Dr Ben Goldacre’s Internet Bullies Given OK To Launch Attacks On Their Own Blogs – And Told To Shut Up On His BadScience Forum

Here you can watch in real time as some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Internet forum members agree together to engage across the internet in what will likely be their usual formula of personal abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation.

They have been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum about this CHS article posted three days ago:

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies

So having been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum, they are being told it is OK to go onto their own blogs where they will no doubt engage in Google bombing the internet about this.

Here you can see it being discussed on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum, [subject of course to postings being deleted or posting terminated once this CHS article is posted]:

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum Comment Thread: ”Patient Commits Suicide After His Doctor Hounded By..”

The CHS article above is about just one suicide linked to the internet activities of some of the members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum.  It is not the only suicide of an individual subjected to years of relentless internet attacks by some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members.

The article exposes what Dr Ben Goldacre has been allowing on his BadScience internet forum for years – very serious organised orchestrated internet bullying, abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation on an internet wide scale against individuals who have differing perspectives from his members and associates.

Additionally, it is clear from this and other evidence that Dr Ben Goldacre is allowing his BadScience forum to be used in this manner.  He has had previous warnings which are documented.

Harassment whether on the internet or elsewhere is apparently illegal and can attract stiff penalties following laws introduced to the UK to counter serious problems of stalking and harassment of celebrities and private individuals.  And this clearly has the look of the usual orchestrated harassment by agreement which under wholly separate legal provisions CHS understands can also be unlawful and attract stiff penalties.

Or should Dr Goldacre be exempt from acting responsibly or above the law?

The BadScience Forum webpage linked to above keeps changing and some comments have been removed already and some are still being added.

In case of further deletions here is an exchange showing they have been told to shut up:

Post#9 by sTeamTraen » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:46 pm

jdc wrote:

soveda wrote:Moderator note:
Please be very careful in discussing this not to stray into anything that will be problematic, thank you.

Further to this: I was a bit worried we hadn’t been quite careful enough, so I’ve quarantined a couple of posts. I might be being overcautious. I’ll ask the other mods to take a look at teh quarantined posts.

Soz.

I apologise for inadvertently posting about this. I didn’t realise what was going on (but I have since received PMs from three people explaining the situation).

And here is why they are being told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum:

Post#19 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:34 pm

andysnat wrote:It has nothing to do with legal, and plenty to do with keeping the forum.Thanks.

This. Anybody feel free to PM me for discussion of the background to this situation.

Here is a post encouraging Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members to blog about these matters on their own blogs across the internet instead of on Dr Goldacre’s BadScience forum:

Post#14 by duck » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:25 pm

As ever, we thoroughly encourage people to write about this on their own blogs.

And another here:

Post#16 by ThermalTurnip » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:46 pm

Backstep wrote:Dear mods, I love you all dearly, but hows about you don’t encourage us to p.ssy foot around this topic? As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?

Seconded.

And here:

Post#17 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:04 pm

Backstep wrote:As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?

Yes, there is. The last time this came up it was almost the end of this forum. Personally, I like it here, and I don’t want it to become more trouble to the curly-haired one than it’s worth.

I think we should take the advice previously given, and repeated by duck, that if we want to address the issues raised we should take it to our own blogs.

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies – Perpetrator’s Mild Two Year Cautionary Sentence Only Just Ended December 2013

[STOP PRESS 4 Jan 2014 @15:02: Dr Ben Goldacre’s Internet Bullies Given OK To Launch Attacks On Their Own Blogs – And Told To Shut Up On His BadScience Forum. This new CHS article is published because since the CHS article below was published CHS has obtained information showing some people will not take notice even when it is spelt out clearly for them.]

A patient committed suicide after an anonymous malicious complaint was made by Stuart Jones to the UK’s General Medical Council about the patient’s treating physician, a disciplinary tribunal was told.  Stuart Jones [Registration Number: CS17316] was at the time a member of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum and was a clinical scientist at the Queens Hospital, Romford, UK. The physician concerned sometimes employed treatment methods which were not those conventionally employed by others but which apparently reaped benefits for patients.

After making the complaint to the GMC about the patient’s doctor, Stuart Jones wrote on May 19th 2010 on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum to other forum members:

Yup, that’s exactly why I complained actually, to give SM a bucket load of administration to wade through and increase anxiety levels in her patients, very pleasurable in deed!”

The patient, who was suffering with chronic fatigue syndrome at the time [also known as ME] killed himself, according to evidence from his doctor, because he mistakenly believed his doctor was no longer allowed to treat him: ‘Deluded quack’ jibe nearly ruined doctor’s career, Daily Telegraph, 21 December 2011.

Members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum are encouraged by Dr Ben Goldacre to take direct action and get involved.  This has included some members launching online attacks on medical professionals who employ treatment modalities others in mainstream medicine do not. BadScience Forum members are also encouraged to make complaints to a large number of regulatory bodies all the time.

In fact Dr Goldacre encourages his BadScience Forum members to get very, very involved:

The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.”

Dr Ben Goldacre has practised as a psychiatrist and is a columnist for the UK’s Guardian newspaper where his column, which appears infrequently now, is devoted to what he calls BadScience.

Stuart Jones’ complaint resulted in the temporary suspension by the GMC of the patient’s doctor.

The GMC prosecution of the deceased patient’s treating doctor was dropped abruptly by the GMC.  By 22nd August 2011 the GMC advised the Doctor all charges had been dropped – [see chonology at end of this article]. 

Stuart Jones was in turn prosecuted by the Health and Care Professions Council.  He was subjected to a very minor punishment of merely a two-year Caution Order.  The two year caution order was imposed in December 2011 but will remain on the register until 18th January this year.

Between 1st March 2009 and 26th October 2010 Stuart Jones, posting anonymously on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum as “Jonas“, made numerous disparaging remarks about the patient’s treating physician.

The career of the patient’s doctor was nearly destroyed in addition to the patient taking his own life in despair at the thought of not getting effective treatment after Stuart Jones described the patient’s doctor as a ‘deluded, pill-peddling quack’ the disciplinary tribunal hearing was told. Stuart Jones also wrote on the BadScience website that the patient’s doctor, who specialises in treating chronic fatigue syndrome, “lulled patients into a dangerous world of make-believe pseudo-science”.  The Health Professions Council heard evidence that Jones’ messages were “defamatory, derogatory and disparaging” and had a detrimental effect on the doctor’s professional and personal life.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum was flooded with 10,000 posts responding to Jones’ initial message in April 2010.

Evidence at the hearing from the patient’s doctor was:

In fact, there was one patient in particular who thought because I had been suspended I could no longer could be consulted. I don’t know if this happened directly as a result of that but the man deteriorated and he actually committed suicide. That’s just one example of how one patient was very seriously affected. I don’t know if that’s directly as part of Mr Jones’ blogging but it resulted.

Causing a patient to commit suicide by vicious bullying of the patient’s treating doctor specifically to “increase anxiety levels” in the victim doctor’s patients is apparently not a sufficiently serious crime to warrant more than a 2 year “caution” for the Health and Care Professions Council.

Although no charges were brought against the patient’s doctor by the GMC and the doctor was never called before the GMC, aborted investigations in 2006/07 cost the GMC £136,692.12 in solicitors’ fees and disbursements and a possible further £500,000 on internal costs – according to a report on a website set up to support the patient’s doctor by patients and wellwishers.

The GMC is funded by a levy paid by all medical doctors registered in the UK.

It appears also no action has been taken by the GMC regarding Dr Goldacre’s BadScience Forum activities.

The GMC is meant to act on patient complaints. The GMC is an unusual organisation as this previous CHS post demonstrates:

UK General Medical Council Told Docs “Commit Fraud for MMR Vaccine Bonuses”

To complain to the GMC you can contact them on:

Email: gmc@gmc-uk.org.

Or telephone:

  • Inside the UK: 0161 923 6602
  • Outside the UK: +44 161 923 6602

Monday to Friday – 8am to 6pm – Saturday – 9am to 5pm – UK Time.

Details of the outcome of the 2011 HCPC hearing against Stuart Jones can be read here on the HCPC’s website:

Stuart Jones

Profession: Clinical scientist
Registration Number: CS17316
Hearing type: Final Hearing
Date & Time of hearing: 20/12/2011 – 10:00 End: 20/12/2011 – 18:00
Location: HPC, Park House, 184 Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Caution

Registration Number: CS17316

CHRONOLOGY [6 Jan 2014]: This is a chronology of some of what the poor doctor has had to face at the hands of the General Medical Council.

Compare what follows with the case of Dr Jane Barton.

With Barton the police investigated 92 deaths over 12 years [no criminal charges were brought].  An inquest found ten of 12 deaths followed excessive doses of morphine. Dr Barton was neither struck off nor suspended but simply had restrictions to prescribe certain drugs imposed on her.  This GMC decision came on January 29th 2010.

What The GMC Did To This Doctor

Remember at all times that no patient was harmed.  Patients benefited and praised the Doctor and none were put at risk.

Nov 2002: five day GMC fitness to practice hearing scheduled to take place. Five complaints only from doctors, none from patients. No patient harmed, put at risk, nor any malpractice.  Complaints objected to doctor’s style of practice and the allergy, environmental, nutritional approach to medicine.

Oct 2002: hearing postponed to Feb 2003 and extended 8 days for eight complaints.

Jan 2003: Feb hearing cancelled – no proper explanation.  Hearing was cancelled because at least one allegation was fabricated, one based on untrue facts and patients had refused to co-operate.

April 2007:  new set of allegations & new hearing proposed.  Again, includes complaints only from doctors and who do not like the style of practice. No patient harmed or put at risk. Now extended also to complaints about website.

July 2007: 10 day General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practice hearing scheduled to take place Sept 2007.

That hearing later postponed and proposed as a thirteen day hearing in February 2008.

Oct 2007: GMC drop all charges.

Aug 2009: Aug 12th GMC had been found out removing documentary evidence supporting the accused Doctor.

Apr 2010: Apr 2nd anonymous complaint received from GMC by Doctor [complaint from Stuart Jones].

April 2010: Thurs 8th April GMC orders Doctor to attend “Interim Orders Panel” for following Monday 12th April.  IOP is to make no decision about validity of complaint – an “interim” hearing only.

April 2010: April 9th – hearing postponed to April 29th.

April 2010: April 29th IOP hearing of unsubstantiated anonymous complaint [from Stuart Jones].  IOP hearing is not concerned if allegations are true but with whether to impose an order to protect public if the allegations were found to be true.  GMC interim panel decided there was a “potential risk to public safety” so imposed an interim order.  [Compare the Barton case above where Barton’s patients died after morphine overdoses, inquests & police investigations with this one where patients benefitted from Dr’s treatments & supported Doc.  Barton’s patients were in no condition to complain.]

Dec 2011: Over 1 1/2 years later yet another IOP hearing.

Jan 2011: Temporary suspension lifted.

Aug 2011: 1st Aug all sanctions lifted.

Aug 2011: 22nd Aug all charges dropped.  GMC cancels Fitness to Practice Hearing [scheduled for November 2011] and advises there is no case to answer.  Dr reinstated on the General Medical Council Register.

Dec 2011:  20th Dec Stuart Jones found guilty by HCPC.

Oct 2012: Despite serious charges of professional misconduct against the doctor being dropped the GMC continued its long victimisation of this courageous Dr.  But this time regarding charges concerning the content of her website.  The first expert witness the GMC picked to give evidence did not give them the answer they wanted.  His evidence was:

Dr Hr stated that he did not consider that you were acting inappropriately although he considered that your reference to ‘dangerous medicine’ was inappropriate. He added the caveat that you should ensure that the information given should be accurate and not alarmist. Overall, he considered that your actions were appropriate and of a reasonable competent standard.

So the GMC commissioned two more experts to address the website content and they decided it was not appropriate.

Instead of being struck from the medical register the Dr was given a “warning”.

— THE END — [for the moment]

Smallpox Eradication – One of History’s Biggest Lies & How Vaccination Did Not Eradicate Smallpox

You know about how individuals gain control of the power of the State and then abuse that power like former US President George “Dubya” Bush?  “Dubya” started a war in Iraq which was highly profitable for some US businesses.  He achieved this by claiming Iraq had a nuclear weapons programme which was a serious world security threat when Iraq did not and when it had already been bombed into oblivion by the war his Dad George Bush Snr waged on Iraq in 1992: Valerie Plame Wilson: the housewife CIA spy who was ‘fair game’ for Bush UK The Telegraph By Chrissy Iley 15 Feb 2011. 

Remember how Bush was supported by UK Premier Tony Blair who helped by persuading the British Parliament to join the US with faked “intelligence” of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which did not exist but which Blair claimed could be deployed within 40 minutes and posed a serious security threat?

If you remember that then you will know how these kinds of people manipulate the media.  Notice how they persuade us we are in imminent danger of some threat or other and that they can save us all if we trust them?

This trickery is not new.  It had been used for well over a century with smallpox.  The myth continues to this day.

On CHS we wrote previously about how unscientific the claim is that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination when that frankly is nonsense scientifically.  The demise of the disease came about as a result of the interaction of three completely different factors: isolation, attenuation and improved living conditions, particularly nutrition and sanitation. The effect cannot be attributable to the smallpox vaccine – any vaccine which takes over 100 years to work ipso facto proves itself not to have:

Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication

There was a nasty disease called smallpox and it did kill people long ago.

This was especially the case when the poor moved to the cities during the industrial revolution looking for work and choked them in overcrowded unsanitary slums ripe for breeding and spreading disease: London’s first park built after rich feared disease spread from slums UK The Independent By Andy McSmith Friday 07 November 2008;  Hygiene History in the Industrialized World.

The middle and upper classes needed to be reassured the State would keep them safe from the threat of disease.  The majority of the population of entire countries were persuaded their States could achieve this by ensuring the then truly “great unwashed” masses would be vaccinated and the disease controlled.  The trouble was this was a myth but the people wanted to believe and were persuaded. 

