NHS chief attacks anti-vax “fake news” for falling uptake

Fake news is not the exclusive province of radical anti-vaxxers; vaccine officialdom purveys its own brand of fake news by exaggerating the threats of target diseases, exaggerating vaccine benefits, and by making claims for vaccine safety that are not warranted by the evidence. Vaccines are licensed on the basis of evidence for short-term efficacy; once on the market there is little effort to discover rare but serious adverse effects that may become manifest months or years later.

I share the frustration of Wendy Stephen, Jackie Fletcher, Noel Thomas and John Stone with the NHS’s dismissive attitude regarding strong circumstantial evidence for devastating vaccine adverse effects in individual cases. The same attitude prevails in US officialdom.

Years ago, Paul Fine pointed out that, as vaccines reduced the risks of target diseases, vaccine adverse effects assumed increasing importance in balancing risks and benefits of vaccines. (Fine, “Non-specific effects of vaccines.” Trop Med Int Health 2007;12:1) In the US, at least, this principle has been ignored. Exclusive attention has focused on the decline in target diseases, but the adverse effects of vaccines have been ignored. There has been a concerted effort to mandate every vaccine on the schedule for every child in the US.

Do vaccines cause autism? We can neither confirm nor dismiss the statistical possibility that a vaccine or a combination of vaccines cause autism without having unbiased, randomized trials comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of children. Innumerable observational studies have been reported showing no association, but they are mostly of low scientific caliber and do not prove the case one way or the other. When there is strong circumstantial evidence in an individual case, it is typically rejected by US vaccine authorities. This is what happened in the highly publicized case of Hannah Poling. (Offit, NEJM 2008;358:2089)

Lately, we have become aware of the possibility that vaccine injections may be co-factors in the causation of acute flaccid myelitis/AFM, a paralytic disease identical to poliomyelitis, probably caused by non-polio enteroviruses. (Cunningham, BMJ rapid responses from January 2015 to 24 February 2019) US public health/vaccine authorities have steadfastly avoided any mention of this possibility, another example of their tendency to look for the good news but not the bad news about vaccines.

Measles vaccine is at the top of my list of truly lifesaving vaccines for American children, followed by diphtheria and polio vaccines. I wish the acellular pertussis vaccine was more effective, but would never go back to the whole cell vaccine, which was dangerous. Hepatitis B vaccine is at the bottom of my list because the risk of the disease for the vast majority of American children is virtually non-existent. Other vaccines have value, but not enough to justify the rigid mandates authorities try to impose. In trying to balance vaccine risks and benefits, I believe a case can be made for waiting until after 4 to 5 months of age to begin vaccinating; furthermore, I question the safety of giving a whole bunch of vaccines all at once, contrary to what we are told by the authorities.

Failing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about vaccines amounts to “fake news”, whether you’re an “anti-vaxxer” or a public health vaccine advocate.

ALLAN S. CUNNINGHAM 13 March 2019

Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England, said he was concerned by stalling vaccination uptake and the dangers that 'fake messages' posed to children.

I would like to know how he has determined the messages are fake. 

I am the mother of a son who is severely brain-damaged by vaccines given when he was thirteen months old and this has been accepted by the Government's vaccine damage tribunal service.

It was because of my son’s experience and meeting other parents in hospitals who complained that their children's lives had changed following MMR vaccinations that I founded the support group JABS (Justice, Awareness & Basic Support). Many parents have shared their children's vaccine experiences online to try to help others to make safer choices.

Many of the parents in our group say their children, who were previously healthy, have reacted with symptoms known to the manufacturers in the recognised incubation periods and have developed long-term problems also reported in the vaccine-makers' patient information sheets, regardless of the age when given.

Since JABS was set up in 1994 we have had meetings with ministers at the Departments of Health and Work & Pensions in the interests of obtaining justice and recognition for the damaged children. Equally important, we hoped to improve the safety of the vaccination programme to safeguard children in the future.

We have called for clinical investigation of the children; for all suspected serious reactions to be reported and routinely followed-up; for the ever expanding vaccination schedule to be safety tested in its entirety; for parents to be allowed to make an informed consent; and for a proper compensation programme to help families whose children have paid the price for the community.

We have been criticised for:

having the audacity to point out the failures in the national vaccination programme; why should it have to be one-size-fits-all?

questioning the lack of pre-licence vaccine trials against true inert placebos

questioning why government ignores established and new scientific evidence illustrating the potential side effects of vaccine ingredients and manufacturing methods

And for our efforts we get labelled as ‘anti-vaxxers'.

Robert F Kennedy, Jnr recently stated: "It's quite stunning to watch liberals applauding censorship, particularly the muzzling of the bullied mothers of injured children in order to protect pharmaceutical products from criticism."

I believe parents should have every right to share information on a subject which affects every family in the UK. I was under the impression we lived in a democracy and had the right to freedom of expression and engagement to challenge those who make the decisions with regard to childhood vaccine policy when that policy is so deeply flawed and dangerous for many children.

Trust as well as truth is at the heart of all aspects of the democratic process. For democracy to work people need to trust those in positions of power and that they are acting in the best interests of our children’s health and not beholden to public/private partnerships or other corporate interests.

Forcing public health policies that trample on personal human rights, for the claimed greater good, also threatens the liberties of the individual which are the very foundation of a civilised democratic society. All medical interventions, which include vaccines, require free and informed consent by those directly affected.

