MMR VACCINE. Doctors insist they are safe, that our children should be vaccinated. So what does the Patient Information Leaflet say?

Doctors insist that MMR vaccines are "entirely safe", indeed, so safe that many doctors throughout the world want the vaccination of babies and young children to become compulsory. We are told that questioning the safety of vaccines is 'false news', it's misinformation, and its dangerous.

I disagree with all this, as do many other people, so conventional medicine dismisses us as 'anti-vaxxers'. So where is the evidence that this vaccine is unsafe, and if so, where can parents find it?

The amazing fact is that the serious harm that can be caused by vaccines, including MMR vaccines, can be found in conventional medical literature. Indeed, it can be found in the patient information leaflets (PILs) that come with the vaccine itself.

Yet doctors rarely show these PILs to parents prior to vaccinating their children, preferring to hide them behind vague and platitudinous statements about vaccine safety.

WHAT CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE TELLS US
First, let us look at what doctors are telling us, what they want us to know. The UK's NHS provides us with the conventionally accepted message about its safety.

               "MMR is a safe and effective combined vaccine that protects against 3 separate illnesses - measles, mumps and rubella (German measles)"

So does this "safe and effective" MMR vaccine have any side effects? This is what we are told.

               "The side effects of the MMR vaccine are usually mild. It's important to remember that they're milder than the potential complications of measles, mumps and rubella. Side effects include:

• developing a mild form of measles that lasts for 2 to 3 days (this is not infectious)
• developing a mild form of mumps that lasts for a day or two (this is not infectious)

In rare cases, a small rash of bruise-like spots may appear a few weeks after the injection."

That's all, except that the NHS denies absolutely and pointedly that there is any link between the MMR vaccine, autism and bowel disease. The same NHS link provides another link to download an NHS leaflet which outlines just how safe the vaccine is (and how dangerous Measles, Mumps and Rubella are, and that it has been the vaccine that has reduced their incidence).

               "The combined MMR vaccine has been safely protecting children for many years in many  countries worldwide. In the UK, millions of doses have been given since it was introduced in 1988. Before vaccines can be used, they have to be thoroughly tested for safety. Although there may be some side effects from vaccination, they are usually mild and much less severe than the disease itself. Serious reactions following vaccination are rare. Many studies have taken place to look at the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine. The evidence is clear that there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism."

So does this NHS leaflet say any more about the side effects of the MMR vaccine? Yes, but it provides only more reassurance, more platitudes about its safety.

               "Not everyone gets side effects from the vaccine. To provide protection, the vaccine mimics the three infections that it protects against. Some people may get a rash that looks like a mild form of measles, the face may swell to look like mumps or they may have pains in the joints like rubella. These side effects occur in a small percentage of people after the first dose.

               "The side effects from the measles part of the vaccine are usually seen when the vaccine starts to work - around 6-10 days after vaccination. Swelling of the face or joint pains tend to come on around two to three weeks after vaccination when the mumps and rubella vaccines start to work.

               "Side effects such as a rash or neck swelling only last for around 2–3 days and are not infectious. This means that if you do develop these side effects, you cannot pass on the infection to others. On rare occasions, a reddish purple rash that looks like tiny bruises can occur up to six weeks following vaccination.

So the message to parents from the NHS, from conventional medicine, is clear - the side effects of MMR vaccines are not very serious at all.

Yet conventional medicine, the NHS, and our doctors know full well that this is untrue - and they know because their medical literature tells them that it is not true.

WHAT CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE KNOWS BUT PREFERS NOT TO TELL US
The NHS uses two MMR vaccines, Priorix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and M-M-RvaxPro, manufactured by Merck. The NHS provides links to the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) for both these vaccines.

1. Priorix
There are lots of contra-indications, warnings and precautions provided in the PIL, all suggesting that the vaccine is not as safe as we are being told. I would add that there is little evidence that doctors or nurses giving the vaccine ever check all these prior to vaccination.

"Priorix should not be given if
     • you are allergic against any of the components of this vaccine (listed in section 6). Signs of an allergic reaction may include itchy skin rash, shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue;
     • you are known to be allergic to neomycin (an antibiotic agent). A known contact dermatitis (skin rash when the skin is in direct contact with allergens such as neomycin) should not be a problem but talk to your doctor first;
     • you have a severe infection with a high temperature. In these cases, the vaccination will be postponed until recovery. A minor infection such as a cold should not be a problem, but talk to your doctor first;
     • you have any illness (such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)) or take any medicine that weakens the immune system. Whether you receive the vaccine will depend upon the level of your immune defences;
     • you are pregnant. In addition, pregnancy should be avoided for 1 month following vaccination.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to your doctor or pharmacist before you receive Priorix if:
     • you have disorders of the central nervous system, a history of convulsion accompanying high fever or family history of convulsions. In case of high fever following vaccination please consult your doctor promptly;
     • you have ever had a severe allergic reaction to egg protein;
     • you have had a side effect after vaccination against measles, mumps or rubella that involved easy bruising or bleeding for longer than usual (see section 4);
     • you have weakened immune system (e.g. such as HIV infection). You should be closely monitored as the responses to the vaccines may not be sufficient to ensure a protection against the illness (see section 2 “Priorix should not be given if”).

In addition, it should be noted that the PIL provides other warnings about interactions with other pharmaceutical drugs, and regarding pregnancy, breast feeding and fertility.

Side Effects
"Like all medicines, this vaccine can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them. Side effects that occurred during clinical trials with Priorix were as follows:

Very common (these may occur with more than 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine)
     • redness at the injection site
     • fever of 38°C or higher

Common (these may occur with up to 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine)
     • pain and swelling at the injection site
     • fever higher than 39.5°C
     • rash (spots)
     • upper respiratory tract infection

Uncommon (these may occur with up to 1 in 100 doses of the vaccine)
     • infection of the middle ear
     • swollen lymph glands (glands in the neck, armpit or groin)
     • loss of appetite
     • nervousness
     • abnormal crying
     • inability to sleep (insomnia)
     • redness, irritation and watering of the eyes (conjunctivitis)
     • bronchitis
     • cough
     • swollen parotid glands (glands in the cheek)
     • diarrhoea
     • vomiting
Rare (these may occur with up to 1 in 1,000 doses of the vaccine)
     • convulsions accompanying high fever
     • allergic reactions

After the marketing of Priorix, the following side effects have been reported on a few occasions:
     • joint and muscle pain
     • punctual or small spotted bleeding or bruising more easily than normal due to a drop in platelets
     • sudden life-threatening allergic reaction
     • infection or inflammation of the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves resulting in temporary difficulty when walking (unsteadiness) and/or temporary loss of control of bodily movements, inflammation of some nerves, possibly with pins and needles or loss of feeling or normal movement (Guillain-Barré syndrome)
     • narrowing or blockage of blood vessels
     • erythema multiforme (symptoms are red, often itchy spots, similar to the rash of measles, which starts on the limbs and sometimes on the face and the rest of the body)
     • measles and mumps like symptoms (including transient, painful swelling of the testicles and swollen glands in the neck).

