaviraj told me to do it just once. I did it every day for several days! Nothing happened for a week or so, but then a bud appeared, then gradually more, and the Olive returned to life. I now call it our Lazarus Olive, before having to explain that that was not a type of olive, but a description of my plant's history. It had returned to life. And after more than 10 years it is thriving.

Since that time Kaviraj has died, but his work continues. A German homeopath, Christiane Maute, published her book, ‘Homeopathy for Plants’ in 2010.  She says that she has used homeopathy with plants for many years, has studied their application in her own garden, indoor and balcony plants.

There is, of course, no reason to believe that homeopathy should not work on plants. Remedies are made from highly diluted substances that have the capacity to cure when the known energy characteristics of the remedy corresponds closely to the energy of the patient. And this applies regardless of whether the patient is human, animal or plant! The principles apply equally to all forms of life, each remedy having qualities that work with living organisms regardless of their type.

So now I use homeopathy in my garden, regularly. It saves me money (it's inexpensive). It saves me time (it's very easy to apply remedies in water), and it is effective in many different ways.

  • So now I never grow any plant from seed without using water that contains the remedy Nat Mur 6x.
  • I use Calendula 6x to treat salad seedlings after transplanting, to help them recover from the trauma, and grew more quickly and strongly.
  • And I treat the once abundant black spot on my roses with Silica 6x, watering as the plants begin to re-emerge back to life in the Spring, and thereafter whenever necessary.
  • I also have an Ash tree in my garden, and to prevent it contracting Ash Die Back disease, I water it with Silica 6c each spring, a Kaviraj recommendation as a preventative for the disease.
  • And in the wood opposite my house (where many Ash trees with Die Back), I have a favourite Horse Chestnut that suffers badly from Leaf Miner. I water it with a couple of pints of Thuja 30c each spring -another Kaviraj recommendation.

There are many more useful things that homeopathy can do in the garden. I found this information on this website, https://madmimi.com/p/8258a7/preview. As it says, it's not the whole thing but it is a great start for any home gardener.

* Aconite napellus* – light rust
* Allium cepa* – onion and carrot fly, weevils
* Belladonna* – red-brown rust
* Bombyx processionea* – caterpillars
* Bufo rana* – pests
* Bovista* – spider mites
* Calendula* – mechanical damage, repotting
* Camphora* – ants
* Carbo vegetabilis* – strengthening weak plants
* Coccinella septempunctata* – aphids
* Cuprum metallicum* – mildew
* Helix tosta* – snails
* Manganum* – monilia, chlorosis
* Mentha* – pests of cruciferous plants
* Natrum sulphuricum* – fungus in rainy weather, brown rot
* Ocymum* – to keep tomatoes healthy
* Ricinus communis* – pests in viticulture
* Salicylic acidum* – aphids, fungus
* Sambucus nigra* – prevention of pests
* Silicea terra* – strengthening resistance, healthy soil
* Tanacetum vulgare* – pests, black vine weevil
* Thuja occidentalis* – leaf curl, scale insects, spider mites
* Zincum metallicum* - nematodes

My hope is that farmers will increasingly use homeopathy for their crops, just as many farmers are now using it for their animals.

For anyone who is interested in developing the use of homeopathy in their gardens, or on their farms, the two books I have mentioned above are essential reading. They come highly recommended, and I certainly would not want to garden without them now!

Friday, 1 February 2019

Talking Therapy & Social Prescribing. What they have in common is an admission that pharmaceutical drugs just don't work

NHS England have announced that they will be employing 1,000 "social prescribing workers" within the next year. It says that these "workers are being recruited to help patients find suitable activities that are a better alternative to medication". The drugs and the vaccines have been handed out like confetti by the NHS for the last 70 years, they have not worked, and now they are looking for something that might be more effective.

Social prescribing enables doctors and other health care professionals to refer people to a range of local, non-clinical, social, recreational and sporting services. They include volunteering, educational groups, arts activities, gardening, befriending, cookery, healthy eating advice, and a variety of sports.

It is the second non-drug initiative that conventional medicine is looking towards to improve their dreadful record treating illness and disease. Antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have proved to be little better than useless in dealing with the burgeoning mental health crisis, and have such serious side effects, they are being replaced, whenever possible, by 'talking therapies'.

They are two good initiatives. Many patients are already benefitting from talking therapies, and many more could benefit social prescribing schemes, including, it is thought, people with mild or long-term mental health problems, socially vulnerable groups, the lonely and socially isolated, and patients who regularly visit doctors with minor, and/or ongoing health issues.

Avoiding pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is an equally important benefit!