In this feature Peter Doshi, associate editor, The BMJ discussed the “delicate balance”:
https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j661.full

“Good journalism on this topic will require abandoning current practices of avoiding interviewing, understanding, and presenting critical voices out of fear that expressing any criticism amounts to presenting a “false balance” that will result in health scares.
It does matter if the vast majority of doctors or scientists agree on something. But medical journalists should be among the first to realize that while evidence matters, so too do the legitimate concerns of patients. And if patients have concerns, doubts, or suspicions—for example, about the safety of vaccines, this does not mean they are “anti-vaccine.” Anti-vaccine positions certainly exist in the world, but approaches that label anybody and everybody who raises questions about the right headedness of current vaccine policies—myself included (9) —as “anti-vaccine” fail on several accounts.

Firstly, they fail to accurately characterize the nature of the concern. Many parents of children with developmental disorders who question the role of vaccines had their children vaccinated. Anti-vaccination is an ideology, and people who have their children vaccinated seem unlikely candidates for the title.

Secondly, they lump all vaccines together as if the decision about risks and benefits is the same irrespective of disease—polio, pertussis, smallpox, mumps, diphtheria, hepatitis B, influenza, varicella, HPV, Japanese encephalitis—or vaccine type—live attenuated, inactivated whole cell, split virus, high dose, low dose, adjuvanted, monovalent, polyvalent, etc. This seems about as intelligent as categorizing people into “pro-drug” and “anti-drug” camps depending on whether they have ever voiced concern over the potential side effects of any drug.

Thirdly, labeling people concerned about the safety of vaccines as “anti-vaccine” risks entrenching positions. The label (or its derogatory derivative “anti-vaxxer”) is a form of attack. It stigmatizes the mere act of even asking an open question about what is known and unknown about the safety of vaccines.

Fourthly, the label too quickly assumes that there are “two sides” to every question, and that the “two sides” are polar opposites. This “you’re either with us or against us” thinking is unfit for medicine. Many parents who deliberate on decisions regarding their children’s health ultimately make decisions—such as to vaccinate or not vaccinate—with lingering
uncertainty about whether they were right. When given a choice, some say yes to some vaccines and no to others. These parents are not zealots, they are decision makers navigating the gray, acting under conditions of uncertainty in perpetual flux.

And among those uncertainties are the known and unknown side effects that each vaccine carries. Contrary to the suggestion—generally implicit—that vaccines are risk free (and therefore why would anyone ever resist official recommendations), the reality is that officially sanctioned written medical information on vaccines is—just like drugs—filled with information about common, uncommon, and unconfirmed but possible harms.(10 11) Although MMR and autism have dominated journalistic coverage of this issue, and journalists have correctly characterized the scientific consensus that rejects any such link, most journalists have insufficiently acknowledged the fact that bodies such as the Institute of Medicine have “found convincing evidence of 14 health outcomes—including seizures, inflammation of the brain, and fainting—that can be caused by certain vaccines, although these outcomes occur rarely.”(12) And for 135 other adverse events investigated, the committee concluded “the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship” with vaccines.

Medical journalists have an obligation to the truth. But journalists must also ensure that patients come first, which means a fresh approach to covering vaccines. It’s time to listen—seriously and respectfully—to patients’ concerns, not demonize them.”

Feature: Medicine and the Media
Medical response to Trump requires truth seeking and respect for patients

Another ‘anti -vax “fake news” ‘ headline for a news item on the BMJ, heralding outspoken comments from the chief executive of NHS England, in turn helping post-Freudians to smile at another example of persons protesting about the faults of others, while doing no better themselves.

Stevens’ initial suggestion that “telling parents not to vaccinate their children was as bad as telling them not to watch when they crossed the road“ is unusual enough to prepare us for some other reported remarks from Stevens.

Do his medical advisors not keep abreast of the vaccine literature, or at least of the links and references provided recently in the one sided exchanges on this website, where no one has come forward to defend the increasing vaccine load on very young children, the misunderstood nature of herd immunity, nor the dysfunctional state of our vaccination consent system - epitomised by the Public Health England Green Book on Immunisation, which cites advice about consent and professional liability that is four years out of date? (1,2)

Working abroad, I was sometimes gently reminded that if a point of view is to be respected and acted upon, it must enjoy at least three supports, as a stool has three legs, or as a cooking pot rests on three stones.

Hence Stevens, and everyone below him on the NHS ladder, needs to be reminded that a stable, respected, vaccination policy must, at the vey least, rest on:

1 Attention to, and respect for, the law of the UK, regarding valid informed consent. Made plain in the Montgomery judgement in 2015, and in subsequent guidance from the defence bodies.
2 Awareness of the inadequacy of safety testing of vaccine constituents, of the serious if rare side effects identified in the Patient Information leaflets, and of the very different immune responses to natural and vaccine induced immunity.(3,4,5)
3 Respect for patients’ and parents’ opinions and uncertainties, which follow on from the above. Hesitancy is not a weakness, it is as likely a sign of discernment, needing more informed discussion.
Certainly not the type of irritated reaction, embodying a ‘Doctor Knows Best‘ approach, all too common in the past.

1 https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l739/rapid-responses
2 https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l739/rapid-responses
3 Mary Holland J.D et al., The HPV Vaccine on Trial. Skyhorse Publishing, 2018. Chapter 22. HPV Vaccines, Autoimmunity and Molecular Mimicry.
4 Shoenfeld, Y., et al., eds., Vaccines and Autoimmunity, WILEY Blackwell, 2015
5 Richard Moskowitz, MD., Vaccines, a reappraisal. Skyhorse Publishing, 2017.