It would appear that autism and bowel cancer has never been reported as a side effect of this vaccines, regardless of the number of parents who have claimed that their child developed autism following the vaccination.

M-M-RvaxPro
The PIL for this vaccine provides very similar information, reproduced here for clarity, particularly as doctors will usually not volunteer it behind obfuscations and protestations of 'safety'.

Do not use M-M-RVAXPRO:
     - If you or your child are allergic to any of the components of this vaccine (including neomycin or
any of the other ingredients listed in section 6)
     - If you or your child are pregnant (in addition, pregnancy should be avoided for 1 month after
vaccination, see Pregnancy)
     - If you or your child have any illness with fever higher than 38.5°C; however, low-grade fever
itself is not a reason to delay vaccination
     - If you or your child have active untreated tuberculosis
     - If you or your child have a blood disorder or any type of cancer that affects the immune system
     - If you or your child are receiving treatment or taking medicines that may weaken the immune
system (except low-dose corticosteroid therapy for asthma or replacement therapy)
     - If you or your child have a weakened immune system because of a disease (including AIDS)
     - If you or your child have a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency, unless
the immune competence of your or your child is demonstrated.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to the doctor or pharmacist before you or your child receive M-M-RVAXPRO if you have
experienced any of the following:
     - If you or your child have an allergic reaction to eggs or anything that contained egg
     - If you or your child have a history or family history of allergies or of convulsions (fits)
     - If you or your child have a side effect after vaccination with measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine
(in a single component vaccine or a combined vaccine, such as the measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccine manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc., or M-M-RVAXPRO) that involved easy bruising
or bleeding for longer than usual
     - If you or your child have infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) but do not show
symptoms of HIV disease. You or your child should be monitored closely for measles, mumps,
and rubella because vaccination may be less effective than for uninfected persons

There are also warnings about using this vaccine if the individual is using other pharmaceutical drugs, blood transfusions, in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and in certain other conditions.

Side Effects
Very common (may affect more than 1 in 10 vaccinees)
     * Fever (38.5°C or higher).
     * Injection-site redness; injection-site pain; injection-site swelling.

Common (may affect 1 to 10 in 100 vaccinees)
     * Rash (including measles-like rash).
     * Injection-site bruising.

Uncommon (may affect 1 to 10 in 1,000 vaccinees)
     * Nasal congestion and sore throat; upper respiratory tract infection or viral infection; runny nose.
     * Diarrhoea, vomiting.
     *  Hives.
     * Injection-site rash.

Not known (Frequency cannot be estimated from the available data)
     * Aseptic meningitis (fever, feeling sick, vomiting, headache, stiff neck, and sensitivity to light); swollen testicles; infection of the middle ear; inflamed salivary glands; atypical measles (described
in patients who received a killed measles virus vaccine, usually given before 1975).
     * Swollen lymph nodes.
     * Bruising or bleeding more easily than normal.
     * Severe allergic reaction that may include difficulty in breathing, facial swelling, localised swelling, and swelling of the limbs.
     * Irritability.
     * Seizures (fits) without fever; seizures (fits) with fever in children; walking unsteadily; dizziness; illnesses involving inflammation of the nervous system (brain and/or spinal cord).

THE UNDER-REPORTING OF SIDE EFFECTS
It is important to comment on the frequency of these reported side effects. There have been many studies that have calculated only 10% of drug (and vaccine) side effects are ever reported. I wrote about this in this blog. What this means that 90% are not reported, so these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects are not 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 10,000 but as little as 1 in 100, or 1 in 1,000.

Some studies indicate that 10% is an under-estimate, that a more accurate figure might be 1%, in other words that 99% of these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects remain unrecorded. This would mean that they happen in 1 in 100, or 1 in 10 vaccinated children.

Moreover, it should also be remembered that these PILs are produce by the drug companies, and only give information that has been proven, beyond doubt. Anything else, indeed anything that is denied (like links between the MMR vaccine, autism and bowel cancer) is not, and will never be mentioned in these documents.

What this means is that any parent who now suspects that the MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine) has caused autism is contradicted by their doctor, and the report of a link between a vaccine and a disease will never be recorded.

Yet the evidence of vaccine harm is there for anyone to see - swollen glands, insomnia, bronchitis, severe allergic reactions, seizures and fits, inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, et al - all known to be caused by a vaccine described by doctors as 'safe', with just a few, minor side effects.

Do you agree with this description? Given the information provided by the PILs, is this an accurate or honest description? Or is it deceptive? And dishonest?

Safety, perhaps, is in the eyes of the beholder! Perhaps it is an acceptable risk in the all-too-dangerous world of conventional medicine. But would most parents, who were given this information, and in a position to make an informed choice, take these risks with their young children?

A Measles Quiz. Measles is a dreadful disease from which we all need to be protected. Everyone needs to have the vaccination as soon as possible!

I published this blog, originally, in March 2019, when conventional medicine was scaring us about a possible outbreak of measles - because parents were not getting their children vaccinated.

 

THEY ARE AT IT AGAIN. This Guardian article, published yesterday (15 February 2024) tells us:  

 

• Measles in all English regions, says UKHSA: it urges parents to get children jabbed,
• ... hundreds of children infected,
• ... millions of parent issued with fresh warning,
• UK Health Security Agency declares a national incident,
  
• a major outbreak in the West Midlands in which hundreds of children developed the potentially deadly disease,
• hundreds of thousands of children remain unvaccinated,
• ...  due to worryingly low MMR vaccine uptake,
• ... children remain unprotected, 
• therefore remain at risk of serious complications or lifelong disability, but measles is completely preventable with vaccination,
• ... an additional 56 cases in the last week, bringing the total number since October last year to 521,
•  Measles can lead to serious complications, lifelong disability and death. It can affect the lungs and brain and cause pneumonia, meningitis, blindness and seizures.

So the scary story re-emerges; and the same scare story can be seen throughout the mainstream media. And so does my appeal to parents - before you rush off to get your children vaccinated do this quiz, 12 questions devised by the organisation, "Physicians for Informed Choice". 

 

I have highlighted the correct answers (I did not do this in 2019) but this is my original 2019 blog.

 

"Measles, and the MMR vaccine, has been a matter of controversy for many years now, and although the conventional medical establishment continues to insist that the vaccine is safe and effective, and that it is the reason for the drastic reduction of measles, the debate will just not go away.

I came across this measles quiz this morning from 'Physicians for Informed Consent. There are 12 questions, with multiple choice answers, as follows. Have a look and see if you know the answers. Some might surprise you.

1. Which of the following describes measles?

• A chronic condition
• A persistent bacterial infection
• A short term viral infection
• None of the above

2. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, nearly everyone had a mild case of measles (which provided lifetime immunity) by what age?

• 15
• 30
• 45
• 60

3. Between 1900 and 1963, death from measles declined by 98% in the U.S., due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care. This significant decline happened before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.

• True
• False

4. Right before the measles mass vaccination program was introduced in the U.S., what percentage of measles cases fully recovered?

• 99.99%
• 90%
• 80%
• None of the above

5. Which of the following is one of the main reasons why people in underdeveloped countries, especially those with widespread poverty, die from measles?

