Do you want your unvaccinated child to be barred from school?
By Adam Smith
Science & Communications Officer, ANH-Intl
If you are a parent, and you have concerns over whether to have your offspring vaccinated with the triple measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine, you are “hysterical middle class parents”. You “still believe that MMR jabs cause autism”, despite there being “no evidence to support this theory”. If you are a mother, you must be wearing “a Cath Kidstone tea dress”, while all worried fathers are “in Boden cords”. You whisper conspiratorially to each other, presumably in the quieter reaches of Waitrose, “I’m opting out of the MMR jab. And you?”, hoping to avoid “the nasty poison the government wants to dole out”.
Recognise yourself? No, probably not, because it’s a childish caricature designed to get an emotional response. How an insulting, vicious and ill-researched article such as this even makes it into a leading British newspaper is a wonder of our age. It would take a long feature article to fully cover all of the distortions and inaccuracies that Ms Odone manages to cram into a short piece, so the following is a short summary of the most egregious examples.
Unvaccinated children should be excluded from school
Barring unvaccinated kids from school until they are vaccinated would be highly expensive, as the unvaccinated children would still need to be educated, but presumably in separate accommodation by extra teaching staff. Fortunately, this is hardly the kind of policy an austerity-minded UK government is likely to pursue. Of course, Ms Odone may believe that unvaccinated children forfeit the right to education as well. There is also the issue of whether it is ethical to force anyone, especially children, to be injected with a controversial substance against their wishes. Do UK citizens want to live in a country where the government dictates what is right for our children’s health, with no right to choose?
No evidence that MMR jab causes autism
Since Ms Odone does not provide any references to scientific papers to back up her claim that “studies show there is no evidence to support [the theory that MMR jabs cause autism]”, we will have to guess which “evidence” she is relying on.
Several papers are often quoted in support of Ms Odone’s theory, and all have methodological problems or ethical issues or both. For example, a 2003 study published in the journal Pediatrics by Madsen et al, that found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, changed its methodology part-way through to include outpatients, as well as the inpatients who were the original subject of the trial [1]. This, combined with a misrepresentation of the course of regressive autism, masked any association that might otherwise have been found. Oh, and did we mention the study was funded by the state-run Danish vaccine industry?
But maybe we’re being hasty and Ms Odone is referring to another study in her bulging scientific arsenal. Maybe it’s the UK paper by Andrews et al, published in Pediatrics again but this time in 2004. These authors got their calculations wrong by using the incorrect dose of thimerosal, the highly controversial and potentially hazardous mercury containing preservative in many vaccines. Also, as members of the Health Protection Agency, they were reviewing a policy they had helped to design themselves – so the paper should not even be considered valid [2].
For further detail on these and other examples, please visit the MMR Vaccine page of this website – click on the sub-heading ‘The official line: Vaccine–autism link disproved’.
Andrew Wakefield discredited and struck off
True, the UK’s General Medical Council did find Dr Wakefield guilty of misconduct and struck him from the medical register. However, this was after risible proceedings that amounted to little more than a kangaroo court. Our coverage of this travesty in the ANH Feature: The longest witch-hunt in UK medical history draws to a close, covers this in detail, and includes the pertinent quote: “The GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval and substitute a 1996 approval, allowing them to reach the findings they did – a blatant disregard for justice. They also insisted that ‘pervasive developmental disorder’ was not the same as autism spectrum disorders which of course it is; and that only children who had had the measles or measles/rubella vaccine should have been admitted onto the project, not those who had had the MMR. The hearing moved the goalposts so that the doctors had no chance of overturning the serious charges against them.”
Ninety two per cent vaccination rate needed to protect the population
Ms Odone speaks as if the concept of ‘herd immunity’ is a universally recognised truth and is applicable to vaccination. It is not; it is merely a theory that has been used to suggest that vaccinating a certain proportion of the population will prevent resurgence of the disease being vaccinated against, even among those who cannot receive vaccines. It is an alluring theory, but a theory it remains. In fact, the original basis for herd immunity was not related to vaccination at all. Statisticians noted a protective effect on the population when sufficiently high numbers of people contracted the wild form of the disease, and subsequently acquired immunity for life as the body naturally produced antibodies following exposure. While the same may or may not be true of particular vaccines, which most certainly do not always work and offer protection that wanes over time, it is deeply misleading to suggest that the research is ‘done and dusted’.
Bear in mind that Ms Odone has form on the topic of childhood vaccination, having previously published an article along similar lines in another major British newspaper, The Times, entitled ‘White, middle-class, loving mums. And their stupidity could kill your child’ – so at least we should be thankful that she’s mellowed from thinking all vaccine questioners are mentally deficient child murderers!