Smallpox vaccination did not work and sometimes killed as many or more than the disease itself whilst many of the “vaccinated” still contracted the disease: Smallpox Mortality, UK, USA, Sweden.

Now you can read a relatively short but well-referenced history of the myth of vaccination and the myth of its role in the eradication of smallpox:

Online Version – Vaccination: A Mythical History ~ by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries MD – August 27, 2013

SMALLPOX MORTALITY-UK, USA & SWEDEN

In the graphs below notice the large numbers of deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine itself.  By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself.  The severity of the disease dimished with improved living standards and was not vanquished by vaccination, as the medical “consensus” view tells us. Any vaccine which takes 100 years to “work” did not.  On any scientific analysis of the history and data, crediting smallpox vaccine for the decline in smallpox appears misplaced.

When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England stopped vaccination compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummeted [see table below].  Leicester’s approach also cost far less.

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

 uk-vacc-deaths-1875-1922

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

uk-vacc-deaths-1906-1922

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

[Download Entire Book as .pdf 43 Mb  – Or Read Online]

TABLE 21

SMALLPOX FATALITY RATES, cases in vaccinated and re-vaccinated populations compared with “unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.

Name. Period. Small-Pox.  Cases Small-Pox. Deaths. Fatality-rate per cent. of Cases
Japan 1886-1908 288,779 77,415 26.8
British Army (United Kingdom) 1860-1908 1,355 96 7.1
British Army (India) 1860-1908 2,753 307 11.1
British Army (Colonies) 1860-1908 934 82 8.8
Royal Navy 1860-1908 2,909 234 8.0
Grand Totals and case fatality rate per cent, over all 296,730 78,134 26.3
Leicester (since giving up vaccination) 1880-1908 1,206 61 5.1

Biggs saidIn this comparison, I have given the numbers of revaccinated cases, and deaths, and each fatality-rate separately and together, so that they may be compared either way with Leicester. In pro-vaccinist language, may I ask, if the excessive small-pox fatality of Japan, of the British Army, and of the Royal Navy, are not due to vaccination and revaccination, to what are they due? It would afford an interesting psychical study were we able to know to what heights of eloquent glorification Sir George Buchanan would have soared with a corresponding result—but on the opposite side.

 TABLE 29.

Small-Pox Epidemics, Cost, and Fatality Rates Compared

Vaccinal Condition Small-Pox Cases Small-Pox Deaths Fatality-rate Per Cent Cost of Epidemic
London 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 9,659 1,594 16.50 £492,000
Glasgow 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 3,417 377 11.03 £ 150,000
Sheffield 1887-88 Well Vaccinated 7,066 688 9.73 £32,257
Leicester 1892-94 Practically Unvaccinated 393 21 5.34 £2,888
Leicester 1902-04 Practically Unvaccinated 731 30 4.10 £1,602

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

 

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

uk-smallpox-1838-1890

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

sweden-smallpox-1821-1852

__________________________________________

Vaccination: A Mythical History ~ by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries MD

August 27, 2013

With the approaching flu season and the enthusiastic calls to use the flu vaccine, you might be wondering where the idea of vaccination got its start. Where did the idea of injecting whole or bits of microbes and other substances into people in an attempt to provide protection against contagious disease begin?

Many medical and history books present a simple tale of the origin of vaccination. Most present the same basic tale of the brilliant observation of a simple country doctor and his courage in attempting to thwart a deadly and frightening disease of that time – smallpox, or as it was often called the speckled monster. In a recent and popular book, The Panic Virus, the author reiterates this classic tale.

In 1796, Jenner enlisted a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes and an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to test his theory. Jenner transferred pus from Nelmes’s cowpox blisters onto incisions he’d made in Phipps’s hands. The boy came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. Later, Jenner gave Phipps a standard smallpox inoculation – which should have resulted in a full-blown, albeit mild, case of the disease. Nothing happened. Jenner tried inoculating Phipps with smallpox once more; again, nothing. [1]

Edward Jenner’s idea eventually became known as vaccination, which is derived from the Latin word for cow – vacca. It was originally referred to as cowpoxing, but eventually the term vaccination was adopted. As the story goes, with this invention in place, smallpox would be tamed and the world would be freed from the terror of the disease.

Such is the stuff of legends. The story is not unlike the classic Greek legends of Theseus defeating the child-devouring Minotaur, or Perseus beheading the deadly snake-headed Medusa, or many other classic stories of the brave hero defeating a deadly enemy. The Jenner legend has been reduced to a simple and memorable story of a hero defeating the deadly enemy, smallpox. Authors claim that with vaccination in place, “billions of lives” have been saved.[2]

But legendary heroes, particularly those that are used to support a belief, achieve an iconic status while any unsavory aspects about the hero and the story are ignored or forgotten. Mythical tales are designed to evoke a positive emotional response to influence societal thinking.

The tale of defeating smallpox begins well before the story of our hero. It begins with the concept of using small amounts of smallpox pus and scratching it into the arms of healthy people. This idea was introduced to the Western world by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in 1717. She had returned from the Ottoman Empire with knowledge of the practice of inoculation against smallpox, known as variolation. This type of inoculation was simply a matter of infecting a person with smallpox at a time and in a setting of his choosing. The idea behind inoculation was that, in a controlled setting, people would do better against the disease than if they contracted it at some possibly less desirable time and place in the future.

The idea was embraced by the medical profession and enthusiastically practiced. But because of the complexity and danger involved, inoculation remained an operation that could only be afforded by the wealthy.[3] The procedure did often help protect the individual that was inoculated, but there was still an estimated 2-5% that died as a result.[4,5] Still, this was an improvement compared to a 20-25% mortality rate in those that had naturally contracted smallpox during an epidemic.[6] But, was the difference in mortality due to inoculation alone? Or could it have had something to do with the fact that the wealthy had better access to more nutritious food and a cleaner environment than the majority of society?

There was one major and generally unacknowledged drawback to variolation – those inoculated could and did spread smallpox creating more deaths than there would have been naturally. In a 1764 article the author recognized that smallpox was a contagious disease and that the practice of variolation would create new vectors to spread it. He compared the smallpox deaths in the 38 years before the introduction of variolation to the 38 years after, and found that smallpox deaths had increased⎯not decreased. He was forced to conclude that variolation on the whole, led to worse problems, because it caused more deaths than lives saved.

It is incontestably like the plague a contagious disease, what tends to stop the progress of the infection tends to lessen the danger that attends it; what tends to spread the contagion, tends to increase that danger; the practice of Inoculation manifestly tends to spread the contagion, for a contagious disease is produced by Inoculation where it would not otherwise have been produced; the place where it is thus produced becomes a center of contagion, whence it spreads not less fatally or widely than it would spread from a center where the disease should happen in a natural way; these centers of contagion are manifestly multiplied very greatly by Inoculation . . .[7]

However, while the popularity of variolation varied, the problem of it spreading smallpox, was largely unrecognized. Because variolation had become a very lucrative procedure it was enthusiastically continued by most of the medical profession through the 1700s and into the early 1800s. Smallpox continued to be spread by this medically-sanctioned procedure.

Now enters the hero of our legend. It was rumored among milkmaids that infection with cowpox would protect one from smallpox. In 1796, believing these stories, Edward Jenner performed an experiment on an 8-year-old boy named James Phipps. He took disease matter that he believed to be cowpox from lesions on a dairymaid, Sarah Nelmes, and vaccinated James Phipps with it. He later deliberately exposed the child to smallpox as a test to see if he was protected by the cowpox inoculation. When the boy did not contract clinical smallpox, it was assumed that the technique of vaccination was successful.

In 1798 Jenner published his results claiming lifelong protection against smallpox using his discovery with only rumors to support his contention. While he promoted the use of his technique based on the tale that someone infected with cowpox would be immune to smallpox, there were doctors of the time who challenged this myth, because they had seen smallpox follow cowpox. At a meeting of the Medico-Convivial Society, Jenner was ridiculed over his practice.

But he [Jenner] no sooner mentioned it than they laughed at it. The cow doctors could have told him of hundreds of cases where small-pox had followed cow-pox . . . [8]

From the beginning there were problems with Jenner’s procedure. In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated a number of children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox to see if the cowpox procedure had been effective. All of them developed smallpox, and vaccination failed to protect any of them. Jenner received the report but decided to ignore the results because they were not in support of his theory.[9]

Vaccination was quickly embraced by many in the medical profession as the answer to combating smallpox. By 1801, an estimated 100,000 people had already been vaccinated in England with the belief that the procedure would produce lifelong protection. The medical community continued to embrace Jenner’s ideas amidst numerous accounts that refuted the theory of vaccination. Early reports indicated that there were cases of people who had cowpox, or were vaccinated, and were still dying of smallpox. Specific cases of cowpox and vaccine failure were reported in the 1809 Medical Observer.

A Child was vaccinated by Mr. Robinson, surgeon and apothecary, at Rotherham, towards the end of the year 1799. A month later it was inoculated with small-pox matter without effect, and a few months subsequently took confluent small-pox and died. 2. A woman-servant to Mr. Gamble, of Bungay, in Suffolk, had cow-pox in the casual way from milking. Seven years afterwards she became nurse to Yarmouth Hospital, where she caught small-pox, and died. 3 and 4. Elizabeth and John Nicholson, three years of age, were vaccinated at Battersea in the summer of 1804. Both contracted small-pox in May, 1805 and died . . . 13. The child of Mr. R died of small-pox in October 1805. The patient had been vaccinated, and the parents were assured of its security. The vaccinator’s name was concealed. 14. The child of Mr. Hindsley at Mr. Adam’s office . . . died of small-pox a year after vaccination.[10]

Reports through the early 1800s began to accumulate showing vaccination was not living up to its promise to protect from smallpox. A report in 1810 from the Medical Observer noted 535 cases of small-pox after vaccination, 97 fatal cases, and 150 cases of vaccine injuries.[11] Note that 97 deaths out of 535 cases is an 18% fatality rate and is essentially the same fatality rate as smallpox before vaccination was introduced. This high fatality rate along with 150 vaccine-related injuries was a direct challenge to this new and highly lauded medical procedure.

Another article in 1817 reflected the reality of vaccination failure.

. . . the number of all ranks suffering under Small Pox, who have previously undergone Vaccination by the most skillful practitioners, is at present alarmingly great.[12]

In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Musselburgh, Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that he was originally extremely positive in promoting vaccination and that no one in the medical profession “could outstrip me in zeal for promoting vaccine practice.” But after vaccinating 1,200 persons, he became disappointed in the promise of vaccination. His experience was that, after vaccination, people still could contract and even die from smallpox, and that he could no longer support the practice.[13]

Like today, surgeons and doctors of the time were handsomely compensated for performing vaccination and thus had a tendency to embrace it as a new form of income. It is therefore quite significant for a doctor to have spoken out against it as Dr. Brown did.

Continued observations showed that smallpox could still infect those who previously had smallpox and that those who were vaccinated could also be infected.

. . . during the years 1820, 1, and, 2 [1820-1822] there was a great hubbub about the small-pox. It broke out with the great epidemic to the north . . . It pressed close to home to Dr. Jenner himself . . . It attacked many who had had small-pox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers.[14]

William Cobbett was a farmer, journalist, and English pamphleteer. In 1829 he wrote about the failure of vaccination to protect people from smallpox. Cobbett considered vaccination to be an unproven and fraudulent medical practice. He noted that:

. . . hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF, have taken the real small-pox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives![15]

During this time vaccine material was the “humanized” form, which meant that material was taken from the arm of a previously vaccinated person to vaccinate the next person. Arm-to-arm vaccination continued for decades, but as failures increased there was a belief that the vaccine had lost its original supposed potency, and there were calls to obtain fresh material directly from cows.[16]

While the legend maintained that the vaccine material came from cows, Jenner actually believed the material originated from an infectious condition of horses called the “grease.” From this and other beliefs, there were many attempts to recreate an original cow-based vaccine. All these attempts failed.[17] Some believed that cowpox was simply smallpox that was passed through cows and somehow made into a new disease.[18] This faulty belief would result in the creation of more smallpox epidemics.

In 1836 in Attenborough, Massachusetts, Dr. John C. Martin took fluid from the pock of a man who died from smallpox and inoculated it onto a cow’s udder. He then took pus from that cow and used it to vaccinate people. A large smallpox epidemic ensued causing panic and sickness in many people over the subsequent months.[19] A later inquiry determined that this was nothing more than the old practice of smallpox inoculation.[20]

Not only was vaccination failing and causing smallpox epidemics, but there were also reports of deaths from other causes shortly after vaccination. For example, a skin condition called erysipelas was a particularly prolonged and painful way to die.

. . . a boy from Somers-town, aged 5 years, “small-pox confluent, unmodified (9 days).” He had been vaccinated at the age of 4 months; one cicatrix . . . the wife of a labourer, from Lambeth, aged 22 years, “small-pox confluent, unmodified (8 days).” Vaccinated in infancy in Suffolk; two good cicatrices . . . the son of a mariner, aged 10 weeks, and the son of a sugar baker, aged 13 weeks, died of “general erysipelas after vaccination, effusion of the brain.”[21]

Because arm-to-arm vaccination was being used, other diseases could be spread causing various epidemics. Infectious diseases attributed to vaccination included tuberculosis and syphilis. In 1863 Dr. Ricord spoke before the Academy at Paris.