• Heavy smoking
• Low vitamin A
• Inadequate transit systems
• None of the above

6. Which vitamin is recommended by the World Health Organization for the treatment of measles?

• Vitamin A
• Vitamin D
• Vitamin E
• Vitamin K

7. Studies suggest that which of the following may be a benefit from getting measles?

• A reduced risk of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas
• Reduced risk of allergy-related diseases such as hay fever, eczema and asthma
• A lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease in adulthood
• All of the above

8. Babies born to mothers who have had measles are protected from measles for a longer period of time than babies born to mothers vaccinated with the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

• True
• False

9. About 1 in 640 children will experience a seizure from the first dose of the MMR vaccine.

• True
• False

10. Of the 5,700 U.S. children who get a seizure after the MMR vaccine each year, about 300 cases will result in epilepsy.

• True
• False

11. The manufacturer’s package insert states that the MMR vaccine has not undergone safety studies for its potential to cause cancer, genetic mutations, and impaired fertility.

• True
• False

12. It has been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles infection.

• True
• False

I am not going to give you the answers here, so why not go to the website and take part in the quiz yourself.

In medicine, informed choice is important, so why not also try it out on all your friends, family and colleagues?

And did you know.....
.......... about 38% of suspected measles cases in the 2015 Disneyland measles scare in California were actually vaccine-related and not caused by transmission of wild-type measles.

The article says that "doctors are stunned"! They shouldn't be, in most cases of a measles outbreak it is vaccinated children who are affected.

Okay! I think vaccines are harmful, so now I'm a Russian Agent! What has happened to the health debate?

Yesterday I posted several of my blogs on the MMR vaccine, and its links to the creation of Autism as a disease. Today the mainstream media is saying that I, and many other people of like mind, am repeating Russian lies, spreading false information about the flu, measles and other vaccine. The Mirror seems to be leading this story, but the rest of the mainstream media, the Sun, the Express, the Telegraph, and of course the BBC, are joining in.

They all provide the story, with the same words, almost identical headlines, which suggests that they are, as usual, singing from the same hymn sheet, the same press release, the same propaganda. "UK lives in DANGER because of Russian propaganda and fake news over MMR jabs" states the Express. They continue.

               "Experts have previously warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin's government has been trying to erode trust in US and European Governments by spreading lies on social media and 'fake news'. But now it is feared the Kremlin is using the same techniques of misinformation over flu jabs and the MMR measles vaccine. This is all about destabilisation by external forces. War is ever changing and becoming much more cyber-based. For generations, governments in the UK and the West have been extremely worried about destabilisation from external forces." (My emphasis).

Apparently these are the words of Chris Phillips, former head of National Counter Terrorism Security Office, who said it has become "a threat to daily life". The Express article then quotes Public Health England, and the Royal College of GPs, who have "repeatedly expressed concern" over the amount of 'fake news' shared on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

So clearly I am a Russian agent, an external force, spreading misinformation, fake news, and causing destabilisation, and eroding trust in US and European Governments! 

Or am I? Are my blogs 'misinformation', 'fake news'? Or is the underlying problem here the censorship of the media's coverage of important health issues?

Underlying this whole story are people, like myself, who genuinely believe that there is clear and undeniable evidence that the MMR vaccination is causing harm to children, particularly in creating the new disease of Autism. My concerns have been around for decades,  and particularly since the late 1990's. But then, in the early 2000's there were several studies that proved conclusively that there was no link between the MMR vaccination and Autism. Since that time, the mainstream media has refused to cover the concerns, there has been no further coverage, debate has ended.

So has the issue gone away? No, it certainly has not. Those who question the safety of vaccines, all vaccines not just the MMR, have used the social media to raise important and ongoing safety issues that arise, and we have done so mainly because the mainstream media have refused to do so.

So let me make an offer to the security forces, to the pharmaceutical industry, and to the mainstream media. I will take down this blog, and stop posting on social media, if the following issues are fully and openly discussed in future, as and when necessary.

• If vaccines are entirely safe, why are so many victims of vaccine damage paid $millions by the US Vaccine Court after they have suffered vaccine damage?
• Why have governments around the world given the pharmaceutical industry indemnity against any legal or financial claim for compensation?
• If it is not vaccines, what is the cause of the epidemic rise in Autism, why is a disease unknown in the 1940's now affecting at least 1 in 10 children?
• Why has the author of an important study that 'proved' there was no link between the MMR vaccine and Autism admitted that he and his team destroyed evidence that would have proved otherwise? Why has this never been discussed in the American Congress?
• How effective is the flu vaccine, when for the last several years after flu seasons studies have shown that it has only minimal effectiveness?
• Why is the health of so many fit, healthy, normal young girls been so completely compromised and destroyed after they are given the HPV vaccine?
• Why is it that when there are outbreaks of mumps and measles it is vaccinated children who contract the illness rather than the unvaccinated?
• Why is it that so many older people, and now so many younger people, suffer with dementia? Is the research that links dementia with annual flu vaccines correct?

These are just a few of the non-debated questions about vaccine safety. There are many more that should be discussed by the mainstream media. BUT THEY ARE NOT DISCUSSED. There is silence. Media organisations refuse to engage in the health debate. Why?

Wherever there is division, or disagreement or debate in society, a genuinely 'free' press would want to discuss the issue. They would examine the arguments of both sides. They would ask questions of both sides of the argument. They would ensure that they are brought together to debate the issue. Yet in matters of health this has not been done for the last 20 years. So many people accept these vaccines without any engagement in the debate about the issues. They have never looked at the pros and cons. They have never been made aware of the issues. MOST PEOPLE, AS A RESULT, ARE QUITE UNABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE.

The evidence against vaccines cannot never be discussed in any mainstream media platform. We are routinely denied access to those platforms. We have to resort to social media, not because the evidence is weak, not because it is 'fake' news, not because it is disinformation, but because they are the only platforms available to us.

And now we are accused of spreading false information that puts people lives in danger! We would argue that lives are placed at risk because people are not warned of the dangers of vaccination. So who is right? The issue is never argued. Governments tell us that vaccines are safe. The pharmaceutical industry tells us that vaccines are safe. The conventional medical establishment tells us that vaccines are safe. The mainstream media goes along with them, slavishly - vaccines are safe. So it is not surprising that most people accept that vaccines are safe.

So which side is putting the lives of people at risk? Those who are giving people vaccines containing mercury, or aluminium, and other substances known to be poisonous? Or those who are encouraging people not to accept vaccination, thereby denying them access to vaccines that are, apparently, so effective and 'entirely safe'?

• Those who argue the former are asking for a debate, an open examination of the evidence. 
• Those who argue the latter insist that they are right, that they should not be questioned, and that to do so creates 'a threat to daily life'.

I, and many other people, believe that vaccines are harmful to health. This is not 'fake news'. It is not 'disinformation'. All we ask is that the issue and the evidence is debated, openly and honestly, by the mainstream media. We may be wrong. Our arguments may be shot down in flames by the conventional medical establishment. If so, fine. The problem is not fake news it is no news, it is media censorship that bars discussion. Everyone should at least know the issues, the arguments, the evidence. Without it no-one can exercise an informed choice about vaccines.

