- A concerted push for compulsory childhood vaccination is fueled by a fear mongering campaign
A headline in The Guardian (July 2017) announced, Small decline in MMR vaccination rates could have dramatic effect, experts warn. It went on to declare: a 5% drop in measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations could cause a threefold increase of measles cases, costing the public sector millions, US study shows.” The article quotes Professor Andrew Pollard, Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and Chair of the JCVI who stated: “Immunisation is something that many people think of as personal, but it is actually part of being in a society.” he said.
A similar view was expressed by Dr. Godlee in a BBC interview201 (2017), when she invoked “the need for herding as opposed to individual choice.”
The concept of “herd immunity” is often invoked by those who advocate for compulsory mass vaccination. “Herd immunity” is the trump card used to inject fear into the debate, by claiming that a non-vaccinated child poses a dire health threat to the vaccinated herd, in particular to vaccinated children. The argument on its face, defies both science and logic: if vaccines work and protect against infectious diseases, why does an unvaccinated child pose a threat?
However, the very basis for herd immunity is not evidence-based:
“The immune basis for herd immunity is not well defined… the mechanisms of herd immunity are often not well understood, it is poorly predicted and/or considered in licensure or implementation strategies for new vaccines, and the longterm consequences of preventing natural exposure to agents covered by vaccine are not known.” (Oxford Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2008)
Furthermore, life-long “herd immunity” only occurred with exposure to the infectious virus.  Even CDC and a bastion of vaccine advocacy, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, concede that natural immunity was more potent and long-lasting, whereas vaccines offer only short-term protection.
“It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines occurs only after several doses.”
Natural immunity was transmitted to infants through the immunity of the mother. A study in Pediatrics (1999) compared measles susceptibility in infants whose mothers were born after 1963 (when the first measles vaccine was introduced) and infants born whose mothers were born before 1963. The results:
“Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared with 12% for infants of older mothers.”
Furthermore, numerous measles outbreaks occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.100
CDC documented a measles outbreak in Illinois among 100% vaccinated high school and junior high school students: “This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%.”
Key opinion leaders (KOLs, in pharmaceutical industry parlance) such as Professor Pollard and Dr. Godlee ascribe to the view, that the herd is more important than the single, little lamb. Their view is in accord with “a Stalinist approach” to vaccination policies that seek to eliminate the individual human right to free choice.23 Their authoritarian position is antithetical to humanitarian, corporate-free, medicine – as articulated by Dr. Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association (in 2008).
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, Director of the Nordic Cochrane, has taken seriously the concerns arising from reports of serious adverse effects linked to the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, and has been outspokenly critical about the assessment of HPV vaccine safety data by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In a letter of complaint to the EMA Dr. Gøtzsche stated:
“Public health is about the promotion of health and prevention of disease and disability through the organised efforts of society. This entails protection from harms and involves progression of knowledge in open collaboration. As far as we can see, the actions of the EMA in this case indicates that the agency is more concerned about protecting its own previous decisions and the vaccine than about protecting the citizens and giving them the option of choosing for themselves whether or not they would like to get vaccinated against HPV.
Some people will prefer to avoid the vaccine, even if the risk of serious harm is very small, and some will prefer screening instead. It is not within the powers of regulatory authorities to deny citizens’ right to make informed choices about their own health by withholding important information. The citizens need honest information about the vaccine and the uncertainties related to it; not a paternalistic statement that all is fine based on a flawed EMA report.” (2016)
The CDC has confirmed that adults do indeed, exercise their right to refuse vaccination: “Despite longstanding recommendations for use of many vaccines, vaccination coverage among U.S. adults is low…Coverage for all vaccines for adults remained low.”
- I submit that the argument articulated by Dr. Gøtzsche in the letter above, in which he affirmed “citizens’ right to make informed choices about their own health”—is even more pertinent for parents whose moral and legal responsibility and authority is “to make informed choices” to protect their children from “the risk of serious harm even if the risk is very small.”