It is good to see conventional medicine looking elsewhere - at last. It has become blindingly obvious over the last 70 years that good health does not come from a bottle or pills, or a syringe. But these initiatives will be insufficient to address the epidemics of serious chronic disease we are witnessing. For this, effective (and safe) medical therapies will be necessary.

And conventional medicine continues purposely to ignore natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, chiropractor, osteopathy and many others.

As pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines continue to fail, become increasingly expensive, and cause serious illness and disease through their 'side effects', it is to these alternatives that the NHS, and other national health services, are going to have to turn.

Thursday, 31 January 2019

The secondary costs of a failing medical system

In October 2018 I wrote about the 'secondary' costs of medical failure.

Secondary costs do not concern the building of hospitals, the employment of medical staff, or the delivery of treatment to sick patients, et al. Given the monopoly of conventional medicine in health services around the world these are certainly costly enough!

But society also has to pay the price of conventional medical failure, and particularly the creation of illness and disease by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Several English councils have reported that they have overspent, by at least £324m, on their budgets for young adults and children with special needs during the financial year 2018-2019. BBC News said that 136 local authorities provided information, under Freedom of Information laws, and discovered that 123 have overspent on their 'high needs' budget. They were said to be at 'breaking point'. In response, the government told the BBC that it is providing an extra £250m to ease these pressures, and another £100m on new school places.

Dorset County Council, for instance, reported that since 2014 the number of under-25's on education, health and care plans has grown by more than two-thirds! Its 'high needs' budget has been overspent every year, and the council is now predicting a £13m deficit for the coming financial year. A council spokesman said that Dorset was not alone, and that "a day of reckoning will be coming very soon".

So who are these 'high needs' children?
They are children with physical or learning disability, or behavioural difficulties. Local councils, quite rightly, have a responsibility to provide services for them, and those responsibilities have grown by the decision to extend responsibility from age 18 to 25. At the same time there has been a large reduction in county council funding since 2010. Yet neither of these reasons can explain a two-thirds increase! Most of the increase is the result of increasing numbers of children growing into adulthood with physical or learning disability, and behaviour problems.

Readers of this blog, and my DIE's website, will be aware, many of these disabilities are known (although not acknowledged) to be the direct result of pharmaceutical drug and vaccine damage. I have already written about some of these, the links to my DIE's website provided listing the drugs and vaccines known to cause the condition.

All these children require special educational services for many years. Some will move on to colleges and universities, or into apprenticeships, although usually requiring additional support. They are all children, growing into adulthood, who but for dangerous drugs and vaccines they have taken, would have been independent people, living their own lives, contributing fully to society. 
  • Many will never be able to lead independent lives. 
  • Some will be totally dependent on care.

So this is not just a problem for councils, caught between their legal duties towards people with disability, and the requirement to balance their budgets. It is a problem created by a medical system that has failed, that is causing harm to our children and young people, who would all, otherwise, have become fully functioning members of society. It is a human tragedy, transforming the lives of people from net contributors to the economy to a lifetime charge upon it.

AND WE ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO RECOGNISING IT AS A MEDICAL ISSUE!

HPV VACCINE. What are the arguments against it? Nothing, if you believe the mainstream media! BBC News coverage hits a new low

Are vaccines safe?
  • Your doctor will tell you they are. After all, they prescribe them so they would not be expected to say anything else!
  • The Conventional Medical Establishment will tell you they are. After all, they have been tested, pronounced to be safe and effective, and have instructed doctors to prescribe them!
So what is all this stuff we hear about vaccine injury? Why are all these parents saying that their children have been damaged by vaccines? Why is the Vaccine Injury Compensation scheme in the USA paying out $millions every year to people who  have been vaccine damaged?

It's all nonsense, of course. Worse than nonsense too. Criticism of vaccines, we are now told, is a “global health threat” so anyone who questions the safety of vaccines can now be labeled 'dangerous” to society, stopping people from getting important medication.

And in any case, if conventional medicine was giving us pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that were harmful to our health, they would tell us. Wouldn't they? And even if our doctors didn't tell us, we can rely on the free press, our mainstream media, to do so. Can't we?

So let's examine what the mainstream media tell us about the safety of vaccines. Recently the BBC published a story about the HPV vaccine. in an article HPV vaccine: Thousands of girls did not get full dose. I pick on the BBC as it is part of our 'free press', but more than this, it is a public service broadcaster. Unlike other news organisations it does not have to 'earn a living' by selling advertising to commercial interests, it is paid for by the annual license fee. It does not have the same problem many news organisations have, where pharmaceutical company advertising can represent up to 70% of their advertising income. The BBC has no such vested interests, no requirement to protect the hand that feeds them!