At the moment people will have their lives destroyed either because they see something on social media that makes them decide not to accept vaccines that are a positive bonus as they keep us healthy, or because they have not heard about the evidence against vaccines, and their dangers. There is only one thing that needs stating, in a society that prides itself in being free.

Silence in not acceptable!

The BBC, the reporting of Medical Science, MMR and Autism

     "We, who are not scientists, are entitled to have opinions, so we are entitled to express them. So the BBC, and any other news organisations, are OBLIGED, not just entitled, to present them."

This is a quote from John Humphrys on the Today Programme, BBC radio, on 12th September 2017. He was interviewing Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at University College, who had reviewed the way the BBC reported science. Scientists, he said, were once 'God-like figures' who were not questioned by journalists. Now, so the argument went, they are questioned, and doubted, often in a hostile manner. Several examples were given about how, why and when science should be questioned.

• Nuclear power, in the 1950's. We were told that the first nuclear plants were producing electricity, but we were not told that the main reason for their existence was to produce nuclear bombs.
• John Gummer, a Tory minister, who tried to persuade us that beef was safe to eat, and gave his daughter a beef-burger to prove it.
• Andrew Wakefield and the MMR controversy. The Smith/Humphrys verdict was that this was "not scientific" and led the many parents refusing to vaccinate their children, "a complete disaster", a "car crash" of science reporting!
• The Tobacco industry, which denied for many years the connection between smoking, lung cancer and health.
• The current debate on climate change with climate change deniers.

It was at this point that Humphrys asked the (very legitimate) question about whether we can always trust science, and he made the point that has been quoted above. Read it again, and take it in, completely!

We can all have opinions - and news organisations like the BBC are OBLIGED (not just entitled) to report it. Otherwise, Humphrys stated, "there is no debate".

The Health Debate

Well, there is undoubtedly no debate about health issues, nor has there been for at least the last 20 years! Indeed, the BBC have refused to engage in a debate about health since the time of the Wakefield controversy! I wrote seven blogs on the non-existed health debate back in 2012, and since then the situation has not changed. The mainstream media refuses to discuss important health issues that are constantly being ranged, but are not heard.

So, as usual, Wakefield was dismissed out of hand by both Smith an Humphrys. As a result of the controversy people refused to vaccinate their children, and the implication (as always) was that vaccinations are good! Autism was mentioned, Smith commenting that 'autism was just being talked about at that time'. 

Yes, indeed it was. And during the intervening years, autism has grown to epidemic proportions. 

So if Wakefield was wrong (and Humphys is quite entitled to his opinion) what has caused this epidemic of autism. Conventional (sometimes called scientific) medicine still does not know apparently. This is what NHS Choices says.

               "The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors."

So the science of Smith and Humphrys has condemned one explanation for autism, but is still quite unable to supply another. Genetic predisposition? Autism was unknown before the 1940's, so where did these genes suddenly appear from? A natural tendency? Is this really the best that medical science can come up with?

So, Mr Humphrys, I disagree. And, as you say, I have a right to my opinion. Actually, I am far from  alone in having this opinion. Nor do I think that vaccinations are a good thing, as I do not believe in injecting myself (or anyone else) with poisons like mercury, aluminium, and other noxious subjects. So are the BBC is obliged to know about these opinions? If so, why are our opinions never aired on the BBC, or any other mainstream media source?

• I can understand that conventional medicine might not want to admit the link between vaccines are autism (and ADHD, Allergies, and Alzheimers, and much else). But I cannot understand why the mainstream media, including the BBC, refuse to put forward and question the views of anti-vaxers.

• I can understand that the commercial media does not want to 'bite the hand that feeds them', the pharmaceutical companies are massive advertisers on which media companies have become almost completely dependent. But the BBC?

So, Mr Humphys, just as you said, when someone's opinions are ignored there is no debate. One side, medical science, is reported, ad nauseam - new miracle drugs, wonder cures, life changing breakthroughs in treatment. But anyone concerned about the impact of toxic pharmaceutical drugs are vaccines are never heard, and conventional medical spokesmen are never asked why, despite these regular breakthroughs, autism, and most other chronic diseases (cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and many, many more) are now running at epidemic levels. 

• When will journalists have the courage to ask what I want them to ask - when, with all the money are resources being poured into conventional medicine, can we expect a decline in the incidence of disease? 
• And more important, are the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines we are regularly told are so good for us causing these disease epidemics through their so-called 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions?

More specifically, when will the mainstream media inform us about medical events that demonstrate that we are dealing with a deeply fraudulent medical system? For instance, when will it be reported that the scientist who led the medical research that 'proved' there was no link between MMR and Autism has actually admitted that he destroyed important data that would have proven the link? 

I have asked the BBC about this, and blogged about it in 2016. They told me that it was not newsworthy! Fraudulent medical science, not newsworthy? A medical system in denial about a serious link between disease and vaccines, not newsworthy? It would appear that it is okay for the BBC to report favourably on medical science, but any unfavourable news is to be censored! 

So, Mr Humphrys, there is, indeed, no debate. My opinions, and the opinions of an ever-growing proportion of the public, are not being heard. You might says that we are 'entitled' to know about opinions contrary to science. But it would appear that the BBC does not feel 'obliged' to tell us about them. And in the meantime, the rates of Autism continue to rise.

Press Freedom. Do we have it? Who controls our media?

Peter Oborne's resignation from the Telegraph (18th February 2015) poses questions we should all be asking about our Media, our 'Free' press, and our public service broadcaster, the BBC.

     WHO OWNS AND CONTROLS OUR MEDIA?

     WHO DECIDES WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE PASSED ON TO US, AND WHAT INFORMATION IS KEPT SHROUDED, OR EVEN SECRET?

     WHAT INFORMATION IS CENSORED BY OUR 'FREE' PRESS AND WHY?

     CAN WE BELIEVE ANYTHING OUR 'FREE' PRESS TELLS US?

     CAN WE BE SURE WE ARE BEING TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH?

Our 'Free' press is not under the control of politicians and governments - hence we call it 'free' and are  proud of this when we compare what happens in countries that are more autocratic.

What Oborne has brought attention to is that there are other forces within society that makes our 'free' press less free than we assume. He talks of the power of advertisers. But advertisers are big, powerful, wealthy, multilateral, organisations - Big Corp. No major news organisation, perhaps with the exception of the BBC, could survive without them. If Big Corp threaten to withdraw their advertising, most news organisations would not be viable.

It remains to be seen how much HSBC Bank payrolls the Telegraph, or how much its wealthy owners are in league with the bank. Oborne complains that democracy itself was being undermined by “shadowy” media executives “who determine what truths can and what truths can’t be conveyed” by news organisations.

This blog has been making this point, and asking these questions for many years now, specifically in relation to the information the public is given about the Conventional Medical Establishment, that controls our national health service (NHS), and similar services throughout the world. In particular, it asks important questions about the activities of the pharmaceutical industry, Big Pharma.