First I rejected the idea that syphilis could be transplanted by vaccination. But facts accumulated more and more, and now I must concede the possibility of the transfer of syphilis by means of the vaccine. I do this very reluctantly. At present I do not hesitate longer to acknowledge and proclaim the reality of the fact.[22]

As it became increasingly clear throughout the 1800s to more doctors and citizens that vaccination was not what it was promised to be, refusals increased. In order to deal with this, the judicial system intervened. In 1855, Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive laws providing for widespread vaccination.[23]

These laws and compulsory vaccination did nothing to curb the problem of smallpox. Data from Boston that begins in 1811 shows that, starting around 1837, there were periodic smallpox epidemics that culminated in the great 1872 epidemic. After 1855, there were further smallpox epidemics in 1859-60, 1864-65, and 1867 and the infamous epidemic in 1872-73. This was the most severe smallpox epidemic since the introduction of vaccination.[24] These repeat smallpox epidemics showed that the strict vaccination laws instituted by Massachusetts in 1855 had no effect at all (Graph 1). In fact, more people died in the 20 years after the strict Massachusetts vaccination compulsory laws than in the 20 years before.

Graph 1: Boston smallpox mortality rate from 1841 to 1880.

Graph 1: Boston smallpox mortality rate from 1841 to 1880.

By this point, the medical profession no longer claimed lifelong protection against smallpox from a single vaccination. Instead, claims were made that vaccination made smallpox less likely to kill or that smallpox would be milder. Calls were then made for revaccination. Claims were made that revaccination had to be performed anywhere from yearly to every 10 years.[25]

While the majority of the medical profession supported vaccination, there were those that spoke out against the procedure. Dr. Longstaffe, a prominent physician of Edinburgh England noted that huge profits were being made by vaccinators. Immense financial gain combined with the force of law created the perfect environment that would impose vaccination upon the citizens of the Western world.

The public vaccinators have received immense sums from Parliament . . . In 1850 alone they amounted to £54,727, and in the present year they will get nearly a quarter million. Other sums, also, which I cannot name, have been granted for the purpose of sustaining this monstrous fraud. Has ever a quack remedy produced so much gain?

[26]

In England, governmental control strengthened over the years, with progressively stricter laws designed to enforce vaccination. Laws previously passed in 1840 and 1853 were consolidated into oppressive compulsory laws in 1867 that included fines for parents who did not vaccinate their children. However, through the 1800s, periodic smallpox epidemics continued to occur. A great pandemic struck in 1872 and took the lives of thousands, even those who were vaccinated.

Every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there were twenty-three thousand four hundred and sixty-nine cases of small-pox in that army. The London Lancet of July 15, 1871 said:

Of nine thousand three hundred and ninety-two small-pox patients in London hospitals, six thousand eight hundred and fifty-four had been vaccinated. Seventeen and one-half per cent of those attacked died. In the whole country more than one hundred and twenty-two thousand vaccinated persons have suffered from small-pox . . . Official returns from Germany show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox.[27]

Concerns over vaccine safety, effectiveness, and governmental infringement on personal liberty and freedom through compulsory vaccination stoked the fires of the anti-vaccine movement. People began to resist the government and chose to pay fines. Some even accepted imprisonment rather than allowing vaccination for themselves or their children. The public backlash culminated in the great demonstration in Leicester England, in 1885. That same year Leicester’s government, which had pushed for vaccination through the use of fines and jail time, was replaced with a new government that was opposed to compulsory vaccination. By 1887, the vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%.[28]

Instead of relying on vaccination, people began to rely on proper sanitation, quarantine of smallpox patients and thorough disinfection of their homes. They believed this technique was a cheap and effective means that eliminated the need for vaccination. However, there were dire predictions from the majority of the medical community that strongly endorsed vaccination and believed the low vaccination rate would result in a terrible “massacre,” especially in the “unprotected” children.[29]

Despite such prophesies of doom from the medical profession, the majority of the town’s residents were steadfast in their belief that vaccination was not necessary to control smallpox. The prophecy that the Leicester residents would eventually be plagued with disaster never did come to pass. Low vaccination rates resulted in lower smallpox rates and deaths, than in well-vaccinated towns.[30] In fact, the lower vaccination rates correlated to an overall decrease in smallpox deaths (Graph 2). Leicester showed that by abandoning vaccination in favor of what became termed as the “Leicester Method,” deaths from smallpox were far lower than when vaccination rates were high.

The experience of unvaccinated Leicester is an eye-opener to the people and an eye-sore to the pro-vaccinists the world over. Here is a great manufacturing town having a population of nearly a quarter of a million, which has demonstrated by a crucial test of an experience extending over a period of more than a quarter of a century, that an unvaccinated population has been far less susceptible to small-pox and far less afflicted by that disease since it abandoned vaccination than it was at a time when ninety-five per cent of its births were vaccinated and its adult population well re-vaccinated.[31]

While vaccination was often promoted as a safe procedure, it often caused sickness or even death. From 1859 to 1922 official deaths related to vaccination were more than 1,600 in England (Graph 3). In fact, from 1906 to 1922 the number of deaths recorded from smallpox vaccination and smallpox were approximately the same (Graph 4).

Graph 2: Leicester England smallpox mortality rate vs. vaccination coverage from 1838 to 1910.

Graph 2: Leicester England smallpox mortality rate vs. vaccination coverage from 1838 to 1910.

Graph 3: England and Wales total deaths from cowpox and other effects of vaccination from 1859 to 1922.

Graph 3: England and Wales total deaths from cowpox and other effects of vaccination from 1859 to 1922.

Graph 4: England and Wales smallpox deaths vs. vaccination deaths from 1906 to 1922

Graph 4: England and Wales smallpox deaths vs. vaccination deaths from 1906 to 1922

At the end of the 1800s, smallpox changed its character. After the summer of 1897, the severe type of smallpox with its high death rate, with rare exception, had entirely disappeared from the United States. Smallpox turned from a disease that killed 1 in 5 of its victims to one that only killed anywhere from 1 in 50 and later to as low as 1 in 380. The disease could still kill, but having become so much milder, it was frequently mistaken for various other pox infections or skin eruptions.

During 1896 a very mild type of smallpox began to prevail in the South and later gradually spread over the country. The mortality was very low and it [smallpox] was usually at first mistaken for chicken pox. . .[32]

The author of a 1913 article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases presented a table showing that in 1895 and 1896 the smallpox death rate was around 20%, as it had been historically. The table also showed that after 1896 the death rate fell off rapidly, starting with 6% in 1897 to as low as 0.26% by 1908. As the mild form of smallpox replaced the classic type, smallpox could be difficult to tell from chickenpox, which was, by this time, considered a mild disease of childhood.

. . . chickenpox, is a minor communicable disease of childhood, and is chiefly important because it frequently gives rise to difficulty in diagnosis in cases of mild smallpox. Smallpox and chickenpox are sometimes very difficult to differentiate clinically.[33]

By the 1920s it was recognized that the new form of smallpox produced little in the way of symptoms, even though few had been vaccinated.

Individual cases, or even epidemics, occur in which, although there has been no protection by vaccination, the course of the disease is extremely mild. The lesions are few in number or entirely absent, and the constitutional symptoms mild or insignificant.[34]

Despite this extremely low vaccine coverage rate, there was never a resurgence of smallpox. Even though smallpox was not a major issue, the practice of smallpox vaccination continued from the time of the last smallpox death in the United States in 1948 up until 1963. This resulted in an estimated 5,000 unnecessary vaccine-related hospitalizations from generalized rash, secondary infections, and encephalitis.

A 1958 study detailed the cases of 9 children in which 2 died of a skin condition due to vaccination, now being termed eczema vaccinatum. The occurrence of this disease was estimated by the authors to be between 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 100,000 with a fatality rate of 4 to 40%.[35] However, they acknowledged that most cases were not reported and there was no accurate accounting on this consequence of vaccination. There were also an estimated 200 to 300 deaths as the result of smallpox vaccination, while during the same time there had only been 1 smallpox death in 1948.[36]

The last smallpox death in the United States following an importation occurred in 1948, but since that time there have been probably 200 to 300 deaths from smallpox vaccination.[37]

Eczema vaccinatum is still occurring today, as recently noted in the news. A toddler was infected by his military father after the father was vaccinated. After a prolonged admission, and a week of experimental treatments including immune globulin from donor blood and antiviral medication, the toddler recovered. The mother also required treatment and virus was found all over the house.[38]

Because of poor surveillance and vaccine reaction underreporting, the authors of a 1970 study thought that the number of smallpox vaccine-related deaths could actually have been even higher. This study only examined deaths from 1959 to 1968 in the United States. If the deaths were this high in a country with a modern health-care system, what was the total number of deaths from smallpox vaccination from 1800 to the present across the entire world?

There were those in the medical community who were relieved that the failure of compulsory vaccination never gained much public scrutiny. Instead, the focus was shifted to new types of vaccinations.

Compulsory vaccination which once had the suffrage of the nation has now hardly a serious supporter. We are ashamed to jettison the idea completely and perhaps afraid that if we did the accident of some future epidemic might put us in the wrong. We prefer to let compulsory vaccination die a natural death and are relieved that the general public is not curious enough to demand an inquest. In the meantime our attention is diverted to other and newer forms of immunisation.[39]

During this time with vaccination as virtually the only medically promoted way to deal with disease, there were doctors finding amazing successes with smallpox using other methods. Vinegar is a common food product that is made through fermentation of a variety of sources. An 1877 article described the success that Dr. Roth had using vinegar for smallpox prophylaxis.

D. G. Oliphant, M.D., of Toronto, Canada, having read the article on the use of Acetic acid in scarlet fever, writes of a “vinegar cure” as applied to small pox. Dr. Roth first claimed wonderful success in treatment regarding vinegar more reliable as a prophylactic in small-pox than Belladonna in scarlet fever. Dr. Roth gave both to the sick and to the exposed two table-spoonfuls of vinegar, after breakfast and at evening, for fourteen days. Few persons thus treated took the disease at all. None who adopted the prophylactic treatment died, while among those under ordinary treatment the mortality was as usual.[40]

In 1899 Dr. Howe also demonstrated vinegar’s ability to protect a person from acquiring smallpox. Those who used the vinegar protocol were able to take care of other people with smallpox without fear of contracting the disease. The author notes that despite several hundred exposures, vinegar was protective against smallpox and was considered an “established fact.”[41]

Again, in 1901 professor MacLean promoted the idea of vinegar as a real preventative of smallpox. Dr. MacLean claimed that apple cider vinegar and no other type of vinegar should be used three or four times a day to protect a person from contracting smallpox.

J.P. MacLean Ph. D., the renowned “anti” Secretary of the Western Reserve Historical Society, having readily overthrown the conclusions of all the great men who for a century past have been convinced of the efficacy of vaccination for the prevention of smallpox, now comes to the front in the newspapers with the real preventative. “Any person who has been exposed need have no fear of smallpox if he will take two or three tablespoonfuls of pure cider vinegar three or four times a day.” The discussion may now be regarded as closed, and smallpox at last is conquered![42]

Apple cider vinegar might seem silly, but only because most people have been conditioned to accept the age-old prophylaxis for smallpox: raw, disease-laden, contaminated pus scrapings from an infected animal’s (usually a cow) belly, diluted in glycerin, and scratched into the human arm with a metal prong until the arm was raw and bleeding. What seems sillier now?

Scurvy is a disease that results from a deficiency of vitamin C due to starvation or just an extremely poor or unbalanced diet. Vitamin C is essential for the formation of healthy collagen. Collagen is the protein that forms connective tissue in skin, bones, and blood vessels and also gives support to internal organs. In scurvy, the body is not able to generate adequate collagen or extracellular matrix proteins that serve as mortar holding cells together and, as a result, literally comes unglued and falls apart.

William A. Guy, dean of the Medical Department of King’s College, described the poor diet of gold miners in California in the 1850s. Thousands of miners subsisted on meat, fat, coffee, and alcohol while working long, hard days under the unrelenting California sun. The vitamin C-deficient diet led many to develop scurvy.

Scurvy has been very prevalent among the gold miners of California . . . the emigrants upon the overland journeys and at the mines, as living almost entirely upon fried bacon or fat pork and flour made into batter-cakes, and fried in the fat, which completely saturates it. This is washed down with copious librations of strong coffee, and large quantities of brandy or whiskey are taken in the intervals of the meals . . . this has been the diet of thousands for months, under a scorching sun, when the temperature was over a hundred in the shade, the men being at the same time subjected to the most intense labour.[43]

Although many died of cholera during the California Gold Rush of the mid-1800s, an estimated 10,000 men died from scurvy.

During the American Civil War twice as many died from nutritional deficiency related diseases as those killed in battle.[44] For instance, the causes of death listed for Indiana soldiers buried at the National Cemetery in Andersonville, Georgia, shows that diarrhea and scurvy directly accounted for at least two-thirds.[45] Dysentery was the next common cause of death, with the infamous diseases such as smallpox, typhus, pneumonia, and gangrene responsible for only a small fraction. Those who were killed in actual battle or who died as a result of their wounds accounted only for 1 percent of the total deaths.

Other big infectious killers such as scarlet fever, measles, diphtheria, and whooping cough (also known as pertussis) all greatly declined during this time to where they were either completely eliminated or considered mild childhood illnesses by the mid-1900s. This massive decline of 99% of deaths in whooping cough and measles occurred before vaccines or antibiotics were available (Graph 5 & 6).

Graph 5: England and Wales whooping cough mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

Graph 5: England and Wales whooping cough mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

Graph 6: England and Wales measles mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

Graph 6: England and Wales measles mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

 

The fairytale legend of a country doctor making a discovery that saved the world from the devastation of smallpox is a fundamental medical belief that continues to be echoed by indoctrinated and naïve doctors whenever vaccines are challenged. Smallpox vaccine, in the minds of medical professionals remains a pillar of their vaccine faith. But the true history shows us a different reality.

The brand name of vaccination was indoctrinated into the world psyche as something to protect someone from an illness. This belief spawned off numerous other ideas using the same notion of injecting whole or parts of disease matter into living beings in attempts to protect them from a specific disease. The reality of vaccination is nothing close to the myth.

