Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Analysis

Vaccine programmes must consider their effect on general resistance

BMJ 2012; 344 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3769 (Published 14 June 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e3769

Rapid Response:

Re: Vaccine programmes must consider their effect on general resistance

The authors wrote:

'...A notable exception is the high titre measles vaccine, which was withdrawn because an interaction with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine resulted in a 33% (95% confidence interval 2% to 73%) increase in mortality among children aged 4-60 months in several west African randomised trials.3. ...'

Where the parents of these children informed of this? Where the officials held accountable for introducing a product that led to the deaths of these children? I think not.

The cavalier approach to adverse reactions permeates throughout the global public health system. Note how health officials report on an outbreak of meningitis following MMR vaccines:

'...This study raises new practical questions regarding public health. The issue is not simply whether a specific vaccine is associated with an adverse event, but the extent to which a specific vaccination strategy influences the visibility of the adverse event despite its confirmed relative rarity, and hence affects public confidence....' (1)

It appears the medical authorities are more concerned about adverse events becoming visible rather than how they have adversely affected children and their families and in this specific case used MMR vaccines known to have caused the same severe reactions in other countries leading to the withdrawal of the product.

Another example of a careless (and potentially dangerous) management of a reported severe reaction to an MMR vaccine this time from the UK's NHS website:

Q:My son had a sever [sic] reaction to the first MMR jab. Does this mean that he is well protected from these diseases, or is a second dose still necessary?
A: If a child has responded to all the components of the vaccine the first time, he will not have a problem being exposed to the viruses again. It’s like any one of us who is already immune meeting someone with the disease – the infection can’t get established. If he hasn’t made protection to all three diseases after the first time, then he would still be susceptible to those natural infections, and still needs the 2nd dose. Reactions after the 2nd dose are essentially the same as after the 1st dose, but if they do occur they are even rarer. There are no new side effects after the 2nd dose that do not occur after the 1st dose. The advice is therefore that it is safe for your child to have the 2nd dose in order that he is properly protected. (2)

At no point did the adviser mention anything regarding the nature of the severe reaction nor urge the person to contact the child's GP to seek personal medical advice. Again, total disregard for the potential outcome.

It gets worse: the Department of Health's MMR The Facts Leaflet from 2004 makes the outrageous claim:

'...A baby could respond safely and effectively to around 10,000 vaccines at any one time. So the baby's immune system can and does easily cope with the MMR vaccine....' (3)

The UK's Department of Works and Pensions is responsible for the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit. Over the years the Unit has made many awards including to the families of children severely neurologically damaged following MMR and to families where the child has died. These babies' immune systems did not cope easily with the MMR.

And Dr David Salisbury, Head of Immunisations, has been reported to have said in a Newsnight programme in 2004 (4):

"The immune system of a baby has got huge spare capacity to deal with
challenge. If we didn't, the human race wouldn't survive. But let's look
specifically at vaccine. This has been studied carefully. A baby's immune
system could actually tolerate perfectly well 1,000 vaccines".

This has to stop. Vaccines have been designed for good reasons but are invasive and the manufacturers' acknowledge that they are not risk free in the product information leaflets. Extraordinary claims by Dr David Salisbury and Dr. Paul Offit have to be substantiated or withdrawn. We currently do not have 1,000 or 10,000 vaccines and therefore this amount has never been trialled on infants for safety or efficacy. These untested endorsements of vaccine safety is at best speculation and at worse downright dangerous.

(1) American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 151 No 5 2000
Outbreak of Aseptic Meningitis associated with Mass Vaccination with a Urabe-containing Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine
Implications for Immunization Programs Dourado et al

(2) http://immunisation.dh.gov.uk/

(3) http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/di...

(4) http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3502/rr/588414
Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy

Competing interests: Mother of MMR damaged son

08 July 2012
Jackie Fletcher
National Coordinator/Founder
JABS
Warrington, UK