One final point. Ms Odone is a former editor of the Catholic Herald. I find it somewhat ironic that one who believes in an almighty Creator should believe also that a serious error was made when the immune system was assembled in the Garden of Eden. Was the immune system so weak and imperfect that it requires every child to be forced, by law, to receive vaccinations to right the fundamental design flaw? But, irrespective of her religious beliefs, Ms Odone’s position on vaccination is consistent. She wears another hat as a Research Fellow for a centre-right think tank which believes that the concept of personal liberty does not extend to freedom from the state’s vaccination mandate. Without a doubt, Ms Odone is a vaccination protagonist par excellence. One wonders if she might have had a free lunch or two?
ANH International upholds that it is the right of everyone to make an informed choice as to whether they or their children receive all, some or none of the many vaccines available on today’s massive schedules. Parents are simply not made aware that not a single study has ever been conducted on the combined effects of all the scheduled vaccines. Worse than this, most parents are told that vaccines have been proven to be safe! This is simply untrue and it is a travesty that such mistruths become accepted simply by repetition and blind support by certain sectors of society. We say: do the research, read the evidence, ask the experts and make an informed choice. Just don’t let shrill propagandists like Ms Odone sway your decision.
References
Vaccine Choice campaign
ANH-Europe homepage
Comments
your voice counts
Anonymous
06 November 2010 at 6:41 am
I would like to know how anyone can say that the public should read and make a informed discission when the truth is now so amazingly smudged over that I and many like me can no longer see the wood for the trees. Do we therefore just pin the tail on the donkey?? It would be about as informed as reading up about it...
Anonymous
12 November 2010 at 2:05 pm
If vaccination really worked, the vaccinated children would live and the unvaccinated would die when the disease struck, giving the pro-vaccination lobby excellent ammunition for their argument. So how do unvaccinated children harm the health of the vaccinated ones? Vaccines work or they don't - if our child is vaccinated where does herd immunity come into it? Ms Odone should b happy that the children of "unbelievers" will be wiped out.
Magnus Mulliner http://www.mtenergie.com
12 November 2010 at 5:40 pm
Another great reason why I choose not to read someone else's reality about PREVENTION and PROTECTION.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win" Gandhi.
Okay, I think you may need some 'reminder's...
If we administered penicillin injections and instructed that all children had to eat peanut butter sandwiches (all Mandatory), many children would be harmed and some would even die. If we therefore cannot impose these draconian measures how can we impose the idea of injecting live, biologically active, immunogenetic, toxins into children!
Hard facts...
The top five Pharma companies have a combined revenue of more than $600 billion a year.
Vaccinations are toxic, promoted through FEAR, intimidation and often coercion.
Vaccines have NOT been proven to be safe and or effective.
Please do your homework on how this 'brilliant' idea came about back in 1796 - Edward Jenner. Absolutely crazy. WAKE UP.
You have no control over what may happen to anyone once they have been given a vaccination. Look more closely at the research on the CDC and JAMA and you'll find that NO vaccine is SAFE.
Further bedtime reading "Medisin" by Fleming, "Saying no to vaccines" by Tenpenny.
Thank you for reading this and please 'vote' wisely
Sending love and Qi
Magnus Mulliner
Anonymous
13 November 2010 at 2:25 am
Telling me I need to vaccinate my child to protect yours is like saying I should take birth control so you don't get pregnant. Worry about yourself, speaking for my family we will pass on the poison.
Anonymous
13 November 2010 at 2:28 am
The truth about how harmful vaccines are is becoming more and more apparent. More children are being injured and as a result more parents are refusing to vaccinate. These nonsense propaganda pro-vaccine articles are only making the "experts" look like dispassionate idiots serving a harmful agenda.
Anonymous
13 November 2010 at 5:00 pm
I know a Naturopath who can tell vaccinated children from unvaccinated, just by their general vitality levels. Needless to say, the unvaccinated children have much higher general vitality. Vitality is life-force energy, and contributes to a strong and healthy immune system.
Anonymous
16 November 2010 at 6:16 pm
People still believe that vaccination is ok, because of course "that doctor" (the marvellous and truly courageous Dr Wakefield) has had his theories disproved. What these people don't realise that if his theories had been proved right is that the litigation involving the thousands of vaccination damaged children would bankrupt the already bankrupt government!
Alexandria
15 December 2010 at 4:53 pm
Vaccines work or they don't - if our child is vaccinated where does herd immunity come into it
--
Herd immunity comes in when there are children who medically can NOT get the vaccine. Where they have some sort of allergen or medical issue. Then there are the children who are physically well and can get the vaccination, such as I did some 15 years ago. If enough of these “physically well” children get the vaccination, than we can protect the other children who are at risk of getting the disease and dying. If we all decided to not get the vaccine only because we fear what MIGHT happen, you are putting those children at risk. How would you feel if your child was to die, due to the fact that someone else wasn’t sure if they wanted their child to get their vaccinated or not? This is all based on hysteria formed by Dr.Wakefeild. This is because human beings have the mental need to know things. We fear that which we do not know. So we need to come up with a rational reason in our minds to why something is or isn’t. Face it, vaccines save lives.