Other extremely effective alternative methods of sanitation, nutrition, apple cider vinegar, and other solutions were ignored and have since vanished from societal collective memory. Instead we were left with the mythical history of Jenner’s great discovery and the continued onslaught of dangerous vaccines to newborn infants. Vaccines are now a regular thing from cradle to grave, all in the name of supposedly healthier people. Now that the curtain has been pulled back on the origins of vaccination, do more and more vaccines seem like a good idea to you?

More information on the history of vaccination including polio, measles, whooping cough, and lost remedies can be found in Dr Humphries’ and Roman Bystrianyk’s book “Dissolving Illusions” which can be found on amazon.com

Bibliography:
1.Seth Mnookin, The Panic Virus, Simon & Schuster, 2011, p. 31.
2.Science the Definitive Visual Guide, DK Publishing, 2009, p. 156.
3.Victor C. Vaughan, MD, Epidemiology and Public Health, St. Louis, C.V. Mosby Company, 1922, p. 189.
4.Frederick F. Cartwright, Disease and History, Rupert-Hart-Davis, London, 1972, p. 124.
5.William Douglass, MA, A Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements and Present State of the British Settlements of North-America, London, 1760, p. 398.
6.Ann Jannetta, The Vaccinators: Smallpox Medical Knowledge and the ‘Opening’ of Japan, Stanford University Press, 2007, p.179.
7.“The Practice of Inoculation Truly Stated,” The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, vol. 34, 1764, p. 333.
8.Dr. Walter Hadwen, The Case Against Vaccination, Goddard’s Rooms, Gloucester, January 25, 1896, p. 12.
9.Charles Creighton, Jenner and Vaccination, 1889, pp. 95-96.
10.William Scott Tebb, MD, A Century of Vaccination and What it Teaches, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., London, 1898, p. 126.
11.“Vaccination by Act of Parliament,” Westminster Review, vol. 131, 1889, p. 101.
12.“Observations on Prevailing Diseases,” The London Medical Repository Monthly Journal and Review, vol. VIII, July-December, 1817, p. 95.
13.Mr. Thomas Brown, Surgeon Musselburgh, “On the Present State of Vaccination,” The Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, Volume Fifteenth, 1819, p. 67.
14.“Observations by Mr. Fosbroke,” The Lancet, vol. II, 1829, p. 583.
15.William Cobbett, Advice to Young Men and (Incidentally) to Young Women, 1829, London, pp. 224-225.
16.Dr. Delagrange of Paris, “On the Present State of Vaccination in France,” The Lancet, vol. II, 1829, p. 582.
17.“Cowpox Origin of,” The Medico-chirurgical review and journal of practical medicine, vol. 20, 1834, p. 504.
18.Dr. Fiard, “Experiments upon the Communication and Origin of Vaccine Virus,” London medical and surgical journal, vol. 4, 1834, p. 796.
19.Ephraim Cutter, MD, “Partial Report on the Production of Vaccine Virus in the United States,” Transactions of the American Medical Association, vol. XXIII, 1872, p. 200.
20.Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 24, Philadelphia, 1890, p. 25.
21.The Morning Chronicle, Wednesday, April 12, 1854.
22.“Vaccination,” New York Times, September 26, 1869.
23.Susan Wade Peabody, “Historical Study of Legislation Regarding Public Health in the State of New York and Massachusetts,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Supplement no. 4, February 1909, p. 50-51.
24.“Small-pox and Revaccination,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. CIV, no. 6, February 10, 1881, p. 137.
25.Dr. Olesen, “Vaccination in the Philippine Islands,” Medical Sentinel, April 1911, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 255.
26.“Vaccination,” New York Times, September 26, 1869.
27.G. W. Harman, MD, “A Physician’s Argument Against the Efficacy of Virus Inoculation,” Medical Brief: A Monthly Journal of Scientific Medicine and Surgery: vol. 28, no. 1, 1900, p. 84.
28.The Parliamentary Debates, vol. CCCXXVI, June 1, 1888, p. 933.
29.“A Demonstration Against Vaccination,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, April 16, 1885, p. 380.
30.J. W. Hodge, MD, “Prophylaxis to be Realized Through the Attainment of Health, Not by the Propagation of Disease,” The St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. LXXXIII, July 1902, p. 15.
31.J. W. Hodge, MD, “How Small-Pox was Banished from Leicester,” Twentieth Century Magazine, vol. III, no. 16, January, 1911, p. 342.
32.Charles V. Chapin, “Variation in Type of Infectious Disease as Shown by the History of Smallpox in the United States,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 13, no. 2, September 1913, p. 173.
33.John Gerald Fitzgerald, Peter Gillespie, Harry Mill Lancaster, An introduction to the practice of preventive medicine, C.V. Mosby Company, 1922, p. 197.
34.John Price Crozer Griffith, The diseases of infants and children, Volume 1, W.B. Saunders Company, 1921, p. 370.
35.Audrey H. Reynolds MD and Howard A. Joos MD, Exczema Vaccinatum, Pediatrics, August 1958, pp. 259-267
36.David Koplow, Smallpox: The Right to Eradicate a Global Scourge, 2004, University of California Press, p.21.
37.The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 1968, vol. 41, p. 10.
38.Maggie Fox, 2007, Toddler Survives Smallpox Vaccine Reaction, Reuters.
39.Dr. Charles Cyril Okell, “From a bacteriological back-number,” Lancet, January 1, 1938, pp. 48-49.
40.“Acetic Acid in Scarlet Fever,” American homoeopathist—A Monthly Journal of Medical Surgical and Sanitary Science, vol. 1, no. 1, July 1877, p. 73.
41.“Vinegar to Prevent Smallpox,” The Critique, January 15, 1899, p. 289.
42.Cleveland Journal of Medicine, vol. VI, no. 1, 1901, p. 58.
43.William A. Guy, “Lectures on Public Health. Addressed to the Students of the Theological Department of King’s College,” Medical Times, vol. 23, January 4 to June 28, 1851, p. 283.
44.Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, Harper Collins, New York, 1997, p. 399.
45.Report of the Unveiling And Dedication of Indiana Monument at Andersonville, Georgia (National Cemetery), November 26 1908, pp. 73-102.

Australia – Health Freedom Outlawed – Health Fascism Winning – A Taste of the Future for Citizens of Other Nations

How low is the standard of politics, political life and journalism in Australia?  And why should that concern anyone who supports Health Freedom? What has it to do with Health Freedom ?

The Australian Vaccination Network [AVN] is a health freedom network in Australia which provides information about vaccinations which is not to the liking of Australian government health officials.

Meryl Dorey of AVN reports [see full post reproduced below] that not long after the AVN won a legal case against the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in the State Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia, the NSW state government passed legislation giving the HCCC power to investigate and cite nearly anyone they choose [and they started out choosing AVN]. The NSW state Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is considering now passing legislation which will make everyone in the community – especially those who practice and use natural therapies, liable to government sanctions just for discussing publicly issues which are not to  mainstream medicine’s liking.

The committee are seeking submissions about this. The closing date has been extended to February 7th, 2014. Ms Dorey states that whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your opinion will make a difference and that it would be helpful to submit a short 2-3 paragraphs.  Consult the terms of reference first set out in full below [and downloadable as a pdf file here].

And of course, if you don’t make submissions, there will be plenty of others who are happy to see health fascism and dumbing down succeed, who will make submissions.

Ms Dorey also reports that these recent developments in Australia were foreshadowed by the New South Wales state government in Australia permitting and encouraging hate tactics against AVN which include bullying, threats and intimidation.  Those tactics revealed the intent to suppress freedom of speech, inhibit the dissemination of information and thereby to disempower individual Australian citizens from considering issues for themselves to make up their own minds – a basic right in any democratic society.

That the quality of politics and standards in public life in Australia are low was highlighted a number of times this year.  Australia’s first woman Prime Minister Julia Gillard was told by a radio DJ her long-time male hairdresser partner “must be gay” for being male and a hairdresser. This was in the week after it was reported that a DJ behind last year’s prank call on the hospital of the UK’s mother-to-be Duchess of Cambridge that lead to a nurse’s suicide not only kept his job but won a top award for his stunt as well:  DJ is sacked for asking Australian PM Julia Gillard if her boyfriend is gay live on air… because he’s a hairdresser Matt Blake UK’s Daily Mail

Stephanie Banister 27 had to withdraw her candidacy for election to the Queensland Australia state Parliament after a TV interview went viral on the internet in August this year.  Aside from not knowing names of the candidates she was running against, Ms Banister thought believers in the Jewish religion followed Jesus, that she did not “oppose Islam as a country … “ but felt “their laws should not be welcome here in Australia“, confused the term “haram” [forbidden] with the Islamic religion’s holy book the Qur’an [Koran], and all whilst facing Court charges for allegedly taking part in an anti-Muslim vandalism campaign, in which it was alleged she stuck a sticker reading “Beware! Halal food funds terrorism” on Nestle products at her local Woolworths: ‘I don’t oppose Islam as a country’ – Australian politician withdraws from election after TV immigration gaffe interview goes viral Rob Williams The Independent Saturday 10 August 2013.

The case of Stephanie Banister shows how inured the Australian media are to such low standards of politics that the story was not particularly big news until after it was picked up on the internet and went viral.  With this kind of international reinforcement of the cliched stereotypical Australian, other Australians who want to shake that image of being descendents of convicts, cultural philistines and animal lovers [ie. sheep] have their work well and truly cut out for them.

The “must be gay” interview with Julia Gillard can be heard on YouTube:

Here in full are the Terms of Reference of the Parliament of New South Wales Committee on the Healthcare Complaints Commission Inquiry into the Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices:

TERMS OF REFERENCE

That the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission inquire into and report on possible measures to address the promotion of unscientific health-related information or practice s which may be detrimental to individual or public health.

The Inquiry will focus on individuals who are not recognised health practitioners, and organisations that are not recognised health service providers.

The Committee will have particular regard to :

(a) The publication and/or dissemination of false or misleading health-related information that may cause general community mistrust of, or anxiety toward, accepted medical practice;

(b) The publication and/or dissemination of information that encourages individuals or the public to unsafely ref use preventative health measures, medical treatments, or cures;

c) the promotion of health-related activities and/or provision of treatment that departs from accepted medical practice which may be harmful to individual or public health ;

(d) the adequacy of the powers of the Health Care Complaints Commission to investigate such organisations or individuals;

(e) the capacity, appropriateness, and effectiveness of the Health Care Complaints Commission to take enforcement action against such organisations or individuals ;

(f) any other related matter.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Here is Meryl Dorey’s article about this posted on AVN’s blog:

The HCCC, the Law and Morality

This entry was posted on December 23, 2013, in Vaccination. Bookmark the permalink.

by Meryl Dorey, AVN Public Officer

As many of you would know, both the AVN and I were under investigation by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in 2009/2010. This investigation was brought about due to two complaints. One was filed by Mr Ken McLeod, a founding member of the hate group Stop the AVN (SAVN). The other complaint was filed by Toni and David McCaffery, parents of Dana McCaffery, a baby who tragically died in 2009.

The entire investigation process was most irregular (to say the least – you can read the complaints and the AVN’s responses by clicking this link) and it was clear from the start that the HCCC was acting outside of their jurisdiction. This was confirmed when our tiny, unfunded organisation prevailed against this government body with the deepest of deep pockets in the Supreme Court in 2011.

The decision of the court was that the HCCC did not have jurisdiction to either cite or warn against our group – a common-sense outcome which most people in the community who believe in freedom of speech applauded because, no matter what your opinion on the vaccination issue, the majority of thinking Australians would never want to silence debate or discussion on any matter of science.

Does the HCCC have the right to stifle political speech?

Recently, one of our members sent me an article from a scholarly publication called the Journal of Law and Medicine. In 2012, this journal published an article entitled, Civil Liberties and the Critics of Safe Vaccination: Australian Vaccination Network, Inc v Health Care Complaints Commission (2012) NSWSC 110. 

This was an article written by someone who wore his strongly pro-vaccination opinion on his sleeve for all to see. Despite this, his conclusion was very interesting and, in retrospect, ironic. What he advised the government not to do is exactly what they ended up doing. The government of NSW went ahead and introduced changes to legislation which specifically target the AVN and anyone who wishes to freely access or discuss both sides of scientific and medical issues.

Here is a quote from this article which I wanted to share with you. In my opinion, it speaks to the heart of the matter and why the actions of the current NSW government are dangerous and in direct opposition to the welfare and needs of the people of this State.

… Alternatively, Parliament could amend the Act to broaden the definition of “clinical” or “care” or to allow the HCCC to investigate complaints under s 7(1)(b) where there is a mere tendency for the conduct to affect a client. The court even suggested language for such a reform.

However, the current authors do not support legislative reform of the HCCC in the manner proposed above or by the court. In a free society, the views and opinions expressed by Ms Dorey and the AVN should be protected against government interference. Arguments against public immunisation programs are not simply debates over health policy; they are also political discussion. As such, the AVN’s website, and Ms Dorey’s statements, are to be protected from interference by Parliament or the Executive by the implied constitutional right of political communication.

Moreover, freedom of expression is an essential human right, protected under international and domestic human rights instruments, and should not be abridged except in the most limited of circumstances, such as a major pandemic. It would be inappropriate for a government agency to be given a standing mandate to censor debate or force an individual to include a statement on their website with which they do not agree. If the misleading information of the AVN is to be challenged, then it should be through the better dissemination of accurate information and the proper management of rare adverse events following immunisation.”

This is a common sense approach and one that the AVN has been suggesting for years. We have asked for an open and transparent debate in plain view of the public on the relative risks and benefits of vaccination. We have asked the government to remove the hate rhetoric and pressure currently being applied to this issue and bring the conversation back to the realm of scientific evidence and proof. We believe strongly that if the pro-vaccine lobby actually had the evidence on their side, they would be using it to do this. The fact is that both they and the government have permitted and, in some instances, encouraged the same tactics as the hate group, Stop the AVN – of name calling, threats and intimidation. This might indicate that they might be more concerned with suppressing information then they are with enabling the public to examine this issue and make up their own minds – such a basic right in any democratic society!