• Why is it the new Big Pharma drugs are regularly and routinely presented as 'new breakthroughs', as 'wonder drugs', as developments that will 'change our experience' of serious illness - all without serious question?
• Why is it that when Big Pharma drugs and vaccines are found to be ineffective, harmful, or downright dangerous our Media regularly and routinely fail to tell us? 
• Why is it when drug companies are found to be fraudulent, in their commercial activities, in their drug testing, in their drug marketing, in their refusal to share full information, they are not taken to task by our Media?
• Why do Alternative Medical Therapies, such as Homeopathy, receive nothing but derision and dismissal from our mainstream media?
• Why is there not more attention paid to comparison about the 'outcomes' of medical treatment as opposed to RCT's (randomised controlled tests) which is the favour domain of the drug companies?

To demonstrate this, one important medical story broke during September 2014 and it has been almost totally ignored by the mainstream media. The story can be simply outlined:

1. The link between the MMR vaccine and the rising epidemic of Autism was widely discussed during the late 1990's and early 2000's. The result was a reduction in the number of parents who had their children immunised with this vaccine.
2. Andrew Wakefield was pilloried by the mainstream media for drawing attention to this possible link, and eventually lost his job, and moved to the USA.
3. In 2004, a major study was published that found no evidence of any link between MMR and Autism. As a result of this all further discussion about the link has been stopped within mainstream Media.
4. In September 2014, 10 years after the study, one of the co-authors admitted that important evidence that should have been included in the 2004 study had been excluded, information that would have indicated that the link did exist.

Is this a newsworthy event. Is it not in the public interest for this information to be thoroughly investigated? Have thousands of children been vaccinated for the last 10 years and contracted Autism as a result?

Not for the mainstream media, either in the USA, Britain, or Europe where it has been completely and utterly ignored. Even the BBC, our public services broadcaster, not funded by advertising, but directly by the public via the licence fee, has not told its paymasters about the story. Indeed, the BBC has been one of the most serious offenders during the last 10 years in its failure and refusal to debate the MMR-Autism link.

So Peter Oborne has raised an important issue about our 'free' press. However, it is likely that he will now be pilloried by the Media he will have offended. Worse, he will be ignored. Worse, the questions he has asked will not be seriously addressed because Big Corp will not want them to be addressed.

The question he has asked is not one that concerns the Telegraph and HSBC. He asks a much bigger question than this, and it is this.

Can we believe anything, on any subject, that our 'Free Press is telling us?

DPT and MMR Vaccines. Is this really a denial from Jeremy Hunt?

The dangers of the DPT and MMR vaccines are well known to anyone who examines the 'non-official' evidence that is coming regularly from parents whose children have been damaged by both these vaccinations, and others. Those who have not looked into this are entirely reliant on official Department of Health, NHS, and GP denials, and the mainstream media's passive and unquestioning acceptance of these denials.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I have recently published 3 blogs in relation to the dangers of the DPT and the MMR vaccines, routinely given to our young children.

• The DPT Vaccine. Do doctors really know it is dangerous? And if so why are they not telling us?
• The MMR Vaccine: Our GPs, the NHS, and Big Pharma know it is dangerous. 
• Open Letter to Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary regarding the information on these vaccines

The first two provide details of the quite frightening lists of serious diseases caused by the MMR and DPT vaccines, and which are mentioned within the package inserts that comes with each vaccine.

The third blog was an 'open' letter to Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State at the Department of Health, asking him to confirm the 'side-effects', 'adverse reactions', or DIEs, contained within these package inesrts.

There has now been a response from the Department of Health to my letter. I have copied the Department of Health's  response letter below, so that if anyone wants to plough through it can do so. However, for those people who don't want to do so this is my précis of what they seem to be saying.

• The package inserts relate to vaccines used in USA, and not in the UK and Europe. There is no explanation about just how different these vaccines are, but the insinuation appears to be is that the US vaccines are not safe (although they do not comment on this) but that 'our' vaccines are safe!

• And, as the US vaccines are no longer used here, this is not a problem for us.

• In the USA, such adverse reactions 'may be listed without regard to causality' so that 'it is possible that some events listed in the US product inserts were just a coincidence', that is, the vaccination and the adverse reaction may have come together, but this was just coincidental! The two events are quite separate. The child may have been healthy prior to the vaccination, and damaged (or even dead) after the vaccination, but without proof of causality we must not assume that the vaccine caused the damage!

• In Britain, we are told, 'current practice is that events should not be listed as a possible side-effect ... unless there is reasonable suspicion or evidence of a possible causal association'. In other words 'spontaeous reporting' (which I assume means a parent reporting that their child has been damaged, and there is a connection) is not good enough. This kind of evidence is considered to be 'anecdotal', and not 'scientific'. Parents making such claims are not to be believed, per se. If there is suspicion that there is a connection between a vaccine and child damage, there is no need for action until such time that a causal link has been found.

• Only when such a 'causal relationship' is found will the MHRA investigate into the situation. Of course, it is well to realise that the Department of Health, and the MHRA, has no money to research these 'causal links' independently, so usually it is the manufacturer who is asked to fund the research, and be good enough to let us all know.

• The main part of the letter gets complicated, with talk of 'SPCs' (Summary of Product Characteristics) and 'PILs' (Patient Information Leaflets), and what is, and (more accurately) what is not put in them. What seems clear from this description is that drugs and vaccines are put on to the market, they are given to us, and there are a variety of hurdles to negotiate before any  'adverse reaction' reports are even considered, leave along added to SPCs and PILs.

• Then comes the statistics about some of the diseases I highlighted in my letter. And, as you can see, there is just nothing to worry about!

• Finally comes the 'all drugs and vaccines have side-effects' argument, and the ultimate 'no gain without pain' argument, which for homeopaths, of course, is alway met with much laughter!

There is no no re-assurance about the safety of the DPY and MMR vaccines to be gleaned within this letter from the Department of Health. Just an overwhelming apathy. What the letter does emphasise is the length to which the Conventional Medical Establishment will go to protect conventional drugs and vaccines, and to undermine any suggestion that any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine could possible be dangerous.



Here is the DoH letter...
"The two documents you refer to are the product inserts in Infanrix vaccine and MMRII vaccine in the United States. Whilst the Department is unable to comment on the US manufacturers' rationale for including these events you describe in these inserts, it should be noted that both documents state that such events may be listed without regard to causality. It is therefore possible that some events listed in the US product inserts were coincidental with vaccination.

In the UK and Europe, possible side effects of medicines and vaccines are listed in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for healthcare professionals and the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) for patients. These will differ in some ways to the US product inserts. Although Infanrix and MMRII are no longer marketed in the UK, the UK SPC and PIL for the similar products, Infanrix IPV and MMRVaxPro, can be viewed on the electronic medicines compendium website at http://www.medicine.org.uk/emc/.

Although in the past some adverse events were included in many EU SPC and PILs on the basis of spontaneous reporting and without established causality, current practice is that events should not be listed as a possible side effect in the SPC or PIL unless there is reasonable suspicion or evidence of a possible causal association. When a new signal of a possible side effect emerges, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which has responsibility for safety of medicines and vaccines in the UK, together with other European regulators, takes steps to review all available evidence to assess a causal association and to quantify the risk. Regulatory action may then be taken to ensure prescribers and patients are aware of the possible risks via the product information and other relevant communication.

The UK product information for Infanrix IPV (and other DPT vaccines_ does not list Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) as a possible side effect. There is reference to DIDS within the SPC but only to state that a family history of SIDS should not preclude vaccination. The association between infant immunisation and SIDS has been extensively studied through epidemiological research. These studies have found no evidence of a causal association and are published in the medical literature.

Similarly, Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is not listed as a possible side effect in the Infanrix IPV and there is no robust evidence to support this association. Researchers in the US have recently published a study which found no evidence of an increased risk of GBS following vaccinations of any kind (including DPT and MMR vaccines). Although GBS is listed as a possible side effect in the MMRVaxPro SPC, this is an historical inclusion in MMR vaccines SPCs based on temporally-associated case reporting, and there is no robust evidence of a causal association.

Encephalitis, if causally associated with MMR vaccine, has been reported at a frequency below one per 10  million doses. Any risk of encephalitis following administration of the vaccine is far below the risk of encephalitis cause by natural diseases (measles: 1 in 1000 to 2000 cases; mumps: 2-4 in 1000 cases; rubella: approximately 1 in 6000 cases). The balance of risks and benefits of MMR vaccine are clearly favourable.

Of course, as with any medicine, vaccines can cause side effects in some people and potential risks must be balance against the expected benefits in preventing serious disease. However, serious side effects are very rare. It is important that healthcare professionals discuss potential risks and benefts with vaccines or their parents/carers, and the PIL should be made available to parents/those being vaccinated when they receive the vaccine. The PIL is a useful basis for this discussion.

SD, Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries

Open Letter to Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health

This blog was originally published on 13th June 2013. They have now had my letter for over two weeks.

So does the MMR and DPT vaccines cause death?

The answer is - there is no answer - yet. Indeed, there is no reply from the Department of Health. Not even an acknowledgement of my letter.

What does this silence mean?

* They don't know the answer?
* They don't care?
* They hope that by staying quiet the question will go away?


The Original Blog, the Original Letter

Dear Mr Hunt

Information has been circulating recently about the ‘adverse reaction’ caused by by both the DPT and MMR vaccines. I refer to my blogs at:

• http://safe-medicine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/measles-and-mmr-vaccine-only-one.html
• http://safe-medicine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-dpt-vaccine-do-doctors-really-know.html

The source of this information are the package inserts for both vaccines, and published on the internet by GSK and Merck at:

• http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_infanrix.pdf
• http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

These inserts suggest that the diseases that emanating from the DPT vaccine, given routinely to all our children, include the following:

• Guillain-Barre Syndrome
• Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
• and many, many others.

Similarly, the diseases that can be caused by the MMR vaccine, also given routinely to our children, include the following:

• Encephalitis
• Guillain-Barre Syndrome
• Arthritis
• and death.

I would like to ask you the following questions regarding this information.

1. Is the information contained in these manufacturers inserts correct?
2. If the information is not correct, would you provide me with more accurate information?
3. If the information is correct, can you tell me why is the public not being informed about these adverse reactions?

I am a wholehearted supporter of your government’s policy of ‘Patient Choice’, and I agree  absolutely with the key phrase in your department’s recent White Paper  which states:

“No decision about me without me”.

However, if patients are to be involved in such decision-making, for instance, whether parents should give their children either of these vaccines, everyone requires full, transparent and honest information in order to make a proper, informed choice. 

In respect to these two vaccines, the public are being told, regularly, by the Department of Health, the NHS, or by all our local GP’s, that these vaccines are ‘entirely safe’, and parents are constantly being urged to vaccinate their children - and this is being done, as far as I can see, without access to this information.

I look forward to receiving your response, and in the interests of openness and transparency, I can give you my assurance that your response will be attached to the blog on which I have published this open letter. 

Yours sincerely

Steve Scrutton

Please note that Mr Hunt's response to this open letter has been published on this blog at

http://safe-medicine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/dpt-and-mmr-vaccines-is-this-really.html

Measles and the MMR vaccine. Only one 'acceptable' opinion?

Press Freedom was hard won over previous centuries. It is important as it ensures that we can criticise our government, the people who govern us, and in this way maintain the freedoms we have won. And there is little doubt that the press does question and challenge our government and our politicians. This makes press freedom one of the foundations of our democracy.

But what about the Media's ability (or preparedness) to question and challenge the big, powerful, hugely wealthy and influential Corporations?  Does it provide for us the same protection from industrial conglomerates such as:

• The Petro-Chemical Industry
• The Defence and Armaments Industry
• Finance and Banking
• The Pharmaceutical Industry
• and many others?

We know that many of these powerful Corporations, and industrial conglomerations, are now much bigger than most national governments, and influential within even the larger and apparently more powerful nations, such as Britain and the USA. "Big Corp's" power and influence rests, of course, on their ability to invest (or dis-invest) in national economies, to create (or destroy) jobs, to advertise, promote and sell their products, and to make links with, and influence other powerful social and economic forces.

Even the largest independent media groups (many themselves large corporate enterprises) are not only reliant on advertising revenues, their boardrooms appear to be full of people from other powerful corporations. What this mwNA is that it is difficult for the media to challenge and question these large and powerful vested interests - without compromising their advertising revenues, and SO their viability. It is always difficult, and sometime quite foolish, to bite the hand that feeds you!

The 'epidemic' of measles in Swansea is a small, but almost perfect example of this. In the last few weeks, the mainstream media in Britain have been quite unable to provide us with anything other than what the Conventional Medical Establishment, dominated as it is by one of the most powerful corporate conglomerates of all, Big Pharma, wants us to know.

In particular, I have been watching and questioning the failure of BBC News to challenge the 'received wisdom' of the ConMed Establishment. Throughout, the BBC has been content to provide conventional medical spokespersons with a pulpit from which to express their views. Rarely, if ever, have they questioned or challenged these views

So let's examine how the BBC has been reporting this 'serious epidemic' of measles? My assessment suggests that these 7 features have dominated its coverage.

1. The Measles outbreak in Swansea is a serious health problem.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

It must really be questioned whether the numbers involved, still under 1,000 cases, really constitutes 'an epidemic', or a news story that really deserve the attention it has received. In comparison, during the first 3 weeks of 1959, there were 41,000 cases reported in England and Wales. Yet the BBC has never deviated from this alarmist description of the measles outbreak.

Nor has the BBC ever discussed how 'serious' the illness of measles really is. If it had wanted to add some balance to the hysteria generated by the NHS it might have pointed to at least two sources of information:

• The consistent statistical decline in deaths caused by measles from the mid- to late 19th century onwards. It is no longer a 'killer' disease, and this could and should have been examined.
• Conventional medical descriptions of measles prior to the introduction of the MMR vaccination. These do not describe measles in the terms currently being used. For instance, the BMJ, on 7th February 1959, published an article in which GP's expressed their views about the epidemic that year. Most agreed that measles was, at that time, a mild infection, and that they rarely had occasions to treat it with anything other than bed-rest, or an occasional antibiotic!