The truth is that responsible parents – not public officials – can be trusted to look out for their own child’s best interest. These parents are not harming “the greater good”; they are more than likely furthering the good of other children by insisting on safety above profits or convenience, or other competing interests. The fact is that neither the safety nor the effectiveness of children’s vaccination schedules is science-based:
“No field trials have compared effectiveness and harms of all vaccines used according to various schedules… because detailed reports for most clinical trials of vaccines are not available, and have not been independently reviewed, we cannot be certain of vaccines’ harms profiles.”
“The reason for introducing vaccination against HPV was to prevent cancer. But there is no clinical evidence to prove it will do that. We have to tread a very careful line, weighing the potential benefits and harms that a vaccine may cause. With HPV, the harms have not been properly studied.
It is extremely difficult to publish anything against HPV vaccination. Vaccines have become like a religion. They are not something you question. If you do, you are seen as being an anti-vaccine extremist. The authorities do not want to hear ‘side-effect’. Some in the Department of Health believe any mention of unexpected harm from a vaccine must be stamped out in case it lowers uptake.”
Similarly, Dr. Hiroko Mori, former head of infectious disease division at Japan’s National Institute of Public Health, recently stated:
“Medicine is supposed to be about healing, but babies who cannot speak are being given unnecessary shots because parents are scared. Children are losing their ability to heal naturally. There are so many people who have suffered side effects. All we are asking is to establish the right to say ‘no.’ The right to choose should be recognized as a fundamental human right.” (2016)
[See Appendix 5: Japan curbs vaccination requirements to protect children, not profits]
In his recent review in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (2017), Dr. Jefferson criticized the EMA for turning a blind eye to the debilitating chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) suffered by young women following vaccination with the HPV vaccine. Japan has removed both the MMR and HPV vaccines from its recommended list of vaccines, while the EMA promotes the HPV vaccine in Europe without medical justification. Evidence of the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in preventing cancer is lacking.
Neither the mainstream media nor medical journals can be trusted as purveyors of unbiased, science-based medical information. They comply with the dictate of their corporate bosses who invariably are stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry – either through partnerships or they are part of the Murdoch media empire. More than one investigative reporter has been intimidated into silence on the issue of vaccines. Those who control the channels of information ridicule anyone who raises questions about vaccine safety as an “anti-vax quack.” [See Appendix 10] The entire playing field is stacked to protect intertwined government/industry interests by invoking the “the greater good”.
Does anyone believe that pharmaceutical executives, or government bureaucrats, or Rupert Murdoch’s conglomerate, or the BMJ editor-in-chief, are looking out for “the greater good”?
The National Children’s Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA, 1986) exempted vaccine manufacturers from liability while acknowledging that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”. In 2011, the US Supreme Court affirmed the “unavoidably unsafe”.
What possible justification is there for relegating infants and young children to bear the burden of risk for “herd immunity”— exposing them to risk, even for diseases they are not likely to get?
Inasmuch as vaccines are legally adjudicated as unsafe –whether “avoidably” or “unavoidably unsafe” – it is morally abhorrent to coerce parents to vaccinate their children against their better judgment, in accordance with CDC’s aggressive, childhood vaccination schedule. That schedule subjects babies to 50 doses of 14 vaccines from birth to the age of 6; a baby may have 8 to 10 doses administered in one day. CDC’s vaccination schedule promotes industry’s interest by violating medicine’s foremost precautionary principle: “First, do no harm.”
Have we learned nothing from 20th century history of coercive public health policies that were ostensibly enacted for the greater good of the Volk? Have we learned nothing about the debasement of medicine by the willing participation of medical doctors from elite universities, who formulated and implemented the medicalized mass murder of disabled children? Children whom doctors declared to be “unfit” to live.
I conclude this critique with a most important challenge posed earlier this month by John Stone, UK Editor of Age of Autism in a “debate” about mandatory vaccination policies:
“The question I would like to pose [sic] is how we arrive at the position of conferring on vaccine science or the bureaucracy that supports it such a degree of authority over our lives. Is there any evidence that the technology has reached such a level of perfection, the bureaucracy such a level of integrity that societies should defer without question? It is no use pointing to the position of more than century ago as if anything was certain about the science then… and perhaps no more use today when human judgment, institutions and the technology still remain fallible.”