Moreover, the BBC is constrained by its Editorial Guidelines, which means that, amongst other things, that they are obliged to report to us in a way that is:
  • Accurate
  • Impartial
  • Fair
So we might expect the BBC to cover the HPV vaccine story according to these principles. So how did it do? The story, in brief, was that 1 in 3 girls, in some parts of the UK, did not have their full HPV vaccination in 2017-2018 against HPV, the virus that is thought to cause cervical cancer. In this blog I will use the words of the article itself to demonstrate its coverage, adding my own comments as we move through their article.

          "While the national target of immunising 80% of girls is being met, the rate varied between local authority areas. In total 57,048 girls did not receive the two doses required for the vaccine to be effective. Public Health England (PHE) said the vaccine programme was 'stable and consistent'."

This is presumably a statement of fact, passed to the BBC by PHE. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. To discuss the issue further the BBC brought in the charity, 'Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust' whose spokesperson is quoted as saying that "... educating parents and young people about the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine was 'essential'.

No problem with that either. Education is vital, as long as that education is accurate, impartial and fair. But 'education' should not, of course, be confused with 'indoctrination'. In the former, all points of view are covered. In the latter there is just one point of view, and this is unquestioningly the approach taken by the BBC article. For education read "people need to be told about the importance of vaccination!".

IS THE HPV VACCINE SAFE?
So before proceeding through the BBC article, let's look at some other statistics about the HPV vaccine, not mentioned in it, but which might be of some importance and interest to parents, and their young daughters.

1. WDDTY reported in 2013 that it had been calculated that 1,700 young girls had been killed or suffered permanent disability after being given the HPV vaccine, and a further 19,500 had suffered 'non-serious' reactions.

2. This Vac Truth article provides VAERS (USA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) statistics showing that the HPV vaccine has caused the following adverse reactions in the USA, up to 2013:
  • Deaths: 140
  • Disabled: 952
  • Did not recover: 6,032
  • Abnormal pap smear: 531
  • Cervical dysplasia: 214
  • Cervical cancer: 64
  • Life-threatening: 562
  • ER visit: 10,557
  • Hospitalised: 3,065
  • Extended hospital stay: 234
  • Serious: 4,091
  • Adverse events: 30,352
3. At least one country, Japan, has not been happy about the HPV vaccine. In 2013 the Japanese government withdrew its recommendation to use the HPV vaccine, citing concerns from the public about the adverse effects it caused. This Medscape article also mentioned the contrast between the promotion of the vaccine by the health authority and the concerns raised about it.

               "The announcement is in stark contrast to the pronouncement last week by health officials in the United States that vaccination rates in teenage girls should be increased after a study concluded that estimated vaccine effectiveness is 'high'."

Japan did not suspend the vaccine, but it instructed local governments that it should not be promoted whilst the concern about adverse effects, such as long-term pain and numbness, were investigated.

The BBC article mentioned none of these concerns. It did not ask any organisation that has these concerns to comment. As will be seen, the only people they asked about the vaccine were people, and organisations that are part of the conventional medical establishment!

IS THE HPV VACCINE EFFECTIVE?
So if the BBC felt it was not sufficientlynimportant to inform us about safety concerns, did they say anything about the effectiveness of the vaccine? Again, the BBC article is unequivocal on this matter, entirely content to rely entirely on NHS statements about the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.

         "The NHS said the vaccine was 'effective at stopping girls from getting the types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers' but it was 'important to have both doses to be properly protected'."

That's it. Moreover, the entire article is based upon an unquestioned assumption about its effectiveness. Too many young girls are not having the vaccine, to too many women are dying of cervical cancer - and the two are linked.

          "PHE statistics showed vaccination rates ranged from about two thirds of year nine girls in some parts of London to more than nine out of 10 in other areas, such as North Yorkshire, Tameside and Portsmouth. Cervical cancer remains the most common cancer in women under 35 and kills about 850 a year."

So should the BBC have raised questions the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. This Child Health Safety article, again published as long ago as 2013 (the information has been around for a long time), outlines some of the scientific evidence that the HPV vaccine is not only dangerous, but also wrongly promoted as capable of preventing cancer. The evidence the produced questions the inadequacy of the testing regime, which has come under serious investigation, and found it to be seriously flawed. The research reveals that the

          "... scientific and factual evidence that the data behind claims that HPV vaccines prevent cancers and save lives with no risk of serious side effects are 'optimistic' and contrary to the evidence and largely are from significant misinterpretation of available data which is 'presented to the public as factual evidence'." 

None of this evidence is mentioned by the by the NHS in its new release, or the BBC in its article reporting on the issue. The assumptions made throughout the article are three-fold, that the vaccine is:
  1. Safe
  2. Effective
  3. Anyone not having the vaccine is risking contracting cervical cancer. 
DOES THE CONVENTIONAL MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT KNOW?
The conventional medical establishment DOES know this. This BMC article, "HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism" says as much.