Anonymous
09 February 2013 at 9:08 pm
It's interesting given the claims of MMR causing autism were shown to be PAID for by wakefields lawyers.
Apparently you guys only believe it because HE said so and now he's been shown to be a total lying hack you magically demand us to disprove something shown to be made up!
please disprove cheese doesn't cause autism.
we ALL eat it, and I state it causes autism because autism has gone up in recent years.
prove me wrong!
ANH Admin
21 March 2013 at 1:20 pm
Hi Anonymous, thanks for your message. Since the article you’ve commented on dates from 2010, we hope you’ll forgive us if we keep our response fairly brief. And if we don’t address your rather facetious challenge.
Our position on Andrew Wakefield is laid out in various articles on our website, the most detailed being this one: http://anhinternational.org/news/anh-feature-the-longest-witch-hunt-in-medical-history-draws-to-a-close and this one: http://anhinternational.org/news/wakefield-on-wakefield.
From the latter article:
“The Legal Aid Board money
A £50,000 payment was made to Wakefield by the Legal Aid Board (LAB), of that there is no doubt. According to Callous Disregard [Wakefield’s book on the MMR/autism affair], Wakefield was asked in the first half of 1996 for help by Richard Barr, of Dawbarn’s law firm, to “Review the safety of measles-containing vaccines (MCV) and, separately, to design a study that would help determine whether there was or was not a likely case in law against the manufacturers of MCV.” Crohn’s disease was the original focus of interest in terms of adverse vaccine reactions, but this later shifted to autism in children with intestinal symptoms. According to Callous Disregard – and this is an utterly crucial point – the £50,000 did not fund the Lancet 1998 paper (the case series of 12 children that was retracted in 2010), but “…an entirely separate scientific study looking for evidence of measles virus in the diseased intestine of affected children”.
Wakefield prepared a research proposal for Barr’s submission to the LAB, a proposal that was subsequently accepted, with grant money being administered from a designated research account and not from Wakefield’s ‘back pocket’. Wakefield did not hide the existence or the source of the grant from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, his employers at the time, immediately informing the finance department – strange behaviour for a man who purportedly had something to hide, particularly a man who supposedly had manifested a complex plan to discredit UK vaccine policy and then make a profit.
The ethics committee of the BMA itself wholly approved the LAB funding of Wakefield’s research at the time. In response to a query from Zuckerman [Arie Zuckerman, then Dean of Royal Free Hospital Medical School], Dr Mac Armstrong, the BMA ethics committee chairman, stated it was “…quite logical for the [LAB], as a publicly funded body to fund research on relevant issues in law, using government money essentially to sue other government departments. Independently conducted research may establish whether or not they have a case in law and is no different from commissioning a medical expert to provide a view.”
True, Wakefield did not declare the LAB funding to the Lancet at the time the 1998 article was submitted for publication. At that time, however, such disclosure was not necessary: the Lancet’s disclosure rules only required that authors declare direct conflicts of interest, such as funding by a pharmaceutical company for research into one of their drugs. The LAB grant could only have led to a perceived conflict of interest as it related to the 1998 Lancet paper, as it was for research by one author of 13 into a related, but distinct, subject to that of the 1998 paper. At the time, authors were not required to disclose perceived conflicts of interest, although this has since changed.”
You may also be interested to learn that the findings of Wakefield's 1998 paper have been all but confirmed by recent, cutting-edge science: http://anhinternational.org/news/was-andrew-wakefield-right-all-along.
Thomas
15 March 2019 at 3:41 am
The CDC provides a list of side effects that occur with each vaccine. Interestingly enough they have ratios for all of the side effects except for severe adverse effects, which they call "very rare". They don't give a ratio, instead they give a 1 in 1 million doses answer. The reason they do this is if you actually calculate the number of doses children receive of a vaccine, this number actually translates into 1:13,513 doses. That doesn't translate as "very rare" to me, in fact vaccines by the CDC's own admission cause (look on their website also "very rare" reactions) "deafness, long-term brain damage, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, etc. etc.). That's all on their website. What's not on their website however is actual trials with controlled study groups using a placebo vs. an actual vaccine. There’s never been a controlled study to a placebo (beyond one tiny Gardasil 9 study with 400 people in it). That's why CDC uses weasel words like "rare" "very rare" to describe reactions. They truly don't have actual research to back up their claims that vaccines are safe and effective (despite saying it in the news over and over and over and over again).
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences