Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Feature Communicable Disease

UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination

BMJ 2017; 358 doi: (Published 18 July 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;358:j3414

Rapid Response:

Re: UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination

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”.
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: 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 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 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:
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

04 August 2017
Steve Hinks
Retired Health Professional