How times have changed! In an apparent attempt to emphasise the seriousness of the recent measles 'epidemic', the BBC has made much of the single measles-related death that was reported in the area, although since it became clear that the man concerned had more serious underlying health problems, and was actually seen by doctors shortly prior to his death, this association seems to have been quickly dropped, at least for the moment.

2. The 'epidemic' has been caused by parents not taking up the MMR vaccination in the late 1990's

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

Other than the blank and apparently definitive assertion that it is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles, there appears to be a paucity of evidence to support the allegation? And the BBC has certainly never questioned ConMed spokespersons about why they are making this link, and what evidence they have to support it.

Certainly, outbreaks of similar diseases in recent times has shown that it is the vaccinated population, and not the unvaccinated population, that has suffered from these 'epidemic' diseases, and are in general more vulnerable to illness in general.

In this, and much else, the BBC appears quite happy to parrot the conventional medical view that all would be well if only they had been able to treat people in their preferred way

3. The reason for parents not taking up the vaccine is due to ignorance, particularly based on 'misinformation' about the MMR vaccine.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

From the very beginning of BBC coverage, their reporting was happy to lay the blame for the measles outbreak by referring to Dr Andrew Wakefield, and the concerns he raised about the MMR vaccine in the late 1990's. Despite the repeated replication of his research (which have never been mentioned), and the ongoing concerns about the safety of the vaccine, the BBC have been quite content to repeat the conventional medical view that Wakefield's research as been entirely dismissed.

At no stage has the BBC examined why people are opting out of vaccines. And certainly it has never reported on the experience of many parents who, over the years, have made serious allegations about the MMR vaccine, and the serious harmful impact it has had on the health of their children.

Nor has the BBC been willing to make any reference to the many hefty compensation payments made to parents of children who have been damaged by the MMR vaccine, and to court judgements which have confirmed the association between vaccines and serious illness.

5. The MMR vaccine is effective.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has never questioned the implicit assumption of conventional medicine that the MMR vaccine if an effective treatment. Indeed, the BBC seems to have accepted this assumption without question or challenge, and has never questioned the ConMed claim that measles has declined as a direct result of the MMR vaccine.

The BBC has completely ignored the freely and readily available evidence provided by statistics, and the graphs that arise from them, that chart the decline of measles, as a 'killer' disease since the mid-19th century, and which clearly shows that since the MMR vaccine was introduced in the late 1970's, it has had no effect on the rate of this decline.

Nor have the BBC ever questioned conventional medical spokesperson about the evidence that in similar outbreaks of disease (whooping cough, mumps and measles) have affected children who have already been vaccinated against the disease.

6. The MMR vaccine is safe.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has never questioned this assumption, and indeed it seems to refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. They have been entirely clear that there are no links between the MMR vaccine,and Autism, and seem to believe that as long as no-one is given the opportunity to discuss the evidence for this link, it will just go away!

So instead, has the BBC looked at the information that is known, and accepted by the ConMed establishment, about the 'adverse reactions' to the MMR vaccine? Merck, in its MMR package insert provides a long list of illnesses and diseases that are known to be caused by the vaccine, includes the following: pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, purpura, meningitis, and death. Yes, death!

• So, do the BBC mention this? Absolutely not! 
• Do they still recommend that we all rush off for the vaccine? Yes, without reservation. 
• Does the BBC believe they should share this information about adverse reactions with their viewers, listeners and readers so that they can make an 'informed choice'? Most certainly not! 
• Does the BBC inform us that one version of the MMR vaccine, the Urabe vaccine, was withdrawn for safety reasons in the early 1980's? Certainly not. 
• Nor do they tell us that Japan has banned one MMR vaccine for safety reasons.
• Does the BBC seek to speak to the parents of children who believe that their child has been damaged by the MMR vaccine? Of course not. 
• Have they bothered to speak to organisations like 'Informed Parent', who support these families, and seek to provide new parents with balanced information about vaccination? Of course not.
• Does the BBC inform the public of the court adjudications in the USA, Italy, and elsewhere, that have made compensation payments the the victims of this, and other vaccines? 

Not a word, not a mention of any of this.

7. Vaccination policy is good, and is the right (if not the only) health policy

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has made it absolutely clear in recent years that it supports conventional medical treatment, and is not prepared to allow any discussion about alternatives, except when it goes out of its way to attack them. As far as the Swansea measles outbreak is concerned, there is no alternative to the MMR vaccine. The BBC has actively promoted vaccines, and regularly given information about the number of new measles cases, the special vaccine clinics that have been set up in the area, and has given an open and unchallenged platform to the ConMed spokespersons to express their opinions, freely and without question.

The BBC has provided no platform for alternative treatments. There is no platform for those people who, like myself, believe in the 'natural' immunity that arises when children are allowed contract illnesses like measles. There is no mention of parents who, like my mum and many of her generation, encouraged children to contract measles, and arranged 'measles parties' to facilitate this.

Within the BBC, it would appear, the conventional medical establishment rules supreme!

8. Should vaccination be mandatory?

This mirrors exactly questions being asked within parts of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

There can be little doubt, from the way questions are being asked by BBC journalists and presenters, notably Jeremy Paxman, that the BBC is taking up a position that favours this view. Indeed, if the BBC accepts so passively all the 7 poinra above, then it may, indeed, be considered a 'common sense' view. If they can ignore the evidence of families who have been damaged by this vaccine, if they can ignore the 'adverse reactions' admitted by the vaccine manufacturers, if they continue to accept without question what they are told by the Cnventional Medical Establishment, than mandatory vaccination might seem to be a sensible and reasonable policy.


Watching, listening to, and reading the BBC account of the measles outbreak in Swansea leaves me with little doubt that whilst Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys and others question and challenge our political leaders aggressively, they fail entirely and completely to question and challenge the views and practices of the Conventional Medical Establishment. Perhaps they are not allowed to do so (?) And in fairness, they share this failing with the rest of the mainstream media in Britain!

Yet health freedom is every bit as important as political freedom. 

Alongside many other people, I refuse to allow myself to be damaged by conventional drugs and vaccines. I consider them to be both ineffective and unsafe - dangerous in fact.

Just as the BBC should reserve my right to vote in political elections as I please, they should also reserve my right to choose the medical treatments I accept, and refuse. But they do not do so.

The BBC regularly contravenes its editorial policy of fairness and impartiality in matters of health. Our news media should no more give exclusive and unquestioned coverage to one form of medicine, however dominant it has become within the NHS, than it would give exclusive and unquestioned coverage to one political party. I have complained about the BBC's coverage of this Swansea measles outbreak, and the response I have received makes it quite clear that the BBC does not understand, or perhaps does not want to understand, the issues raised by this sort of biased coverage.

The threat to our freedoms no longer comes exclusively from our government and our politicians. It comes also from powerful corporate conglomerates, and not least Big Pharma. The pharmaceutical companies want us to believe that their drugs and vaccines are safe. They want us to believe that only through these drugs and vaccines provide the route to good health, that nothing else works, that we should all have the 'benefits' of conventional medical treatment.

It would appear from their performance over the Swansea measles outbreak that the BBC agrees with this, and is actively promoting it.