               "The rationale behind current worldwide human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programs starts from two basic premises, 1) that HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancers and save lives and, 2) have no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, efforts should be made to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated in order to decrease the burden of cervical cancer. Careful analysis of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure data shows however that both of these premises are at odds with factual evidence and are largely derived from significant misinterpretation of available data." (My emphasis).

Clearly this does not stop the conventional medical establishment, and its vested interests, from claiming that it is safe and effective, but it should encourage the BBC to investigate the claims being made for the vaccine. It totally fails to do so.

The BBC article goes on to relate a case example which supports and highlights the message - it is important for all young girls to have the HPV vaccine, and that there should be no concerns about its safety or effectiveness. It concerns a mother who had cervical cancer, and who has explained to her daughter how the vaccine could "save her life". She says it is "the best protection" for girls, that she is keen that her daughter receives the vaccine as she knows, from personal experience, "how potentially devastating cervical cancer can be". The mother goes on to explain that talking about the vaccine may be "difficult to address with children" as it was connected with "sexual activity", and that some mothers "don't want their daughters to have it because they say it encourages 'promiscuity' but that is  "quite a naive approach to take with this vaccine."

There is nothing wrong with relating personal experiences, including a mother with a strong personal interest and opinion on the matter. But once again the BBC fails to offer any balance. Where are the stories of healthy young girls whose lives have been compromised by the HPV vaccine? There are plenty of them. I wrote this in a previous blog, "The HPV Vaccine. We need to protect our daughters from this."

               "There are now, on the internet, hundreds of articles outlining the personal and family tragedy that this vaccine has caused, and continues to cause. It can be likened to a game of Russian Roulette. You may, or you may not be damaged. But dangerous drugs and vaccines should not be regarded as a statistical matter. They represent human and family tragedy, all of them hard to read about. But here are a selection of these tragedies, about people who lost the game, and taken from the internet.
If the BBC had wanted to write an article that was accurate, impartial and fair similar stories could also have been used. The BBC could also have referred to an increasing amount of court litigation, both in the USA and India, but chose not to do so. For instance,
Instead, the BBC continued on its partial journey, bringing in other members of the conventional medical establishment to reinforce their totally one-sided message, and to give their reasons for the low up-take in certain parts of the country.
  • A school administrator is quoted saying that girls needed to know the vaccine would protect them in the future. Parents, she said, should not be "frightened" of a "safe vaccine" or having conversations about it with their children.
  • The chief executive of Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust said there was "wide variation" across England, and although up-take was generally high, authorities should not become "complacent". He said that there were "cultural barriers and myths" about HPV and the vaccine that could contribute to areas having lower up-take rates. He said that concerns over the safety of the vaccine can have "a very damaging impact".
  • NHS teams in Brent and Hammersmith and Fulham said that language barriers and religious reasons were among reasons for a lower up-take rate than in other parts of England.
  • A spokesman for Central and North West NHS Foundation Trust said the areas had a large population of "non-white residents who have different cultural and religious beliefs" and there were "more refusals in these groups of parents".
  • The clinical lead of childhood immunisations for North Yorkshire and York said that some concern was "normal" from parents, that her health teams asked for consent by post, using online forms and by speaking directly with girls eligible for the vaccine.
  • The head of immunisations at PHE is quoted as saying that "Girls who missed either of their HPV vaccines should speak to their school nurse or GP and arrange to get the vaccine as soon as possible as they remain eligible until their 18th birthday."
But not one word about the safety or the effectiveness of the vaccine. Vaccine scepticism is censored on the BBC. The public are not supposed to know what 'anti-vaxxers' have to say, their voice is not heard.

So the BBC blames the social media for such views. The article refers to another one of its articles, Parents' vaccine side effects fear 'fuelled by social media', published in January 2019. This article is equally inaccurate, partial and unfair.

VACCINE UPTAKE, AND INFORMED PATIENT CHOICE
So has the reason for low uptake been missed? Could the real reason for low uptake be none of the things the BBC chose to mention? Could it not be that some people have become aware that vaccines (nor least the HPV vaccine) are not safe, or effective, and that scare stories (have the vaccine or risk cancer) no longer hold sway over their decision-making?

If the public had access to ALL the information about vaccines there would probably be many more people opting out of vaccination. If the BBC understood that informed patient choice was important - if they realised that their journalism was failing adequately to inform the public - that merely parroting the message of the conventional medicine is not good journalism - if the BBC offered its license payers more comprehensive, more accurate, more impartial, and fairer information on health issues more people would be able to make an informed choice, and there would undoubtedly be many more people refusing to accept vaccination.