UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination
BMJ 2017; 358 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3414 (Published 18 July 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;358:j3414
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Further to my earlier comment, I have recently reviewed the up-to-date reports on the WHO global adverse drug reaction database at www.vigiacces.org
For 'HPV vaccine' there are now 305,014 adverse drug reactions in 81,263 reports. These include 445 deaths (including 23 sudden deaths), 1,052 neoplasms (including 168 cervical cancers and 25 carcinoma in situ), 460 cases of PoTS and 144 cases of CRPS. They even acknowledge that only c.10% of adverse reactions are reported. We are told that these reports do not prove causation but they have been reported as spontaneous reports where the vaccine is believed to have been the cause. When are health officials responsible for drug safety going to stop ignoring these safety signals? Whilst these situations exist they will never convince the general public that all vaccines are safe and effective and need to be mandated to protect them.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr Anand once again raises an important and disturbing question [1]: there was a call for a debate about compulsory vaccination but was there ever any intention of having one? As I documented below virtually simultaneously with Farah Jameel's move at the BMA conference [2], the American CEO of Gavi, Seth Berkley, was calling in The Spectator (a British journal) for the exclusion of anti-vaxxers from social media [3]. In effect, he seems to have been calling for the removal of all dissenting opinion since anyone with a critical opinion of vaccines or the vaccine lobby has almost by definition been labelled an "anti-vaxxer". And this was echoed in the Guardian which had an editorial calling for compulsory vaccination, putting the blame on the influence of "anti-vaxxers" [3]. This also included of photograph of demonstrators in Italy who were plainly not protesting about vaccination but about effective compulsory vaccination: without the prospect of compulsory vaccination there would have been no protests. These stances by the opinion-makers in the British media elide many differences and are more than somewhat totalitarian in character.
In the middle of this the British Medical Journal has perhaps felt obliged to post some dissenting opinion in Rapid Responses but not to this date in the main journal, which is disappointing with such a serious issue. As to the people calling for a debate it all seems a little less than straightforward: they have remorselessly held back from commenting where issues of seriousness and substance have been raised: they have just not debated the very thing they are calling for. Can they really all be so sure of the factual and ethical basis of their opinions if they so pointedly never answer?
What it actually seems to be is an attempt to railroad opinion while denying debate. Is it too late to call for some traditional transparency and openness? This is surely not the way public decisions of any sort should be made.
[1] JK Anand, 'Re: UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination', 15 September 2017, http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rr-20
[2] Tom Moberly, 'UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination', BMJ 2017; 358 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3414 (Published 18 July 2017)
[3] John Stone, 'Re: UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination', 22 July 2017,
http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rr-2
Competing interests: No competing interests
Fourteen responses so far. Not even one from those who favour mandatory vaccination.
A debate means arguments from both sides.
Evidence so far is conclusive. "There shall be no debate. Let the opponents talk or write. "
The wise men and women in Downing Street shall pronounce when they feel the time is right.
"It is a national emergency. Obey"
Competing interests: No competing interests
Wendy E Stephen raises some interesting issues [1]. Whether it was ever the intention of the Department of Works and Pensions (as it now is) to honour the terms of the 1979 Act, it should be pointed out that at the time - and for a further nine years - it was incorporated with the Department of Health as the Department of Health and Social Security. And even this year they were trying to deny payments on the basis of a frivolous reading of the Act. Obviously there are two issues here: one is averting cost - and I understand that the DWP has to go cap in hand to the Treasury for every individual payment - and the other is protecting the reputation of the programme by making as few payments as possible.
There is simply no basis for trusting governments about vaccines. This is not a good position - particularly considering the vastly expanded schedule of the last 38 years - from which to impose compulsion. The shoddiness of this history - and the lack of transparency - speak for themselves. Let us have some daylight even before anyone begins considering making changes.
[1] Wendy E Stephen, Rapid Responses for Moberly, 'UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination', http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rapid-responses
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Mr Moberly
I note your recent article in the BMJ, “UK doctors re examine case for mandatory vaccination” with great interest. In particular I note the opening sentence “arguments over the best way to persuade all parents to protect their children from preventable disease”.