Whether it is 85%, 90% or 95% people accepting vaccination, the failure to give them full, accurate and honest information about the dangers of their decision, is not only a dereliction of duty, it is a failure to provide them with an opportunity to make an informed decision. The BBC is guilty of this.

Whether it is 5%, 10% or 15% of people refusing vaccination, to ignore them, and to dismiss their views, is an unacceptable and negligent media response, especially from a public broadcaster. In doing this, the BBC is in breach of its editorial guidelines of impartiality.

Measles. The Moral Panic in Swansea?

The outbreak of Measles in Swansea this month (April 2013) has led to a moral panic that has been extraordinary to watch.

First, Measles has been with us for a very long time. It was first described in the 7th century, and eventually differentiated from Smallpox and Chickenpox, in the 10th century. It has been estimated that 220 million people had died from the disease, and this kind of data forms the basis of the modern day ‘scare’ stories that so often hit the headlines today. This outbreak of measles is quite typical of this. It is a panic created by a disease that the BMJ know is no longer a serious, killer illness.

Indeed, the BMJ knew this as long ago as 1959 (7th February, p354), where they speak about the large number of cases recorded in England and Wales (41,000 compared with under 1,000 in Swansea). They asked doctors to comment on Measles and concluded that

          "these writer agree that measles is nowadays normally a mild infection, and they rarely have occasion to give prophylactic gamma globulin".

The reality is, now as then, that although most children will contract measles during their lifetime, for most healthy people it is a disease that the body deals with quite normally, and without complications. It has, however, always been a 'killer' disease to those living in poverty, in poor, damp housing, with a poor diet. This is why the death rates rose so rapidly during the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions of the late 18th, early 19th centuries. And it is why, following the increasing affluence of the Victorian era, alongside the urban public health measure that were introduced, the disease has been on a steady decline.

          "The combined death rate of scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 per cent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition. In poor countries today, diarrhoea and upper-respiratory-tract infections occur more frequently, last longer, and lead to higher mortality where nutrition is poor, no matter how much or how little medical care in available". Illich.  

Illich wrote this in 1975 - but the idea that conventional Medicine has cured Measles persists, largely owing to the success of its brilliant, self-congratulatory propaganda over recent years.

For anyone who believes that the MMR vaccine played a role in the reduction of deaths through measles, please look at this graph.

Listen to the conventional medical establishment, however, and you will be led to believe that it has been antibiotics and vaccines have achieved this result. They have not. The graph shows, quite clearly, that the decline of measles as a 'killer' disease has been consistent over the decades, and the introduction of antibiotics or vaccines have played no visible role in this decline whatsoever.

So why has Measles become a more serious disease over the last few decades, and certainly since 1959 - a time when mother's organised measles parties in order to ensure that their children contracted it naturally? Has it, perhaps, something to do with the promotion of the MMR vaccine? 

Certainly, the purposeful generation of fear in Swansea has been something that the NHS, with the supine support of the mainstream media (led, as always by the BBC, compliant as always to the wishes of the Conventional Medical Establishment) has created.

We are told that those people contracting measles are those who have not been vaccinated in the late 1990's, largely owing to that 'awful' doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who had the audacity to suggest that the MMR vaccines might be dangerous! These children should get vaccinated as soon as possible, to protect themselves from this dreadful disease!

Yet measles is not 'dreadful'. And the MMR vaccine is not safe. So the NHS are telling us to take a medication that is dangerous to prevent an illness that is not serious.

And the treatment of the measles, with homeopathy, can take the fear of the illness away, completely.

Even the alleged cause of the outbreak in Swansea is far from certain. We have been told that it has arisen from too many children not being vaccinated in the late 1990's. Is this really the case? If so, where are the statistics? Where are the children, aged 13 and just below, who have contracted the disease? We must patiently await the statistics that will ultimately emerge.

The evidence about outbreaks of disease, like this one at Swansea, have hitherto shown that it is the vaccinated, and not the unvaccinated that have been more likely to contract the disease. See, for example, the following links.

Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated children

The Marvellous Health of Unvaccinated Children | International Medical Council on Vaccination

Latest research shows vaccinated children more chronically ill than non-vaccinated

Study: Unvaccinated children far less prone to allergies and disease than vaccinated children

Serious Chicken Pox Outbreak in Indiana is Among Vaccinated Children | Health Impact News

Unvaccinated Children Suffer Fewer Infectious Diseases: StudyGaia Health

If my hunch is correct, the Swansea episode has been another example of a health scare, a panic created in order to sell more drugs and vaccines. If so, the Department of Health, the NHS, our GP's, and our national media, have all been complicit in yet another marketing exercise in favour of the Big Pharma drug companies.

MMR causes Measles!

The MMR vaccine, given to children for measles, can actually cause measles! So is the parental decision to vaccinate or not so difficult? 

One case arose in Illinois, USA; where 17 high school student came down with measles even though 99% had received the MMR vaccine.
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

The other case arose in Texas, USA, where 14 students contracted measles after the MMR vaccination.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303

But the real argument against MMR is not that it can cause the very disease that purports to treat. It is not even that the vaccine does not really work in offering us immunity. Or indeed that the MMR vaccine is strongly associated with serious disease-inducing-effects (DIEs), like Autism. It is because measles is not really a serious disease!

Before drug companies wanted to sell us the MMR vaccine, measles was considered to be a minor, self-limiting childhood disease. Parents actually wanted their children to contract the disease, naturally, in order for them to develop a lifetime immunity to it. Parents actually organised 'measles' parties for their children. But how do drug companies sell a drug, or a vaccine? They demonise the disease, they make parents fearful.

Mumps as another disease that has been demonised - in order to sell the MMR vaccine. This taken from my e-book, 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine'.

Mumps was described thus in the MacMillan Guide to Family Health, published in 1982.

"A fairly common risk of mumps is the swelling of testes in a boy or the ovaries in a girl. This is much more common in an adult. Invariably the swelling goes down after a few days leaving no ill effects. It is excessively rare for the swelling to cause sterility. A rare complication is acute pancreatitis which passes within a few days. Mumps is generally a mild disease. The usual outcome is complete recovery within about 10 days".

Compare this to the description in British Medical Association Complete Family Health Encyclopaedia published in 1995.

"Mumps is an acute viral illness mainly of childhood. Serious complications are uncommon. However, in teenage and adult males, mumps can be a highly uncomfortable illness in which one of both testes become inflamed and swollen. Most infections are acquired at school or from infected family members. In the US, where many states required proof of mumps vaccination for school entry, the incidence has dropped markedly over the last 20 years. In the U.K. by contrast, before routine immunisation was introduced in 1988, mumps affected a large proportion of the population at sometime in their lives, usually between the ages of 5 and 10. An occasional complication of mumps is meningitis. A less common complication of mumps is pancreatitis which causes abdominal pain and vomiting. In males after puberty, orchitis (inflammation of the testes) develops in about a quarter of the cases. Subsequently the affected testis may shrink to smaller than normal size. In rare cases, mumps orchitis affects both testes leading to infertility".

The MMR vaccine perhaps one of the biggest Con Tricks yet perpetrated by Conventional Medical Establishment, supported, of course, by the Big Pharma companies.