Image:
Hello. My name is Joanna Karpasea-Jones and I set up Vaccination Awareness Network in 1997, together with my husband and 3 other couples.
My interest in vaccination was sparked as a 13 year old teenager when I was called up for my BCG jab. I lined up dutifully with all the other children and was given the jab. Afterwards, the nurse handed me a blue card stating side-effects of the vaccine. I was shocked and thought I should have been told this information prior to being vaccinated. I had no idea that vaccines caused any side-effects and I would have said no if I’d seen the card beforehand. What happened to me could not be described as informed consent. I told myself that day I would research vaccination before I had any of my own children.
5 years later after deciding not to vaccinate my daughter, we were removed from 3 GP practices for ‘not complying with their efforts for preventative health’. After the third time we were struck off, I was so annoyed we could be denied a doctor just because we didn’t vaccinate, that I called the local News station and the TV crew came and parked outside the doctor’s surgery. Parents began writing to us to ask for vaccination advice, and that was how the charity was born.
The way the Nuffield Bio Ethics paper was written, only presented a positive side to vaccination. I wanted to be here today to discuss the negative side.
Every time a child is vaccinated, doctors are breaking the Hippocratic oath. According to the department of health’s own website, immunisation.org.uk, children may experience fevers, sickness, diarrhoea, altered consciousness (being floppy and unresponsive), seizures and even a high pitched cry which is indicative of encephalitis.
Given that most babies are completely healthy before they are vaccinated, this breaks a doctor’s ‘First Do No Harm’ oath of good medical practice.
The consultation paper makes several sweeping statements in regards to vaccination, such as the need for vaccination in achieving ‘herd immunity’.
The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.
Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.
Applying this theory to vaccination is unethical. It assumes that all children are the same and should be treated the same way, yet all of us have a different physiological make-up. Some people can take paracetamol and others are allergic to it. Doctors usually exercise caution in distributing drugs, but for some reason, the same caution is never applied to vaccination.
Using the herd immunity theory to promote vaccination is also a form of emotional blackmail, fostering the belief that parents are responsible for everyone else’s children as well as their own child. This isn’t the case.
If you give your child MMR and then he becomes disabled, it is only you and your family who have to deal with the consequences, not the pregnant woman whom you were trying to protect from congenital rubella syndrome.
According to page 18, bullet point 4 of the consultation paper, Nuffield Bio Ethics suggests that vaccination is responsible for the eradication of whooping cough and other diseases. This isn’t the case.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 179, April 1999; 915-923 is entitled ‘Temporal trends in the population structure of bordetella pertussis during 1949-1996 in a highly vaccinated population.’ This paper goes onto say: ‘"Despite the introduction of large-scale pertussis vaccination in 1953 and high vaccination coverage, pertussis is still an endemic disease in The Netherlands, with epidemic outbreaks occurring every 3-5 years." One factor that might contribute to this is the ability of pertussis strains to adapt to vaccine-induced immunity, causing new strains of pertussis to re-emerge in this well-vaccinated population.
During the 1970’s DPT and brain damage publicity, many parents elected not to vaccinate their children, and according to Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 59, no. 2, February 1984, pp. 162-5): in a piece entitled ‘Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunisation’, "Since the decline of pertussis immunisation, hospital admission and death rates from whooping cough have fallen unexpectedly… The severity of attacks and the complication rates in children [who were] admitted to hospital were virtually unchanged. – i.e. hospital admissions and death rates reduced when people WEREN’T getting vaccinated and those who did suffer it, didn’t get it any more severely than when there was full vaccination coverage.
These are both reputable medical journals written by doctors and there are hundreds of other papers just like these, showing that diseases are still around.
Perhaps the most famous case of whooping cough in the vaccinated that occurred in recent years, was that of baby Mia, daughter of the actress Kate Winslet, who starred in Titanic. According to peoplenews.com ‘Kate Winslet had to race her baby to hospital after she was diagnosed with potentially fatal whooping cough. The 25-year-old was advised to take five-month-old Mia in for treatment and observation.. Friends of the Titanic actress said she had been 'distraught' with worry when she discovered that what she thought was a cold could be far more serious. Mia caught whooping cough despite being immunised against it at the age of two months. A friend of the couple said: 'Kate and Jim made sure she had the injections but Mia still appeared to pick it up.’
Therefore to say that whooping cough has been eradicated by vaccination is untrue.
Myself and the thousands of British Parents who have been part of VAN UK since it’s inception, find the idea of mandatory vaccination abhorrent and unethical. A person’s own body is owned by himself and he has the right to control what happens to his body.
If a man were to force a woman to have sex, he would be charged with rape. If a doctor forces a person to commit to vaccination without their will, then this is medical rape. No one has the right to do to another’s body, what they do not want, regardless of their intention.
There are always going to be vaccination side-effects. Even minor ones like fever are of importance. With this being the case, vaccines should never be mandated. There are also many babies who CAN’T be vaccinated because they are allergic to them or people such as vegetarians who can’t take vaccines because they all contain animal products. There are people who are against abortion and the use of fetal tissue in vaccines. To ignore a person’s philosophical and cultural convictions is disrespectful to the individuality of human nature and is blanketing all human beings as the same.
Drug companies make billions of pounds from vaccination and GP’s receive handsome financial incentives to vaccinate at least 90% of their patients. The regulatory bodies which monitor the safety of vaccination are often run by people with shares in the companies that make the vaccines so they have a vested interest to prove vaccine safety. Drug companies also sponsor medical schools and would withdraw funding if their product was not promoted.
For instance, in the GP magazine, Pulse, 20th November 1999, there is an article entitled: ‘Earn Top Rates For The Meningitis C Programme’. It goes onto say:
The new meningitis C programme will start on November 29. This will bring a very worthwhile clinical gain as well as a reasonable windfall for GPs. How can you fit it in for minimum hassle?
Each GP stands to gain around £1,332 in the first year of the programme and £453 in subsequent years.
Luckily, the priority group is babies under four months and those attending for their first MMR at 13 months.
This is essentially a captive audience so no extra recall system is needed initially
Dr Couch also adds, further in the article: "Every vaccination will be recorded so that we can easily find the non-attenders and chase them."
This does make me wonder at the reasoning behind mandating vaccination and I do think it is morally objectable to force a procedure which is so steeped in financial gain for all those involved in it’s production.
Finally, I would like to say that if vaccination was really the wonder cure with no side-effects that it is made out to be, there would be no need to mandate it, because parents would be cueing up to have the life-saving drug. The fact that mandating it is even a discussion leads the public to believe that there is something inherently wrong with vaccination.
Disrespecting of parental concerns and choices also leads to distrust. Without respect and rational discussion of the issues, people are gradually stopping believing in professional’s abilities to be objective. Every time a bad study comes out on MMR, doctors rush to it’s defence. They did everything in their power to discredit Andrew Wakefield’s work and those who found similar findings.
This only damaged the department of health’s credibility in the eyes of a large percentage of the general public because of their refusal to look at opposing data.
I thank you for giving me the chance to speak. It was an honour to be here.
Nuffield Bio Ethics wish to state that they are not trying to mandate vaccinations and they do not have a bias one way or the other, they are simply interested in discussing public and professional views surrounding the issue of vaccinations in order to gain insight into people's opinions of this subject.
NJVaccinationChoice.org - NJ Coalition for Vaccination Choice (NJ CVC) - Working to pass a NJ law for Conscientious Exemption from Mandatory Vaccinations.
QUESTIONS ANSWERED:
Question 1 The definition of public health
ANSWER:
No, the term 'public health' is merely a term used to describe the general populations state of
health, or specific groups of the general population. It does not imply that any action should be taken to attain public health. If you are speaking about how we as a society can improve our health, a better term would be 'public health promotion' or 'public health education.'
Question 2 Factors that influence public health
ANSWER:
I believe that the media and advertising influence people's attitudes to caring for their health and maybe this should be a sub-section in 'social factors'?
Question 4 Control of infectious disease
ANSWER:
I don't believe that enforced quarantines are a good idea. Prevention of infectious disease by
isolation has long been known to be one of the most effective methods of preventing the spread of
disease, BUT to enforce someone in to quarantine is imprisoning them and this can never be right,
no matter what the circumstance. Governments could potentially quarantine people for reasons
other than disease control, using disease as the reason, and this is a highly questionable practice.
The public are intelligent, and even those in less educated brackets would be ameniable to
isolation if the reasons and benefits for preventing disease were given to them, say, in educational leaflets or posters, especially given as the practice is non-invasive. It should not therefore be necessary to enforce any kind of quarantine as people would voluntarily agree so in cases of severe outbreaks if it were presented to them properly. Because of vaccination, most doctors do not routinely screen for infectious diseases, or they re-classify them as something else because the person has been 'immunised', therefore they are not vigilant to the diseases. It is VAN UK's
opinion that throat swabs, blood tests and other diagnostic means should be routinely used to
screen for infectious diseases, regardless of immunisation status, so that early detection of disease and therefore early prevention by means of antibiotics and other treatments may be used. This would also prevent the spread of disease and the severity of that disease in the affected person.
Epidemics in other countries, especially third world countries, are largely due to poor diet, lack of sanitation, poor housing, and a bad or non-existant water supply. Poorer countries should be given grants to fund irrigation systems, wells, water pumps and farming techniques which are self-sufficient and then large numbers of diseases and deaths would be cut drastically. There is too much money ploughed into vaccination and drugs, which according to their manufacturer's are only meant for healthy children, so these do nothing but compromise and damage the immune
systems of children unable to cope with it due to their living conditions. If more of this money was
actually spent on tackling the root cause of disease (i.e. not enough food, unclean water, over-crowding etc), then we would see not only a decline in diseases but also more self-sufficient third world communities. There are no circumstances in which mandatory testing for HIV or TB or others would be appropriate. People own their own bodies and being able to accept or reject a medical treatment or procedure is a basic human right. If the rights to our bodies are overtaken by governments and their health policies, we would no longer own or be responsible for ourselves and would merely be state property. An enforced medical treatment, even if for a perceived benefit is no different to enforced sex and this is considered rape and is illegal.
HIV testing was recently introduced to all pregnant women in the UK and whilst I myself was pregnant, I was told by the hospital they were going to HIV test me. I said no and they informed me it was government policy and they had to. I explained to them that I had only ever had sex with one man, my husband, and that he had only ever been with me, and neither of us had HIV. They again replied it was not my choice and I 'had to' have the test. I was given blood work paperwork to give to the doctor who would perform the HIV test, and I threw this paperwork in the bin, refused the test and just got the blood tests for anaemia. Hospital policy or not, it will always be my choice over what tests I have,as it will always be the public's choice over whether they wish to be tested for HIV/TB etc.
Question 3 Prevention of infectious diseases through vaccination
ANSWER:
Your questions assume that the theory of 'herd immunity' actually works, which it does not and
never has. Throughout the last 200 years or so since vaccinations were invented, diseases have
occurred in 'immunised' populations even where the rate is 95% or more with known
immunisation status.
Here are some medical studies which show a failure of so called herd
immunity:
Klock, L.E., et al. "Failure of rubella herd immunity during an epidemic." New England
Journal of Medicine 1973; 288(2):69-72. Immunogenicity of second dose measles-mumps-rubella(MMR) vaccine and implications for serosurveillance. Outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. 2002 Jan 15;20(7-8):1134-40. This particular study starts with the sentence 'Measles and mumps,but not rubella, outbreaks have been reported amongst populations highly vaccinated with a single dose of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.'
Reemergence of invasive haemophilus influenzae type b disease in a well-vaccinated population on remote Alaska" (Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 179, no. 1, January 1999, pp. 101-106, reported via Vaccine Weekly, NewsEdge Corporation news release, February 12, 1999): In 1996, after administration of Hib conjugate vaccine (DTP whole-cell vaccine + Hib), cases of invasive Hib disease, as well as "silent" Hib infections, increased.
High incidence of breakthrough varicella observed in healthy Japanese children immunized with live attenuated varicella vaccine (Oka strain)," Acta Paediatrica Japonica, vol. 39, no. 6, December 1997, pp. 663-8: the rate of varicella [chicken pox] occurrence among vaccinees was found to be much higher than rates reported previously by other authors.
"Varicella vaccine seems to be effective in modifying the symptoms of varicella, but not potent enough in protecting from VZV infection."
Perhaps a most famous case of all, occured in actress Kate Winslet's baby daughter Mia, who contracted pertussis at aged 5 months, after having recieved all 3 DPT shots and in an area with very high vaccination rates.
Another argument I would make is that if vaccination is truly effective at preventing disease by inducing antibodies,then it would not matter what the vaccination rates are. Those who were vaccinated would be immunised and not able to contract diseases from those who were not vaccinated. If they do, then the vaccine doesn't work. If health care officials truly believe that it would be ineffective if given to less than 95% of the population, then they don't have any belief in their own product. Therefore I think that to try to mandate vaccines on the basis of a shakey theory that has never been proven, and against which there is a great deal of medical information to show it doesn't work, would be against public interest and basic human rights.
Vaccination involves piercing the skin with a
needle. Any medical procedure which breaks the skin is classed as a surgery, which there needs to
be verbal and written consent for. Furthermore, most vaccination is done on healthy asymptomatic
individuals for the purpose of preventing disease which has not happened yet and may not happen.
It carries with it risks of side-effects and in rare instances, disability and death. If this was
mandated it would be against the hippocratic oath 'first do no harm', if that asymptomatic
individual then developed side-effects from a mandated injection. People who have a medical
procedure enforced upon them against their will can sue for assault.
I would like also to point out that even in countries where vaccines are 'mandated', there are medical, philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccination and that it is possible to enter school without being vaccinated. The person would instead present their exemption certificate instead of their vaccination record. I would like to point out that on page 18, point 3 on 'facts and figures' is infactual. HIB disease is NOT Meningitis B. HIB disease comes from a bacterium which causes a variety of complications including pneumonia, septacemia and other things, and can lead to Meningitis, but it is not
Meningitis B itself, so cannot be credited for reducing the disease. Meningitis C was also a fairly rare type of meningitis until after the introduction of HIB vaccine in 1992. Then rates of this particular type of meningitis increased, leading to scientists wishing to develop the Men C vaccine.
Also, the rates of Meningitis C have actually risen since the introduction of the Men C vaccine,
according to an article in the independent and the Meningitis Research Foundation: Cases of
meningitis and septicaemia have fallen from about 4,000 a year in the late 1990s to 2,446 last year
following the introduction of a vaccine against meningitis C in November 1999. But in a bizarre
twist the number of deaths rose last year by 17 per cent from 317 to 370 and is not far below the
level before the vaccine was introduced.
Specialists say one reason for the rise in deaths is the mistaken belief that the vaccine protects against all forms of meningitis. The vaccine is only effective against meningitis C, cases of which have fallen by 90 per cent, but offers no protection against the equally deadly meningitis B. The Meningitis Research Foundation is to launch a campaign this week to alert the public to the risks. A spokes-woman said: "We are extremely concerned about the rise in deaths. With cases declining this is the last thing we want to see. We don't know why deaths are rising but anecdotal evidence suggests many people think that since the
introduction of the meningitis C vaccine the problem is solved." This particular article also
confirms the lack of an available Meningitis B vaccine, which further demonstrates that your point 3 on page 18 is wrong.
Question 5 Obesity
ANSWER:
Obesity is multi-causal so should be tackled a variety of ways. Firstly, a large percentage of infants are formula fed, or not breast fed for long enough, and studies have shown this is linked to obesity in later life. Advertisements for formula milk should be banned and hospitals should not stock formula milk. WHO are now re-doing their centile growth charts using breast fed infants as the
normative, when previously growth charts were based on formula fed infants, who are generally
heavier. Human milk for human babies will always be the normative model, so this is a step in the
right direction. Unicef recommend co-sleeping with infants as this is linked with higher success in breast feeding. The benefits agency should stop giving free formula milk vouchers to mothers on income support, as these families are poor and this just encourages them not to breast feed, which not only increases obesity, it also causes a variety of other health problems. If mothers wish to formula feed, they should pay to purchase the formula, whether they are on income support or not.
The DOH should re-form it's recommendations in line with WHO guidelines. WHO state that each
child should receive breast milk for the first 2 years of life (or they will suffer increased illness) so our DOH should also state 2 years, instead of the 6 months they recommend, which is not backed up by any medical benefit. Schools should quit serving junk food and restaurants should make kid's meals healthy (kid’s meals are frequently sausage and chips or pizza, which is not healthy).
Work hours should be less, maternity and paternity leave should be 2 years, so that families have time to cook decent food and not rely on frozen packet food which is usually full of fat and not healthy. If there was less pressure for both parents to work 40 hour weeks, there would be more time for cooking, exercising etc. People who are obese should have access to the same health care as anyone else. If you put restrictions on that, you could start saying that premature babies or the elderly or the suicidal can't have medical treatment because they're too young or too old or it was self-inflicted. That would be a very dangerous move.
Question 6 Smoking
ANSWER:
If cigarette companies are to be proseceuted for damaging public health, then in theory the
government should also be prosecuted for any vaccine damage they cause to people, or for flouride poisoning etc. In theory it is a reasonable idea, but I cannot see it being put into practise.
Government is justified in banning smoking in public places, places of work etc because just as
there are many people who chose to smoke, there are also many who chose not to, and if others are
continually smoking around them, then they are subjected to passive smoking against their will,
which is as dangerous as smoking. Smoking in the home or private places should be up to the
individual, though. Smokers should have the same access to health care as others. If you start
withholding healthcare for reasons such as smoking, dangerous sports etc then you are trying to dictate too much how people live their lives. It is just as dangerous to drive a car as it is to do adventure sports, but people don't stop driving. Would doctors withhold treatment from a car accident victim because he shouldn't have been driving as that is dangerous? What about elderly people, whose immune systems aren't as good, would these be withheld treatment on account of the increased care they require? Or suicidal people because they 'did it to themselves?' What about disabled people who sometimes require more medical care? Would they be refused because they
cost too much? If you start withholding treatment for smokers, the ramifications are endless. It is
not a doctor's job to judge. He is there to provide medical care, not play God.
Question 7 Alcohol
ANSWER:
Other societies such as France and Italy, drink more than we do but do not have the excessive
drinking/ drink driving and drunk violence problems that we have. I believe this is because they are more liberal about alcohol. Children are allowed in places which sell alcohol and parents and children alike drink a little wine with their evening meal. It is much more relaxed. Children grow up with alcohol as part of the culture and they aren't told they 'can't' have it like they are in the UK.
Therefore there is no urge to go off binge drinking. Kids here want to drink because they can't get it till 18, they aren't allowed in pubs etc so it's all 'mysterious'. They also don't have it daily with meals as in other countries so this contributes to the Saturday night binge/ nightclub drinking culture here, that is linked with alcohol poisonings, drunken disorderly behaviour, violence etc.
My belief is if the laws were loosened and we followed a pattern similar to France, we would not
have such problems.
Question 8 Supplementation of food and water
ANSWER:
There are no circumstances in which it is acceptable to restrict the choice of individuals to protect the health of children. It is not government responsibility to take care of children's health, it is the parent's responsibility. That is the whole point of parental responsibility rights. If decisions
become the states, it begs the question who does the child belong to? His birth parents or the
government? It also assumes that parents cannot make decisions for themselves or chose what they
believe to be in the best interest of their child. Children may not make the decision themselves, but then that is what parents are for and it may be that a child would not want a vaccine (as I wish my own mother hadn't let me have any) and then this would be imposed by a government, guessing on
what the child's wishes would be. A child becomes age of consent at 16, and therefore future
health decisions would rest with the child, but prior to that the responsibility is always with the parents. Flouride is a poison, that is why in America there are warning labels on toothpaste, and why here, children's toothpaste has been recently made with 'low flouride', and the advice is to brush with only pea sized amounts. People can die from flouride ingestion, in rare cases. I read a medical report for a 3 year old boy in 1974 who died of flouride poisoning after gurgling a flouride mouth wash at the dentists. Flouride can affect memory and concentration and if it were put in the water supply, that would be a potiential mass poisoming of the population. At least with food stuffs, people can choose what they buy, but if you put it in the water,everyone has to have it whether they want to or not, and this is an infringement of our basic human rights.
Question 9 Ethical issues
ANSWER:
Consent is the most important aspect in my opinion, because if anyone does anything without
consent (e.g. vaccination, or episiotomy for childbirth) then this is assault in the eyes of the law,against the hippocratic oath, a breach of the medical profession's position as doctors and a breach of trust that the public has placed in them. It is a fundamental right of any human being to accept or reject treatments or interventions and also to direct their own medical care as it is their body. In the case of vaccinations for children, we should have a freedom of information act here, like they do in the states, so that the full information about vaccination is available to parents. FULL details of all side-effects should be made available to all parents, not just the minor ones, and the manufacturer's data sheet should be shown to the parents prior to any vaccination. If they are
consenting prior to knowing this information, then that does not constitute informed consent. The compensation laws should be changed. Drug companies should be held directly liable in the case of a damaged child, they should scrap the 80% disabled rule which was designed just to deny the majority of parents compensation, and the maximium £100,000 compensation should be increased
drastically. Only when you have all these aspects in place, along with government reasons for why
vaccines are needed, will you have true informed consent on the part of the parents.
Other pages:
This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page |
Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com