One aspect which seldom comes under scrutiny when considering how best to persuade parents to vaccinate their children, is the historical performance of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme in acknowledging damage and providing financial assistance to families following an adverse reaction which results in a permanent disablement.
A robust, easily accessible, responsive scheme to assist with a financial payment in times when vaccination has gone wrong, is something of a must to instill confidence in parents that help will be forthcoming in the event that vaccination results in a lasting disability for their child. In this way, parents might view vaccination more favourably.
Unfortunately, far from conveying the message of a scheme which is receptive and responsive in providing monetary assistance to affected children and their families, the statistics paint a picture of a scheme which more times than not, refuses applications from vaccine damaged individuals.
Since its inception, a total of 6,026 have been submitted under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 with only a mere 931 awards being made.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/242813/response/599844/attach/htm...
Additionally, it is not immediately apparent to applicants how significant the requirement to satisfy the 60% disablement threshold is. It is the case that applicants can and have been acknowledged as vaccine damaged, but are still refused a payment on the grounds that they are not, in the opinion of the assessors, damaged enough. It follows that the UK supports a scheme which does not address all acknowledged claims of injury caused through vaccination but only those which cause a greater than 60% level of disablement. Currently parents whose children are vaccine damaged and acknowledged as such, but who do not meet the 60% disablement threshold, are left to shoulder the financial burden through some other means with no payment from the VDPU. In short, it is incredibly difficult to secure a payment under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mmr-vaccine-caused-childrens-deafness...
A recent revelation in the press may go some way to explaining why it is so very difficult to satisfy the 60% disablement threshold and the shockingly low level of payments awarded by comparison to the number of claims submitted.
In February 2017 the Court of Appeal ruled, following consideration of the provisions in the 1979 Act, that the assessment of disablement, had to include assessment in respect of the individual’s future burdens. Clearly it is a serious omission that claimants have not had assessment of their future burdens included in their overall assessment and there is no way of knowing how the exclusion of the future burdens might have impacted on the number of payments made down through the years.
Back in 1982 Lord Mischon highlighted the advantages of vaccination but was also mindful of the burden on the “legislators” to address a duty of care in respect of the children who sustained disablement as a result.
“But there is no doubt that immunisation is an advantageous step to take and an advantageous step to promote. What we must obviously do—and this is very much the lawyers' concern—is to ensure that the proper social duty we owe to those children who unfortunately suffer damage is carried out by us as legislators.”
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1982/dec/01/vaccine-damage-paym...
Sadly, the numbers of claims refused by the VDPS, the fact that claims are being refused on the basis that the individual is not disabled enough, (even when acknowledged as vaccine damaged), and the failure since 1979 to include an individuals future burdens as part of an assessment, are not evidence of a society which has fully embraced a social duty owed to vaccine damaged children.
Whilst an award under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 will never replace the loss sustained by the applicant, it can assist with the many difficulties an injured person and their families will have to face throughout their lives as a result of a vaccine induced disability.
Those considering vaccination might just feel more inclined to think favourably towards the process if they were reassured that in the event that their child suffers a permanent and lasting adverse effect, there will, at the very least, be help available to assist with the financial burden.
In a recent comment Peter Todd, a solicitor at Hodge Jones and Allen sums it up perfectly when he stated that ……
“The uptake of vaccines is likely to increase where consumers can be confident that not only is disablement exceedingly rare but. in the extremely unlikely event that it occurs, that there is a safety net.”
https://www.hja.net/press-releases/vaccine-injury-lawyer-welcomes-common...
The reality is, irrespective of how the role of the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit is portrayed in NHS vaccination advertising campaign leaflets, it is incredibly difficult and time consuming to secure a payment in respect of vaccine damage. Conveying a message that financial assistance swiftly follows in the wake of vaccine damage could not be further from the truth and as the statistics show, more times than not, the parents are burdened with not only a disabled child and the additional difficulties that introduces into family life, but also the financial burden the disability brings with it.
Creating a society which more readily addresses the plight of all recognised vaccine injured individuals might just, as suggested by Peter Todd, increase the uptake in vaccination. Will the BMJ include a suggestion to re examine the vaccine damage payment scheme in any discussions involving a proposal for mandatory vaccination as a viable means of increasing confidence in vaccination and vaccine uptake levels?
Yours sincerely
Wendy Stephen
(Mother of the young woman in The Times article)
Competing interests: No competing interests
The sheer ignorance of so many doctors and health professionals with respect to basic knowledge of vaccine benefits and risks truly amazes me.
I was the UK Environmental, Health & Safety Manager for a blue-chip manufacturing company and, even though my daughter had a severe adverse reaction to the MMR as a baby, it was a high priority for me that the nurses that worked for me could administer the flu vaccines provided free by the company. How naïve I was!
In 2010 our daughter’s school nurse convinced my wife that we should re-consider and provide consent for our daughter to have the HPV vaccine. She was told that it was ‘safe and effective’, nothing like the MMR vaccine and could prevent her dying from cervical cancer. How naïve and gullible we were!
After 6 years of caring for a child severely disabled by obvious adverse reaction to the HPV vaccine, mainly bed-bound and house-bound or in hospital for most of this time, I have made it my duty to find out the truth about this and other similar vaccines. Throughout this time we have battled against the total brick wall of the NHS, DoH, MHRA, PHE, JCVI, etc, insisting that the vaccine is ‘safe and effective’ and does not cause serious adverse reactions. They have also accused us, and hundreds of other similar families, of ‘fabricated or induced illness’ (FII), also known as Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The vast majority of girls have been told that their ‘unexplained’ severe illnesses are ‘all in their head’, no wonder mental health services are over-burdened and failing.
The MHRA, which is responsible for drug safety in the UK and managing the Yellow Card Scheme for reporting adverse drug reactions, is almost certainly responsible for the lack of health professional and public knowledge on this matter. It states “no serious risks have been identified associated with either HPV vaccine in the UK and that the safety of the vaccines remains under continued review”. https://app.box.com/s/600veu6zr6s3gjvx8mkt/file/27415150636
However, when asked questions in Parliament or when responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, there are totally conflicting responses. Parliament is told (source MHRA) that there have been 8,835 Yellow Card reports of which 3,038 (34%) are classed as serious: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers... FOIA responses (source MHRA) indicate over 22,000 adverse reactions have been reported, including 6 with fatal outcome. The MHRA does acknowledge that only 1-2% of adverse events (AE) and approximately 10% of serious adverse events (SAE) are reported.
Expanding the search for adverse events reports I have found the European Medicines Agency (EMA) data-vase of adverse drug reaction reports at http://www.adrreports.eu/en/search.html# It is difficult to assess the situation easily – they separate the reports for each type of vaccine (Cervarix, Gardasil (q), Gardasil 9, Silgard, etc) and report deaths under many different categories. Most deaths are reported under ‘General Disorders’.
For Gardasil there are 212 deaths recorded under ‘General Disorders’ and a further 22 deaths under ‘Cardiac disorders’, etc.
For Cervarix there are 12 deaths recorded under ‘General disorders’ and a further 4 deaths under ‘Cardiac disorders’
Gardasil 9, only on the market since 2015, is already showing 26 deaths under ‘General Disorders’
That’s a total of at least 275 deaths reported in Europe to the EMA and always with acknowledgement that only approximately 10% of SAE are reported.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) global data-base of adverse drug reactions www.vigiaccess.org only records ‘HPV vaccines’ (all). Data is quite difficult to evaluate because, although they only use 27 categories, there are huge numbers of adverse reaction descriptions (approx. 5,900) and many of them are for identical adverse reactions, eg. Vaccine site reaction, immunisation site reaction, application site reaction, etc. There are also 30 different descriptions of rashes, insignificant when viewed separately but very significant when summarised.
Under ‘General Disorders’ they record 300 deaths but I can find at least 378 deaths reported under the various categories.
Even the vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that during the clinical trials approximately 2,500 SAE were reported per 100,000 immunised. Most of these were discounted as being vaccine related by the manufacturers own staff because of similar numbers of SAE’s with the controls. However, all controls were either ‘similar vaccines’ or ‘vaccine adjuvant’ (including neurotoxin aluminium).
Most of the above data relates to safety, information on effectiveness is even more concerning. There is ZERO evidence that Cervarix and Gardasil will ever prevent a single case of cancer. The manufacturers, GSK and Merck, only ever state they are 'intended to' or 'expected to'. Cervarix is expected to prevent 2 strains of HPV, Gardasil 4 strains and Gardasil9 9 strains but there are over 170 strains of HPV with at least 40 involved in cancers but scientists expect other strains, potentially more lethal, to take the place of those which might be prevented by the vaccines. Will Merck now produce Gardasil 40?
UK Government statistics (ONS England) and (ISD Scotland) for cervical cancer are showing a consistent increase in cases of cervical cancer in the 20-24 age group in recent years (2012-2015), in Scotland the number of cases has more than tripled in comparison with the period 2006-2008, before the vaccine was introduced. Also vaccinated girls and women, as young as 18, are being diagnosed with cervical cancer.
Final point from me – ‘informed’ consent is a legal requirement confirmed by the Supreme Court in the UK: https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0136_Judgment.pdf
The vast majority of Information supplied by the NHS, PHE, school nurses and doctors surgeries is totally lacking, misinformation and does not provide ‘informed’ consent. In the majority of cases they don’t even provide the manufacturers patient ‘information leaflet’ (PIL), provided with each and every dose of vaccine. They all state “Read all of this leaflet carefully before you or your child are vaccinated.”
Farah Jameel stated “Parents who willingly choose not to vaccinate their children, despite the safe evidence base are displaying negligent behaviours that are in some cases seriously harming the health of children, who have no say or control over this decision, and in extreme situations costing lives,” I would advocate that it is not the parents who are displaying negligent behaviours but huge numbers of health professionals and regulatory bodies. They have a duty of care and a legal requirement to provide informed consent. It is time that they started to do what they are paid for.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I fear Dr Anand that the vaccine system, like the banking system in 2008, is floating on false credit with both the effectiveness and the safety being vastly exaggerated - and with the present proposals being designed to pre-empt further discussion. Anybody who asks legitimate questions is immediately cast in the role of a public enemy.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Yes. Some doctors examine the case for mandatoty vaccination.
Most doctors swallow, hook, line and sinker, the "guidance" from on high.
Do most doctors counter the arguments of those who urge parental freedom? No, they don't.
At least I have not seen a single counter " rapid response" to my rapid responses.
That leaves the medical students - the doctors of tomorrow. Do THEY discuss such things?
Competing interests: No competing interests
Even at times of national emergency the reasons for going to war are debated, but here there is no national emergency - or the only one cited is the existence of vaccine critics, collectively labelled "anti-vaxxers", who are clearly very bad people. It may very well be because of the sheer intolerance and totalitarianism of the vaccine lobby that popular movements against them are emerging in places like California and Italy (where thousands are taking to the street now week after week).
Previously the British Medical Association has taken the sensible view that to make vaccination compulsory would alienate trust, and while people like myself might dispute the real grounds for trust existed the strategy seemed to work - obviously it ceases to work at all once compulsion comes into play. Equally if the safety of products is removed from public discussion and scrutiny, as has now been the case for ordinary purposes for many years, the claims for safety will only become empty: no more than a successful exercise in social control.
What we see in this correspondence and one or two others recently [1,2,3] are people, admittedly including conspicuously myself, engaging in rational debate, about the failure of evidence. The problems arise from (a) ruthlessly disregarding reports of adverse events and harms, (b) ignoring and burying troubling data, and (c) over-confidence and insufficient distance from government towards an industry which has historically put profits above people.
Present moves are designed to obliterate criticism rather than answer it. Thus it is not enough for Farah Jameel to declare her faith in public health orthodoxy - and assert the right of those who do not doubt over those who do - she needs to address the gaping gaps in vaccine science that these correspondences highlight. Otherwise, I fear she is living in a land of make-believe.
[1] Rapid Responses for Moberly, 'UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination', http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rapid-responses
[2] Rapid Responses for Doshi, 'US government website for collecting adverse events after vaccination is inaccessible to most users', http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2449/rapid-responses
[3] Rapid Responses for Arie,'Compulsory vaccination and growing measles threat', http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3429/rapid-responses
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination
I have previously covered the poor performance by the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme in addressing vaccine damage and it is interesting to note that once again the provisions in the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979, have been the subject of a recent legal challenge. In March 2018 it was reported that the Government admitted an “equality rule breach” in not allowing individuals over the age of twenty one to apply for a payment under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) in respect of the seasonal flu vaccine.
An article by Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors advises that……….
“The government has now admitted that there was a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty when the decision was made to exclude adults from the scope of compensation.”(1)
The case in question involved a sixty four year old gentleman who in 2013 suffered adverse events following administration of a seasonal flu vaccine. The solicitors report how the “the government responded to pre-action correspondence by justifying the exclusion, but once proceedings were issued and served, it conceded the claim”.
Only a year before, the Government lost their appeal at the Court of Appeal to have the future burdens of the vaccine damaged individual excluded from their overall assessment as to the percentage of disablement suffered. A 60% percentage of disability is required in order to qualify for a payment and a failure to include the future burdens of the applicant may have resulted in any number of refusals down through the years.
The Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979 (VDPA) has been in existence for almost 40 years and it is absolutely clear from recent events that not only is it not fit for purpose (and never was), but that the provisions have been wrongly interpreted and applied and now there has been a serious breach with regards to equality in denying applications from individuals over the age of twenty one years in respect of flu vaccine.
Three years after the Act was introduced it was described by Lord Allen of Abbeydale as an “immediate measure to meet an urgent need until a long term solution could be worked out” with additional evidence from numerous sources that it was never intended to be permanent. One must then wonder why it is that not only have we the British public been subject to what has in recent times been shown to be a deeply flawed piece of legislation, but how it is that when the subject is raised, it is met with the same response by Ministers over and over ie “there are currently no plans to make changes to the VDPA”(2) (3) (4)
Based on the outcomes of the recent legal challenges, there can surely be no support left for refusing to make changes to the Act. But what of the individuals in the past forty years who have been wrongfully denied access to the scheme on a matter of age and those who have been denied claims because their future burdens have been excluded from an overall assessment conducted by the VDPS.
As far back as 2009, Ian Stewart MP brought an early day motion on behalf of vaccine damaged adults (Hepatitis B and other vaccines) who were excluded from the scheme stating that “there is no clear and transparent system of support for such adults as they are not eligible to make a claim under the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979” .
Jane Ellison, in her response of 4th December 2014 stated that the scheme did cover individuals over the age of 18 years of age in respect of some named vaccines.
“The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme established under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act (VDPA) 1979 essentially covers diseases that are protected against through the routine childhood vaccination programme. However the scheme also covers people over the age of 18 years for the following diseases: poliomyelitis; rubella; meningococcal group C (meningitis C); human papillomavirus (HPV); pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 (swine flu) [up to 31 August 2010]; or during an outbreak of a specified disease against which the person was vaccinated in the United Kingdom or Isle of Man.” (2)
Yet the act itself is perfectly clear with a cut off age of 21 years.
3 Determination of claims
(1)Any reference in this Act, other than section 7, to a claim is a reference to a claim for a payment under section 1(1) above which is made—
(a)by or on behalf of the disabled person concerned or, as the case may be, by his personal representatives; and
(b)in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act; and
[F1(c)on or before whichever is the later of—
(i)the date on which the disabled person attains the age of 21, or where he has died, the date on which he would have attained the age of 21; and
(ii)the end of the period of six years beginning with the date of the vaccination to which the claim relates;] (5)
Clearly the present application of the provisions in the Act is unsustainable and requires to be addressed urgently. At its inception is was described as a short term solution to address vaccine damage which forty years later is still in existence with a muddled history of being said on one hand to only address claims from individuals under the age of twenty one years, but latterly said to include claims from older persons in respect of some named vaccines. This year had has been established that in refusing an application from an older gentleman in respect of seasonal flu vaccine (not included the list provided by Ms Ellison in 2014 above) the Government has breached the Public Sector Equality Duty. Additionally, it has been shown that the meaning in the Act with regard to calculating percentage of disablement has been wrongly interpreted for a considerable period of time.
It is very definitely time for the Government to make changes to this Act.
(1) https://www.hja.net/press-releases/government-agrees-rethink-vaccination...
(2) https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answer...
(3) https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answer...
(4) https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-03-24/debates/15032478000001/...
(5) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/17/section/3
Competing interests: No competing interests