HCCC power-grab and your obligation to speak out

Not long after the AVN won their case in the highest court in the State, the government did exactly what this paper – written by legal experts who believe strongly in the benefits of vaccination and disagree with the information provided by the AVN – advised against. They passed legislation giving the HCCC an obscene amount of power to investigate and cite nearly anyone they choose. And of course, they chose us.

These powers were not enough for the HCCC however and the Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is now considering passing legislation which will make everyone in the community – especially those who practice and use natural therapies, liable to government sanctions for merely DISCUSSING any issues which are not to  mainstream medicine’s liking publicly.

The committee are seeking submissions from the public about this. The AVN has made a submission on behalf of our membership, but it would be incredibly helpful if everyone reading this would also write a short (2-3 paragraphs is enough and you can read the terms of reference at the Commission link above) submission of your own. The original closing date for this Inquiry was November 30th, 2013 but that has now been extended until February 7th, 2014. This is a rare opportunity to have your say on this vital issue and whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your opinion will make a difference.

What’s it got to do with you?

Why should you care about this issue? Why should even those who are opposed to the AVN give a damn about laws that are proposed to target our organisation?

Imagine the joy of some politicians or anyone else with an axe to grind who, in passing restrictive or unpopular legislation, can point to this precedent and say – nobody is allowed to criticise X-Y-Z policy because it is against the public interest and therefore, you will be gagged if you speak out against it.

This is the power the government has given to the HCCC. And you should be aware of this. And you should be afraid of allowing it to stand.

It is time for the silent majority – those Australians who support freedom and oppose invasive and oppressive government policies, to speak up by writing a submission – it need only be short – to the HCCC Committee.

Today, vaccination sceptics are the target. Tomorrow it may be the government targeting families that home school; or those who feed their children organic food.

We must all stand together for freedom and for our inalienable human rights. No government should ever be allowed to take them away for us.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Major Scientific “Breakthrough” – Autism Linked to Inflammation And The Bowel

Fox News in the US is breaking the “news” that autism, inflammation and children’s guts are linked: How parasitic worms and hot tubs may treat autism symptoms By Loren Grush Published December 12, 2013 Fox News.

And Pasadena News reports Autism may be linked to gastrointestinal issues, Caltech study says By Adam Poulisse, Pasadena Star-News 12/06/13.

This is apparently a “breakthrough”.  Really?  Is this a surprise? Hasn’t anyone else thought of that before?  Oh, Deer.  When Andrew Wakefield and a team of 12 other professional medical experts at the Royal Free Hospital in London, England published this news the establishment picked on Andrew Wakefield, pilloried him and destroyed his career. But:

Could these new studies reflect legitimate science? They consider the reports of parents about their own children. Is that legitimate?  Oh, Deer, Deer, Deer.

Next they will be telling us its all caused by vaccines. ……. What’s that you say?  They already have?  Where?  Here?

Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

All Studies Claiming No MMR Vaccine-Autism Link Invalid – According to Merck’s Vaccine Director, former US CDC Director & the US HRSA

MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

Controversial Doctor and Autism Media Channel Director proven right – MMR Vaccine Causes Autism & Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Autism Caused by MMR Vaccine – Italian Government Tries To Avoid Paying Up – Just Like the UK

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV – Now Reported in English National Press

And what is the US Government and its Centers for Disease Control doing about this?

Yep.  Nothing.

Whooping Cough Vaccine Does Not Work – Says US FDA’s Research

CHS reports here on new research from the US Federal Drug Administration which the researchers claim confirms their hypothesis that whooping cough vaccine does not provide herd immunity and that the disease continues to be easily transmitted and flourishes.  CHS has previously reported that whooping cough [pertussis] vaccine does not work:

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

Vaccine Programmes Failing Worldwide – Homer Simpson and The World of Vaccines

A newly published paper of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America makes the claim that the vaccine fails to prevent individuals getting the bacterial infection and fails also to prevent the disease being transmitted to other individuals:  Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model  doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314688110 PNAS November 25, 2013.

The authors suggest the previous “whole cell” vaccine did work and that the acellular vaccine does not.  However, the “whole cell” vaccine caused large numbers of serious adverse reactions in children and had to be abandoned.

What is notable about this is no claim is being made that the failure to achieve herd immunity and prevent the circulation of the disease is because of under-vaccination – as is claimed in the UK with measles cases in South Wales this year.  Here it is being admitted that use of a vaccine does not create herd immunity.  

Despite these findings what is particularly bizarre is that instead of the authors suggesting research is needed into developing effective treatments for whooping cough, a basic childhood disease, and despite this new paper demonstrating 40 years of failure of vaccines in addressing whooping cough, they say we need improved vaccines.  Well, the US FDA and the drug industry have had 40 years to prove themselves and this paper, if it can be believed, suggests they have failed.  It is clearly time for a new improved and safer approach and especially one which does not kill or injure some children as vaccines do. 

The paper is by authors from the Division of Bacterial, Parasitic and Allergenic Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration [“FDA”], Bethesda, MD, 20892.  However, it also states “Edited by Rino Rappuoli, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Srl, Siena, Italy, and approved October 22, 2013 (received for review August 5, 2013)”.  This illustrates the close relationship the US drug safety regulator, the FDA, has with the drug industry when as the safety regulator responsible for approving [or supposedly not approving] drug industry products it should have an “arms length” relationship to help maintain its independence.

The abstract of the paper states:

Baboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than naïve animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. Vaccination with wP induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP-vaccinated animals. By comparison, previously infected animals were not colonized upon secondary infection. Although all vaccinated and previously infected animals had robust serum antibody responses, we found key differences in T-cell immunity. Previously infected animals and wP-vaccinated animals possess strong B. pertussis-specific T helper 17 (Th17) memory and Th1 memory, whereas aP vaccination induced a Th1/Th2 response instead. The observation that aP, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis and suggests that optimal control of pertussis will require the development of improved vaccines.”

Help Fight Oppressive Health Laws and Censorship of Public Debate in Australia – Sign Petition

Please help fight for freedom of health information in Australia by signing this petition

On Wednesday morning I signed an Avaaz petition Do not give the NSW HCCC powers of censorship over public and individuals opposing moves to silence criticism of the New South Wales health department. New South Wales is the most populace state of Australia. Within minutes my moderate and reasoned political statement which I had reposted to Facebook was being blocked, deemed “offensive or unsuitable”. It read:

It is simply the end of liberal democracy when government bureaucrats decide what the truth is and enforce a policy based on it. If people think their health is (a) marginal issue – that there are other matters of more political substance – they are in error. You will find there are not only bigger and bigger areas on which you cannot decide for yourself there are bigger and bigger areas in which the state is no longer accountable and can do anything it wants.”

Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network tells me that her Facebook posts are often disrupted in this way or with the enigmatic message “It looks like you were misusing this feature by going to fast. You’ve been blocked from using it.”

It is quite obvious that if anyone was spreading false information about health matters in New South Wales there would already be legal sanction: the problem is saying things the government does not like…(continue reading)

Governments Fake Flu and Measles Death Estimates

How could the UK have an official ‘flu deaths “estimate” which is 360 times higher than actual deaths? 

You know how it is when you hear we are all going to die horribly according to government or World Health Organisation “estimates” of a disease never previously considered a major public health problem? 

Well nowadays when it comes to ‘flu, if an airplane falls out of the sky over the UK and 300 people die, officially they all died from ‘flu according to the UK’s Department of Health.  Yep folks, not politburo propaganda speak of a communist dictatorship but the UK.

You might think – how can that be that true? How can we suddenly have a big problem – at least – according to “latest” government anonymous uncheckable estimates“. [And by some “happy” coincidence it always seems to happen after the drug industry has some kind of drug claimed to treat the disease [if the drug trial data is to be believed]].  

The method of calculation of the UK’s official 12,000 annual deaths “estimate” was confirmed by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson in the British Medical Journal: [UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers.]  The true figures were no more than 33 Britons each year had died from flu over a 4 year period, despite the 12,000 annual officially “estimated” deaths claim. 

To get the estimate, if more people die than “estimated” the UK Department of Health use the excess death figure as their annual flu deaths figure.  So it does not matter what aircrash victims really die of – for official announcements in the press for the UK public – it was ‘flu.

So remember this when you hear claims like those of the US CDC that 36,000 Americans die annually from ‘flu or the UK Department of Health that 12,000 Britons die annually from ‘flu. 

More recently we noted on CHS that the US CDC claimed an estimate of 100 times more measles deaths than expected from published figures for another developed country [ie. UK] and were vastly higher than figures for reported cases from the World Health Organisation: [US Centers for Disease Control Caught Lying About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn]].

So what did Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum numerically challenged trolls do on a blog in a distant galaxy far far away and even further removed from reality?  First they claimed the difference was because of a 3 year difference in the figures: the US CDC figures were on a web page last reviewed in 2009 whereas the WHO figures were from 2012.

Hang on there guys.  A huge difference is because in 3 years the figures changed dramatically by orders of magnitude?

Well in fact no.  Additionally it seems Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls lied about the basis of their claim to a 3 year difference.  Well, Dr Goldacre does encourage the Forum’s trolls by saying pretty much anything goes [albeit he writes he “draws the line at kidnapping“]. 

The CDC web page [Overview of Measles Disease] provides no basis for a three year difference.  The US CDC webpage had been updated only one month earlier. 

Worse still, it looks like the claim to a three year difference was clearly and knowingly false when made. Whilst the US CDC webpage stated it was last reviewed in 2009 it stated clearly it had been updated on 12 September 2013:

Page last reviewed: August 31, 2009
Page last updated: September 12, 2013″

And that’s numberwang!

Dr Ben Goldacre’s whingeing BadScience Forum trolls headed up by James, a former unemployed barman and administrator [blogging as jdc325] also had some gripe about the figure of 1 in 25,000 as provided by the Department of Health for measles mortality rates.  So here again just for the record is the exact quote as provided by the UK Department of Health in a FOIA response:

Death after measles – 1 in 25000 to 1 in 5000 depending on age
Miller CL. Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83. British Medical Journal. 1985; 290:443-4.”

Here is the deal.  Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls jump up and down like excited three year olds as if this is all CHS’ fault. But what is really going on which they completely ignore is CHS writes an article about how government figures are faked, used to mislead and cannot be trusted, and with hard evidence demonstrating that: US Centers for Disease Control Caught Lying About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn].  The article includes an exact quote from the UK Department of Health.  Dr Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls do not agree with the exactly quoted figure from the UK Department of Health which they claim on their reckoning incorrect [kind of the point of the CHS article].  Having then gone off and done “research” at the University of Google [where they seem to have received their qualifications] they assert CHS should have done that too.  They do not at any time criticise the UK Department of Health for putting out incorrect information.

LOL.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls do this kind of thing routinely.  They claimed previously that a news report should not have been published because it reported and quoted a doctor in the national leading Children’s hospital in Pakistan [which was also part of the national science institute for the country] reporting half the children from a large area of Pakistan who contracted measles had been vaccinated. 

Again, they did their University of Google research and claimed the story should not have been reported whereas it was quoting the doctor from this leading child health institution. Apparently for a news site to report that particular item of news was, according to the BadScience troll-spammers, “cherry-picking”. According to them that was because the reporter did not carry out an extensive review of all medical journal papers published on the topic.  Ha!

Can You Trust Known-to-be Corrupt Governments When They Also Push Useless Flu Vaccines – US Talk Radio Dr Michael Savage On The Savage Nation January 11, 2013

An excellent perspective on the webs of corruption in government and health industry to push useless pharmaceuticals and use health issues to try to exercise control over a population.

Dr. Michael Savage on The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013 on the dangers of and government lies involved with flu vaccines.

If you agree governments have lied about so much else, should you trust them with medical advice to take a ‘flu shot?

Why have US nurses rejected ‘flu vaccines and why do US labor unions oppose mandatory ‘flu shots?

Show starts 8 minutes into the mp3 recording which you can download here:

mp3 download – The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013

Or YouTube – The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013

US Centers for Disease Control Caught Misleading About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn]?

An astute reader has noticed the following seemingly grossly false claims by the US Centers for Disease Control [‘CDC’] – which looks a little like vastly exaggerating the threat measles as a disease poses?

According to the US CDC there are 100 times or 20 million more cases of measles than the WHO reports for the entire world.  And according to the US CDC there are 100 times more deaths from measles [or 162,000 more deaths] than would be expected if relying on figures for a developed country cited by other governments [like the UK Department of Health].

Is this credible? For examples of how governments fake disease statistics to be orders of magnitude higher than the real numbers see Numberwang! Governments Fake Flu and Measles Death Estimates

So how reliable are these figures?

US CDC Figures:

Worldwide, there are estimated to be 20 million cases and 164,000 deaths each year.”

Overview of Measles Disease

Or put another way, the US CDC are alleging the case fatality rate worldwide for measles is 1 person dies in every 122 unvaccinated individuals who catch the disease.

Compare World Health Organisation [WHO] Figures:

Total 2012 worldwide reported measles cases = 226,722.

SOURCE: WHO published Measles reported cases Last update: 20-Oct-2013 (data as of 16-Oct-2013).

Compare Measles Case Fatality Rates England 1960:

The UK Department of Health gave out these figures:

“Death after measles – 1 in 25000″ [sic] “to 1 in 5000 depending on age
Miller CL. Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83. British Medical Journal. 1985; 290:443-4.”

[And the Miller paper the UK’s DoH cites is based on 1960s figures – and case fatality rates have fallen dramatically since the 1960s]

Compare Case Fatality Rates England 1993-2008:

Data from the Health Protection Agency shows there have been 76,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 and no deaths in adults or healthy children from acute measles. There was one death in a 14 year old on immunosuppressant drugs for a lung condition and one in an immunocompromised child [according to the HPA] since 1992.  That gives a chance of nil deaths per annum in healthy children since 1992 over the entire population of England and Wales – which is roughly 55 million – give or take – such as for annual fluctuations etc.  Alternatively the measles case fatality rate is nil for healthy children or 1 in 38,000 when the seriously immunocompromised are included.

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.”

…….

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  “

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

According to the Office for National Statistics, the 2008 death is now doubted to have been a measles death.

So the point for anxious parents in the UK being brow-beaten to vaccinate their children is – the chance of their child developing an autistic condition is 1 in 60 and the chance of their child dying from measles if they catch measles if not vaccinated is nil for healthy children [or 1 in 38,000 if the relatively very few very very sick individuals are included].

But of course that is the measles case fatality rate – the rate in individuals who contract the infection.  A large proportion may not catch measles either because they are immune or because they just did not become infected.

The risk of mortality to all children who have not previously contracted measles is what parents need to know – that is the risk to every child and not just those who catch measles – and in developed nations that is far lower.  Only a proportion of the population contract the disease.  [So watch out for measles case fatality rates as they give a distorted idea of the true risk.]

People are extremely bad at assessing risk and overcompensate for negative outcomes.  And in the UK around 600,000 individuals die every year.  British children and adults are at risk from road and other accidents, all sorts of other illnesses, old age and many other causes.  With no deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles and three deaths in very sick individuals since 1992 in England or Wales, the risk of anyone in a year dying from measles has fallen to well below 1 in 55 million overall population figure.

Court Rulings Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link – But US Forbes Magazine’s “Scientist” Blogger Emily “Daisy May Fatty-Pants” Willingham Disagrees

You may decide to never ever trust anything written in the US Forbes magazine on anything [and not just autism] after reading this.

Emily Willingham writes a blog for Forbes magazine in the US claiming to be authoritative about “how science filters to consumers and how consumers make decisions about science“.  [Although how she claims to do that without qualifications or research to back up her claims to expertise in the area is another matter.]

Emily [or “Daisy May Fatty-Pants” as she called herself when starting out as a junior blogger in the little league], got pretty hot under the collar about an article in the Whiteout press entitled “Courts quietly confirm vaccines cause autism”.

So Emily “Fatty-Pants” wrote a piece for her Forbes blog “Court Rulings Don’t Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link” [9th September 2013].  In that blog post Emily makes claims which are untrue.  So CHS is setting the record straight to help Emily understand that writing biased blogs which mislead consumers aboutscience” whilst claiming to do the reverse is something of a “no-no“.

Forbes magazine has a track record of backing writers who claim vaccines simply do not and cannot cause autistic conditions whilst at the same time such writers will typically claim what causes them is a mystery [which is a wholly contradictory and illogical position to take].  If you claim not to know what causes autistic conditions then you might have some difficulty claiming you do know vaccines never do.

We only have to take one paragraph of Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham’s blog to show it makes numerous claims which are not true – so misleading the consumers she is claiming to be putting right on the facts about science:

The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article is the 2012 finding of a local Italian court that a child was diagnosed with autism a year after receiving an MMR. The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper and the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari, it seems, has written a book on how vaccines cause autism and peddles an autism “cure” that he’s devised.”

If we dealt with all the false claims in her entire Forbes blog this would be an extremely long CHS article.  The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article was not the Italian case but two US cases.  

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Omitted Articles Centerpieces – Two US Court Cases – Children Awarded US$ Millions

The Whiteout Press story centered on two US Court decisions where two US children who developed autistic conditions after receiving MMR vaccines were awarded millions of US dollars in compensation. So Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham’s consumer readers were very seriously misled.

The Whiteout Press centerpiece was not the claimed Italian Court decision about the little Italian boy Valentino Bocca who developed autism after receiving the same MMR vaccine given to children in the USA – Merck’s MMR II.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” False Claim – Italian Court “Relied Heavily” on Biased Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Physician

Emily “Fatty-Pants” made another completely untrue claim that “[t]he court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on ….. the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari …“.

The Court appointed its own independent expert to write an independent report for the Court.  The Court relied on the report of its own independent expert.  This was not an expert hired by Valentino Bocca’s attorney.  So again, Emily “Fatty-Pants” seriously misled her consumer readers at Forbes magazine on issues of science.

The Court appointed independent expert was also not anyone called “Massimo Montinari” or anything even close.  So again Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham seriously misled her consumer readers at Forbes magazine on issues of science.

What Did The Court Appointed Independent Expert Rely On?

In a wide-ranging review of the literature the independent expert cited a large number of medico-scientific papers and publications.  These included publications from the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GAVCS), World Health Organization, the US Institute of Medicine [2001 and 2004], Brent Taylor, Fombonne, Madsen and many more too numerous to list here.

So yet again Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham demonstrates how she very seriously misled her consumer readers on their decisions about science and bases her misinformation on invention from anonymously published blogs.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” False Claim – The Court Relied Heavily on Wakefield’s MMR Lancet Paper

Another outright falsehood by Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham was the claim “The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper“.  That is purely and simply invention which Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham appears to have quoted from a blog she linked to which is published anonymously.  Bit of a Big Oops there for Emily “Fatty-Pants”.

The Italian Court did not rely on the Wakefield paper “heavily” or at all.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Failed to Tell Her Consumer Readers The Italian Government Did Not Dispute Merck’s MMR II Vaccine Caused The Child’s Autism

Emily “Fatty-Pants” misled her consumer readers in making their decisions on issues of science in that the evidence in the Valentino Bocca case was sufficiently clear that the Italian Health Ministry did not contest that the MMR vaccine had caused little Valentino Bocca’s autism.  They instead contested his entitlement to compensation because the vaccination was not compulsory [but of course heavily promoted to Italian parents to make them feel guilty if they did not vaccinate their child].

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Did Not Even Read the News Article She Criticised on Forbes

Worse is whilst Emily “Fatty-Pants” linked to a blog she relied on as her source Emily “Fatty-Pants” failed completely to link to the news story she was writing about.  She did link to a different blog which did not carry the original Whiteout Press article but a reblogged different and clearly edited version.

And yet even worse still for Emily “Fatty-Pants” is that it seems she did not even read the article at all.  She cited it by an incorrect title – omitting the word “quietly“.  That is what the blog she cited as her source did – used that incorrect title – omitting the word “quietly“.  So it looks very much like Emily “Fatty-Pants” just read the anonymous blog she used as her source and not the article she claimed to criticise at all.

The blog Emily “Fatty-Pants” cited, SkepticalRaptor is one of the dime-a-dozen negative “skeptic” attack blogs pumping out misinformation about health issues, contributing nothing of value to human knowledge, whilst claiming things like “hunting pseudoscience in the internet jungle“.  And like a bird-of-a-feather Emily “Fatty-Pants” claims to write about “how science filters to consumers and how consumers make decisions about science” with no proper sources to back it up – but plenty of invention and hot air.

And it gets worse.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Missed Mentioning Another of the Article’s Centerpieces

A centerpiece was also this – which Emily failed to mention at all – and which led directly to the article being published:

It was a regular reader named Kathleen that brought this ongoing story to our attention here at Whiteout Press. When asked what her connection to the vaccine-autism battle was, the young reader replied, “I just researched it for a school project a while back and then I stayed on top of it, until I couldn’t stand it anymore. I’m not a parent, nor do I belong to any organization – a mere outside observer.

This reader isn’t alone. The news that vaccines cause autism has spread across the US despite a coordinated media black-out. She takes her concerns one step further explaining, “All I want is to see this information where the public can access it. I’ve looked everywhere, and no one gives this dire Wakefield situation even ONE small mention.” She goes on to give us another motivation for her activism, “In Washington State, where I’m from, vaccines have become mandatory for school children, which is very frightening!

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Calls Wakefield’s Paper Fraudulent But Fails to Mention it is Just An Allegation And Is Being Contested in the Texas State Court

Emily “Fatty-Pants” use of “fraudulent” is subject to defamation proceedings in the Texas State Court against the British Medical Journal.  She failed to mention that at all which is a bit of an oversight and is misleading to your consumer readers when making their decisions about science.  If any of them get into trouble with the law later for repeating that can they sue Emily for misleading them whilst claiming to be an authority on science and how consumers made decisions about science?

We thought we ought to mention that “fraudulent” appears to be an allegation made by the BMJ which may have been made without looking too carefully at the facts first.  The BMJ’s Texas “Anti-SLAPP” statute counter suit, predicted by the blogosphere to put an end to the case instantly as baseless, appears to have vanished and been dropped by the BMJ.  That seems to add some credence to the possibility that “fraudulent” is a less than appropriate description.  Maybe Emily you might care to mention that as a matter of accuracy?  But then it is Forbes magazine you write for and if we go by your blog then, who knows, maybe accuracy is not Forbes strong suit?

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Defames An Italian Doctor Too

Defamation seems to be a bit habit forming for Emily.  It appears there is an Italian doctor Massimo Montinari who has helped hundreds of children and families with treatments which have been working for many doctors in the US, UK and around the world: Vaccine and autism, alarm or psychosis? October 22, 2012 L’Unità

‘Good’ 5-in-1 vaccine kills 5 times more kids than anything else – “The unfortunate story of 37 deaths from a ‘good vaccine'”

CHS’ ED’S NOTE:  Infant deaths in India associated with this 5-in-1 vaccine [DPT, hepatitis B, H influenza b] are five times greater than the all-cause mortality rate.

Unlike the American Academy of Pediatricians, the British Medical Association and others like them who defend vaccines in general come what may against protestations of their customers – parents on behalf of their vaccine injured children – the Indian Academy of Pediatricians is asking embarrassing questions about this vaccine.  You can read them in this article.

Following article is By Jacob Puliyel via Indo-Asian News Service

The unfortunate story of 37 deaths from a ‘good vaccine’

Dr Puliyel is Head of Pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital, Delhi. He is a member of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on immunization and has published extensively on vaccines.  See http://jacob.puliyel.com

On October 11, two children died in Kashmir after receiving the Pentavalent vaccine, taking to six the total deaths there in one week and to eight the deaths over the last three weeks. According to reports appearing in local newspapers, the deaths were said to be an allergic reaction to the vaccine. These deaths come on the heels of a press release from the health ministry on October 10 that a committee that looked into the 15 deaths in Kerala after vaccinations has said they were not caused by the vaccine but were coincidental deaths. The press release also announced that the Pentavalent vaccine is to be rolled out nationwide. A week earlier, another ministry spokesperson had admitted there had been 29 deaths all over the country following the vaccine. The figure has now ballooned to 37.

The 29 deaths had happened when 82 lakh doses have been administered (and about 27 lakh children have been immunized). This works out to more than one death per 100,000 vaccinated and that 300 children would die each year from the vaccine when the birth cohort is vaccinated. It must be borne in mind that the adverse events are picked up by a system of passive surveillance which according to the US FDA picks up only a tenth of the real number of adverse events.

Co-morbidity as cause of death

It has been suggested that some of the deaths in Kerala had happened in children with an underlying heart disease. Many children who died in Sri Lanka after receiving the same vaccine also had a similar heart condition. Had they not been vaccinated, the death rate from the vaccine would have been less.

However this is no practical proposition. Vaccinations are given in distant rural areas by health workers who are barely literate. The detection of heart murmurs by auscultation is a skill that many pediatricians have to hone over many years of training. In the absence of such training for all vaccinators, can we justify continuation of the vaccination programme?

In Sri Lanka vaccination was stopped after five deaths. Under pressure from international organizations the programme was restarted. After that, there have been 12 more deaths. Dr. Yogesh Jain, who has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, has sought the court’s oversight to prevent such pressures from influencing decision-making in India.

The deaths from vaccine must be seen in the context of hard data from the best study on Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b bacteria) in the country called the Minz study which suggested that some 175 children die from Hib meningitis in the birth cohort over five years and perhaps an equal number from Hib pneumonia. These figures from this large, meticulous community based study done in a population of 600,000 with house visits every two weeks and conducted over two years are clearly inconvenient. This is a case of the cure (vaccine deaths) being worse than the disease. The government seldom quotes the Minz study data, but relies instead on estimates that are not based on empirical evidence.

Central team declares vaccine safe in Kashmir

With practiced efficiency, after the eight deaths in Kashmir, a central team under Dr. N.K. Arora, who works for Inclen Trust, went to the state, visited the hospital and the homes of the dead children and issued a press release that there was no conclusive evidence that the deaths were due to the vaccine. Septicemia, pneumonia and meningitis were blamed, without explaining how children who were completely asymptomatic and well enough to be given routine preventive vaccination by healthcare personnel, could die of septicemia or pneumonia immediately afterwards. In other words, how could children gasping for breath with pneumonia or in shock due to septicemia and about to die in the next few hours be given Pentavalent vaccine by the healthcare personnel?

To be sure that the vaccine is the cause of a reaction, the same reaction must recur in the same person if he/she is given the same vaccine a second time. As this type of re-challenge is impossible when the reaction results in death, the expert team declares that “causative relation to immunization cannot be established with certainty”. It is nearly as if we are saying we will not believe the vaccine is “causative related” unless one child is resuscitated from the dead and then re-challenged to see if he will die a second time!

We need to use the same strict criteria and apply the same burden of proof when we say the deaths are due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) or due to co-morbidity or due to preexisting septicemia or pneumonia. This we do not do.

Posers from the Indian Academy of Pediatrics

The Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) recently held a meeting to look into the deaths and posed the following questions to the health ministry:

* As the peak incidence of SIDS occurs in early infancy, a close temporal relationship between this and receiving Pentavalent vaccine is expected by simple chance and, therefore, it may not be right to attribute the deaths in Kerala to SIDS.

* The deaths attributed to SIDS in Kerala are five times greater than the all-cause mortality rate in the state. What is the possible explanation for this spurt of deaths after introduction of Pentavalent vaccine?

* The peak age of SIDS is the third month (corresponding to the second dose), but the majority of deaths were reported after the first dose.

* The co-morbid conditions resulting in death following vaccination have not been clarified.

* Why the vaccine is being given to sick children is not explained.

* Underlying congenital heart diseases used to explain away the deaths were not serious enough to cause cardiac failure and death.

* Some children had high fever and excessive crying; some had convulsions after vaccination which can definitely be attributed to adverse events following immunization.

* Autopsies suggested hypersensitivity and shock – how should that be interpreted? Does it mean hypersensitivity to the vaccine?

The IAP discussed these with Dr. Ajay Khera, deputy commissioner (Maternal and Child Health) at the health ministry, who was unable to give any clarifications saying the final report of the enquiry committee on the deaths was awaited.

Yet an IAP press release after the meeting endorsed the vaccine in spite of the unanswered questions!

If answers to these straightforward questions are not known to the health ministry, how can we push the vaccine in the rest of the country?

We need to understand that the mandate of the health services and doctors is to protect the lives of children and not to promote vaccines of doubtful utility and safety.

(10.10.2013 – Jacob Puliyel is Head of Pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital, Delhi. He is a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on immunization and has published extensively on vaccines. He can be reached at puliyel@gmail.com)

Silent Epidemic – New Documentary Film About Diseases Caused by Vaccines – Production By US Broadcaster Gary Null

This new Gary Null documentary – view it below – is only available for viewing online on Youtube for a limited time.  [Gary Null broadcasts on PRN and on WBAI].

In the developed world we have the sickest generations of children – with many new chronic disorders and the highest levels of vaccinations and vaccines ever.

This is not coincidence.  Vaccines affect the normal functioning of your and your child’s immune system and cause chronic disorders in a significant proportion of the population.  The medical profession remain in denial despite 98 in 100 adverse drug reactions going unreported: “Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.

And in Century 21 we do not have effective treatments for the most basic of childhood illnesses.  Millions in the third world die despite the vaccination programmes – they get disease because they do not have clean drinking water, adequate sanitation or diet and we give them vaccines instead.

UPDATE SUNDAY 6TH OCTOBER 2013:  THE FULL 1 HOUR 48 MINUTE DOCUMENTARY IS NOW ONLY FOR PRIVATE VIEWING ON YOUTUBE BUT IT HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING 34 MINUTE PREVIEW VERSION:

—–

THE FULL 1 HOUR 38 MINUTE DOCUMENTARY IS LINKED TO HERE IN CASE IT GOES BACK UP ON YOUTUBE:

—–

Political Manipulation + Unneeded Vaccines = Seriously Harmed Children & No Legal Protection – Simple Video Explains

A new short video [5 mins] from the US Canary Party shows simply how vaccine manufacturers rushed to bring out new vaccines after political manipulation created a system which insulate them from the consequence of harm to children and families and the people end up paying in all ways:

______________

7 Deaths In Bill Gates Foundation Funded HPV Vaccine Trials – Trials Were “Child Abuse” Says Parliamentary Panel – India, The Hindu

When reading the following ask yourself why the European and US news media do not report these issues.  They exist worldwide.  Which political systems are more corrupt: the developed west or the emerging nations?

Panel raps government over clinical trials, lapses Rupali Mukherjee, Times of India Aug 31, 2013

MUMBAI: In a further indication of the rot in the country’s healthcare system, a parliamentary panel has rapped the government for gross irregularities in drug trials, under-reporting and lapses in monitoring serious adverse events and lethargy in safeguarding health, in studies on cervical cancer prevention vaccine by a US-based non-governmental agency. Charging the government for inaction, the parliamentary committee on health says in a report that the issue has been diluted with no accountability fixed on erring officials for serious violations committed in the studies which led to the death of hapless tribal children three years back.”

A Businessworld [India] report included the following quote from the Parliamentary committee report:

Cervical Cancer Clinical Trials Violated Norms: Panel – Businessworld 30 Aug, 2013

Parliamentary panel seeks action against wrong-doers and wants government to tighten the regulatory vigil further

“Its sole aim (the conduct of trials) has been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers who would have reaped windfall profits had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the UIP (universal immunisation programme) of the Country”, the panel noted, calling it “a serious breach of trust by any entity” as the project involved life and safety of girl children and adolescents who were mostly unaware of the implications of vaccination.

The following report appeared today in The Hindu:

It’s a PATH of violations, all the way to vaccine trials: House panel – By Aarti Dhar – The Hindu 2nd September 2013

Committee questions roles of ICMR, Drug Controller in the “intriguing” 2010 episode

Accusing the international organisation PATH (Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health) of exploiting with impunity the loopholes in the system during a trial of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, a parliamentary panel has also questioned the roles of the Indian Council of Medical Research and the Drug Controller-General of India in the entire episode.

The issue pertains to trials conducted by two U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies through PATH on tribal school girls in Khammam district in Andhra Pradesh and Vadodara in Gujarat in 2010. The trials were stopped only after the matter received media attention following the death of seven girls.

In its report on “Alleged Irregularities in the Conduct of Studies using HPV Vaccines by PATH in India” presented to Parliament, the committee has said ICMR representatives apparently acted at the behest of PATH in promoting the interests of the vaccine manufacturers, and recommended that the Health Ministry review the activities of the functionaries of the Council involved in the PATH project

As for the DCGI, the approvals of clinical trials, marketing approval and import licences by the agency “appear to be irregular” and its role “in this entire matter should also be inquired into.”

The Department of Health Research/ICMR “have completely failed to perform their mandated role and responsibility as the apex body for medical research in the country. Rather, in their over-enthusiasm to act as a willing facilitator of the machinations of PATH, they have even transgressed into the domain of other agencies which deserves the strongest condemnation and strictest action against them.”

The committee failed to understand why the ICMR “took so much interest and initiative in this project when the safety, efficacy and introduction of vaccines in India are handled by the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.”

How could the ICMR commit itself to supporting “the use of the HPV vaccine” in an MoU signed in 2007, even before it was approved for use in the country, which actually happened in 2008? The committee also questioned the ICMR’s decision to commit itself to promoting the drug for inclusion in the Universal Immunisation Programme before any independent study on its utility and rationale of inclusion in the UIP was undertaken.

Describing the entire matter as “very intriguing and fishy,” the committee said the choice of countries and population groups (India, Vietnam, Uganda and Peru); the monopolistic nature, at that point of time, of the product being pushed; the unlimited market potential and opportunities in the universal immunisation programmes of the respective countries “are all pointers to a well-planned scheme to commercially exploit a situation.”

Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunisation programme of the countries concerned, windfall profits would have been generated for the manufacturer(s) by way of automatic sale, the committee said. It asked the government to take up the matter with these countries through diplomatic channels.

Flouting ethics

Drawing attention to gross violation of ethics during the conduct of trials, the committee members said that in Andhra Pradesh out of 9,543 consent forms, 1,948 had thumb impressions, while hostel wardens signed 2,763 others. In Gujarat, out of 6,217 forms, 3,944 had thumb impressions. The data revealed that a very large number of parents/guardians were illiterate and could not even write in their local language, Telugu or Gujarati.

It was shocking to find from one of the reports that out of 100 consent forms for Andhra Pradesh, project signatures of witnesses were missing in 69 forms. In many forms there were no dates. One particular person had signed seven forms. In fact, the legality of the State government directing headmasters of all private/government/ashram/schools to sign the consent forms on behalf of parents/guardians was highly questionable. The absence of photographs of parents/guardians/wardens on consent forms and of signatures of investigators, the fact that signatures of parents/guardians did not match with their names; and the date of vaccination being much earlier than the date of signature of parents/guardian in the consent forms spoke of grave irregularities, the report said.

The committee said PATH should be made accountable and the government should take appropriate steps in the matter, including legal action against it for breach of laws of the land and possible violations of laws of the country of its origin.

Describing this act of the PATH as a clear-cut violation of human rights and case of child abuse, the Committee has recommended that the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Protection of Children Rights take up this matter. The National Commission for Women should also take suo motu cognisance of this case as all the poor and hapless subjects were female.

The Health Ministry should report the violations indulged in by PATH to the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Children’s Fund so as to ensure that appropriate remedial action was initiated worldwide, the committee said.

All Studies Claiming No MMR Vaccine-Autism Link Invalid – According to Merck’s Vaccine Director, former US CDC Director & the US HRSA

A recent article in the Whiteout Press appears to have reignited the debate about vaccines causing autism and has now been reported  by Fox News in Austin Texas.  But what both appear to overlook is the direct evidence from leading US health agencies and health officials which discredits all the prior evidence they have used and which is still being used on the internet and in the media to claim there is no autism-MMR vaccine link.  [Full quotes and links below].

Fox News in Austin Texas reported yesterday on the Whiteout Press article: Article stirs autism and vaccine debate Aug 15, 2013 By Noelle Newton KTBC Fox 7 Austin Texas USA.  And here is the Whiteout Press article:  “Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism” 27th July 2013.

Here is the problem for health officials now.  The US Heath Resources Services Agency and vaccine maker Merck’s vaccine division Director Julie Gerberding when heading up the US Centers for Disease Control as its Director both separately confirmed on and to national broadcast US news channels back in 2008 that any vaccine can cause an autistic condition [full quotes and sources below]. 

That confirmation immediately made completely invalid and useless all the “tobacco-science” statistical studies health officials had used to claim there was no connection between a child developing autism from the MMR vaccine.

Because researchers claimed to find no difference they assumed no link.  But they found no link because all those studies were intentionally carried out on the basis that only the MMR vaccine was a cause of autism and not all vaccines.

So now all those previous studies compared kids with autism who had MMR vaccine against kids with autism who had other vaccines and got autism from the other vaccines.  If you go shopping and compare all the candy in one store with all the candy all other stores all you will find is that its all candy.  Some might be Hersheys and some not.  But it is still candy.  Autistic conditions are like candy just in the sense there are all kinds and flavors but in a spectrum.  Of course that is where the similarity ends because the spectrum of autistic conditions is from the most debilitating to the least.  There is nothing sweet or attractive about that.

And if you want evidence of this then watch the British rate of childhood autism diagnoses increase with each change in the vaccine schedule.  This is a chart from a peer reviewed paper by US authors and researchers which only looked at the MMR vaccine and not the other vaccines. 

You can see the MMR vaccination rate is stable throughout [see nearly horizontal black line near top of the chart] but the autism risk jumps up [see red line on the chart].  Here at CHS we have added the notes showing when the changes to the British vaccine schedule took place.  With each change the risk of an autism diagnosis for children increased substantially:

CLICK GRAPH – OPENS LARGER ONE IN NEW WINDOW

Aut_Inc_vs_vax_prog

The graph above is adapted from a 2001British Medical Journal paper by Jick et al: Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis” BMJ 2001; 322 : 460 – 463 24 February.

The admissions by the US CDC Director Julie Gerberding and those by the US HRSA were not given voluntarily.  They only confirmed the true position when put under pressure by the media in 2008 when the Hannah Poling story broke about the US Court compensating a little girl who became autistic after getting NINE vaccines ALL ON THE SAME DAY.

But everyone overlooks that and the same old junk studies are being quoted all over the media and internet as evidence there is no link when they are completely useless as evidence for that proposition.

And then some studies looked for higher autism rates in the MMR vaccinated-autism kids. That is like looking to see whether under the wrapper of one brand like Hershey’s there is chocolate candy and under the wrappers of other brands like M&M’s it is chocolate candy or something of a different flavor or sweeter or less sweet.

The authors of the study into the British autism increase even admit the graph [see above] shows there must be environmental factors other than the MMR involved in the increases claiming [emphasis added]:-

“... the data provide evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of autism over time. The explanation for the marked increase in risk of the diagnosis of autism in the past decade remains uncertain. ….. The increase ….. could be due to …… environmental factors not yet identified.

The data show when correlated with major changes in the UK childhood vaccination programme the most likely “environmental factors not yet identified” are the vaccines.  With each major change to the UK’s childhood vaccination programme cases of childhood autism increased substantially.

This is how the risk of a diagnosis increased [this is just childhood autism diagnoses – Aspergers is not included – note that 70% of UK ASDs are Aspergers]:

  • it first increased by 3 times with the introduction of the MMR vaccine in October 1988 [from between 1 to 4 in 10,000 it increased to 12 in 10,000];

As anyone can see from this, the studies needed to be done are comparing the total health of vaccinated kids with never vaccinated kids.   But the US CDC will never do them because never vaccinated kids are much healthier so showing the vaccine programmes pursued by the US CDC for decades do more harm than good.  The argument used to claim the studies cannot be done is junk – they claim it is unethical to prove a vaccine is safe to use or dangerous so we cannot do the studies.  This is on the basis it is unethical not to vaccinate a few kids to make sure millions upon millions of kids will be safe.  It cannot be unethical if done with consent and where the comparatively few kids who are not vaccinated can still be vaccinated after the studies are over. Surely, if “herd immunity” worked those few would still be protected by it?

And of course it is unethical to give any drug of unproven safety to any child.

Here is what the US HRSA told CBS news reporter Sharyl Attkisson back in 2008 about children compensated for injuries caused by a vaccine – any vaccine – not simply the MMR vaccine:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]

So according to the HRSA vaccines cause encephalopathies [general brain injuries] which result in autism and/or seizures in children.

Here is what US CDC Director Julie Gerberding said on national US broadcast TV back in 2008:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30   ET

You can even watch Gerberding saying it to Dr Sanjay Gupta of CNN here on YouTube.  If you watch the video [below on this page] you will then realise Dr Julie Gerberding is personally knowingly responsible for the biggest longest running programme of child abuse in the history of the planet – knowingly causing autism in hundreds of thousands of US children using vaccines [currently around 1 in 50 US kids depending on State]- and when she was in a position to stop it dead.  She then left the CDC and continued where she left off to join vaccine maker Merck as its vaccines division Director.  The CDC was officially castigated by the US Senate in an official report CDC Off Centeras an agency which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“  but which was managing to spend US$11 billion in US tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.

********** – **********

FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO READ IT HERE IS OUR PREVIOUS ARTICLE REPORTING THE FULL ISSUE

Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

Posted on June 30, 2010 by ChildHealthSafety

A New Scientist article 29 June 2010 by Jim Giles states:-

We still do not know what causes autism.

Desperate measures: The lure of an autism cure

That is not correct. Here we set out four ways autistic conditions are caused and confirmed by statements from the current President of pharmaceutical giant Merck’s Vaccines Division, by US Government agencies, by the US Federal Court and in formally published academic journal papers.

If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” [Text added 10 April 2011]

The first known cause of autism was rubella virus. So not only is New Scientist an unreliable source of information, this cause of autism has been known since the 1960s. And rubella virus is one of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine.

… rubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism.“  Walter A. Orenstein, M.D. US as Assistant Surgeon General, Director National Immunization Program in a letter to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer 15 February 2002.

rubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism.” US Center for Disease Control.
“FAQs (frequently asked questions) about MMR Vaccine & Autism”  [ED 8/Apr/12: This is the web archive of the CDC page – you will need to search in or scroll down the page to see the text.  As papers cited on the original page by the CDC as evidence for no link with the vaccine have been steadily discredited it seems the CDC has decided to remove the page and it seems someone has been deleting the archived versions of the page from the web archive too].

rubella can cause autismThe Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

Journal references:

Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1, 33-47 (1971).

Chess S. Follow-up report on autism in congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977;7:69 –81

Ziring PR. Congenital rubella: the teenage years. Pediatr Ann. 1997;6: 762–770

People who are pre-disposed to have a mitochondrial dysfunction can develop autistic conditions following vaccination.  The current President of Merck’s Vaccines Division, Julie Gerberding confirmed to CBS News when she was Director of the US Centres for Disease Control that:

….. if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30   ET

Mitochondrial dysfunction is claimed to be “rare” but is not.  It can apply to a minimum of 20% of cases.

And this was said when Gerberding was then head of the US Centres for Disease Control – budget US$11 billion.  It followed from  award winning author and journalist David Kirby breaking the story of the Hannah Poling case, secretly settled by the US Government.  It was after this story broke that it started to be acknowledged that autism has an “environmental” cause and is not solely an “internal” condition [ie not determined solely by genetics]: AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

[Gerberding went from the US agency charged with promoting vaccines [CDC] directly to become vaccine maker Merck’s Director of Vaccines Division: Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck Vaccines21 Dec 2009 – Merck & Co., Inc.

Autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination.  The US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) confirmed to CBS News that of 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in secret settlements:-

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.[PDF Download – Text of email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]

CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008

Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008

Measles and mumps are two of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine. Exposure to live measles or mumps viruses can cause encephalitis:-

measles and mumps can cause significant disability, including encephalitis

The Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

So there is direct evidence that live measles, mumps or rubella viruses separately can cause encephalitis leading to autism.

More troubling is that this has been known for a long time.  So the risks of giving very young children a vaccine containing three live viruses all at once were known. These two World Health Organisation papers published nearly 40 years ago set out the hazards:

Virus-associated immunopathology : animal models and implications for human disease”:

1. Effects of viruses on the immune system, immune-complex diseases, and antibody-mediated immunologic injury Bulletin of The World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 257-264.

2. Cell-mediated immunity, autoimmune diseases, genetics, and implications for clinical research Bulletin of the World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 265-274.

Autistic conditions can result from acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following MMR vaccination as held by the US Federal Court in the case of Bailey Banks.  In his conclusion, US Federal Court Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

[Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)].

And what does not cause autism?

Autism is not “caused” by “genes”

Dr Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. the 16th and current Director of the US$30.5 billion budget National Institutes of Health [nominated by President Obama: NIH News Release 17th August 2009 ] stated in evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006 when Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute:

Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006

Collins controls the US $30.5 billion annual medical research budget and is a leading medical doctor and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project.

Autistic conditions affect 1 in 100 US children.  They affect 1 in 64 British children [1 in 40 are boys] according to a Cambridge University study.

ESTIMATING AUTISM SPECTRUM PREVALENCE IN THE POPULATION: A SCHOOL BASED STUDY FROM THE UK

Conclusions: The prevalence estimate of known cases of ASC, using different methods of ascertainment converges around 1%. The ratio of known to unknown cases means that for every three known cases there are another two unknown cases. This has implications for planning diagnostic, social and health services.”

HPV Vaccine Destroys Australian Child’s Ovaries – Manufacturer Didn’t Check

Short link to this page http://wp.me/pfSi7-1Vb

Gardasil Destroys Girl’s Ovaries: Research on Ovaries Never Considered

The BMJ has published the case report of a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl whose womanhood appears to have been stolen by Gardasil vaccinations. She has been thrust into full-fledged menopause, her ovaries irrevocably shut down, before becoming a woman.

The authors, Deirdre Therese Little and Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward1, draw direct attention to the fact that, though the girl has been thoroughly examined and tested, there is no known explanation other than the series of three Gardasil vaccinations she had. 

[1] Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination, BMJ Reports 2012, Deirdre Therese Little, Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward, doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879

CHS notes as is reported in the nsnbc.com report, the manufacturer provided information to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) on tests carried out on male rat testes from litters of newborn rats, but not for female rat ovaries.  There is no explanation why the manufacturer omitted this information.  There are likely to be as many female newborns as male in any litter and as the vaccine was to be given to women and girls this missing information is significant.

Additionally, the paper’s authors acknowledge that in 90% of cases the cause is unknown.  The authors draw attention to the fact that whilst it is a rare condition to occur in a teenage girl it is more unusual in a well teenage individual.  Whilst the predominant causes are different in the adolescent the cause is not proven to be the vaccine. However, the number of women with POF is increasing.

Re Posted by CHS.  Original Post: Published July 22, 2013, filed under HEALTH

Read on for more: Gardasil Destroys Girl’s Ovaries: Research on Ovaries Never Considered

________________________________

As Gardasil is the same vaccine given universally to all British 12 year-old schoolgirls since Sept 2012 and to US women and girls CHS is also reposting here the following world exclusive report published only two days ago. [Added July 30 @ 0511GMT / 29 July @2211PDT]

WORLD EXCLUSIVE – UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million – Millions of Children At Serious Risk

Posted on July 28, 2013 by ChildHealthSafety

Short link to this page: http://wp.me/pfSi7-1UC

This world exclusive report by CHS follows the decision by health authorities in Japan to withdraw their recommendation for human papilloma virus [HPV] vaccines because of high levels of serious adverse reactions in Japanese women and girls.  Japanese girls will still be able to be vaccinated at no charge, but from now on they will be informed by healthcare providers that the health ministry does not recommend the vaccines. 

Cervarix and Gardasil HPV vaccines were found to cause substantially higher rates of adverse reactions than other vaccines: Cervix vaccine issues trigger health notice Japan Times Jun 15, 2013 National Kyodo.

One report claims the rate of serious adverse reactions which Japanese women experienced after Cervarix injections are 52 times the rate of those reported after annual influenza vaccines: Urgent Request from Japan: Help Stop HPV Vaccinations July 27, 2013 By Norma Erickson SaneVax, Inc.

The UK media fail to report this kind of news affecting millions of British school children and families despite affecting their own families and networks of relatives in the UK.  Journalism is a dying profession.  So don’t buy newspapers or believe TV news reports.  The UK’s BBC has become the British Government’s press office.

British Parents Not Told Their Children Are Not At Risk of Cervical Cancer

The targeted vaccination group of 12-year-old British schoolgirls are at no risk of contracting cervical cancer.  Cervical cancer is an extremely rare disease.  The risk is normally zero up to age 20The risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine is therefore infinitely higher.  In the UK the disease is so rare there are just 3 deaths in every 100,000 women of all ages as figures from Cancer Research UK showWhat is worse is that by the time there is any risk for these schoolgirls any effect from the vaccine [if there ever was one] would have worn off yet these young women may then think they are protected and fail to undergo routine screening when they will still need it regardless of the vaccine. 

By the time there is any risk of mortality for these 12 year-old schoolgirls it is extremely low.  The risk of death from cervical cancer in the age range 20-24 is 3 in every million women of that age range.  The disease does not normally affect schoolgirls.  The highest number of deaths occur in women in their late seventies.

How UK Health Officials Tampered With the Adverse Reaction Reporting Systems

In the UK the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] first interference was to encourage health professional not to report adverse reactions.  This was done in formal advice issued in the name of Chief Executive Professor Sir Kent Woods telling health professionals that reactions can be “psychogenic” – or in simpler terms a figment of 12 year old schoolgirls’ imaginations and nothing to do with the vaccines [see more below for full details].

Next the data from over 6000 reports of suspected adverse reactions was systematically altered resulting in the MHRA declaring the vaccine safe when it was not. 

The third thing the MHRA staff did was to fix the final figures to make the rate of adverse reactions appear lower by substituting the number of doses given for the number of children receiving the vaccine.  Tampering with statistics by basing rates of adverse reactions on doses given reduced the numbers of adverse reactions per child by three times.  This is because each child was to receive three doses of the vaccine.  So whilst 6 million doses may have been given that represented only around one third of that figure in children receiving the vaccine – resulting in the rates of adverse reactions reported being calculated as 300% lower than they were per child. 

In other words if all children received all three doses then the crucial figure was not the number of doses but the number of children who suffered reactions compared to the total number of children.

The MHRA was headed at the time by Chairman Professor Alasdair Breckenridge [retired December 2012] and Professor Sir Kent Woods [MHRA Chief Executive but shortly expected to retire after 10 years service].

Questions For Heads Of UK Drug Regulatory Agency – MHRA

The first question for Professors Breckenridge and Woods is – if Japanese women suffered adverse reactions at a rate 52 times higher for GSK’s Cervarix vaccine than for flu vaccine how can possible adverse reactions just be figments of childrens’ imagination and so are not to be reported by medical professionals? [“psychogenic” was how Woods put it more formally – see his official advice to medical professionals – more below].

Clearly, that cannot be the case. Not only that but Woods and Breckenridge cannot claim to be ignorant of those facts. They must know that is the position. Nearly half of all reports included what the MHRA categorised as “psychogenic” symptoms which the MHRA say are “all in the mind” and could not therefore be caused by the vaccine.  A full list in a spreadsheet to enable further sorting and analysis can be downloaded here: 130728 Single list of all Cervarix Yellow Card Reports or browsed at the end of this article.  

You can also download the MHRA’s own published .pdf analyses listing the symptoms reported broken up into these five groups.  These are the reports used to declare the vaccine safe:

Here are just a few examples of MHRA’s alleged “all in the mind” “psychogenic” reactions by “hysterical schoolgirls”:

  • convulsions [which are serious reactions with risks of serious brain injury];
  • grand mal convulsions;
  • deafness
  • circulatory collapse;
  • acquired colour blindness;
  • head banging;
  • foaming at mouth;
  • transient blindness;
  • transient deafness;

The next question is: who instructed staff of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] systematically to tamper with the reporting systems and with data in reports of adverse reactions by medical professionals to Cervarix HPV vaccines given to millions British Schoolgirls from December 2008 to July 2012?

And the next question is who instructed that none of the adverse reaction reports should be followed-up and conditions of the children investigated?  There is little point having drug safety monitoring if the data obtained from it is ignored.  The MHRA hid the conditions in those cases which were reported.

Official Excuses for Withdrawal of GSK’s Cervarix HPV Vaccine Do Not Stand Up

In 2012 GSK’s Cervarix HPV vaccine was replaced by Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine.  At the time this was claimed to be a result of competitive tendering.  However it is a requirement that the Department of Health is required to ensure vaccine supply is not from a sole source.  This requirement was made following criticism in the English Parliament and by the UK National Audit Office over problems caused previously by the failure of a sole source of supply of a different vaccine.

Professor Sir Kent Woods Instructs Medical Professionals Not To Report Adverse Reactions.

In advice dated 2nd September 2008 issued by the UK MHRA in Professor Kent Woods name Professor Woods primed health professionals to expect the most common adverse reactions would be “psychogenic”.  Professor Woods then advised medical professionals not to report an adverse reaction if it “may” be psychogenic. 

“Psychogenic” means that the symptom of the adverse reaction is to be treated as “all in the minds” of the British schoolgirls receiving GSK’s Cervarix vaccine – that is: the result of emotional or mental stress from the administration of the vaccine.

In other words – and feminists please take note – the male dominated MHRA was telling medical professionals to dismiss adverse reactions in schoolgirls because women are prone to that sort of thing – you know – women are silly, emotional and prone to hysteria and mass hysteria.

This advice was not only counterproductive but unscientific and improper from a drug safety perspective.  Professors Woods and Breckenridge must know that. 

Adverse reactions to all pharmaceuticals are heavily under-reported.  Because of that medical professionals are constantly and generally encouraged to file adverse reaction reports to improve drug safety monitoring. Professor Woods’ advice was encouraging them not to.

An adverse reaction reporting system relies on the spectrum of adverse events to be reported so that it is possible to identify the “signal” of a previously unidentified adverse drug reaction against the background of known adverse reactions and reports. 

By encouraging medical professionals to expect and then not to report suspected “psychogenic” reactions would result in reactions which were not psychogenic being identified as such and which would then not be reported following Professor Kent Woods’ advice.  This would also make drug safety monitoring much less effective because if there were truly any “psychogenic” reactions, then subsequent analyses of the data could assist to identify which were likely to have been and which were not so likely or were not.  But the less data one has makes the task more difficult.

MHRA Systematically Tampered with 6000 reports of Adverse Reactions To Declare The Vaccine Safe

From April 2008 up to 31st July 2012, the MHRA received a total of 6213 reports of suspected adverse reactions documenting 14,300 symptoms or 2 1/2 symptoms per report.  Nurses contributed more than two-thirds of all reports.  Over 6 million doses of the vaccine were administered.

The way the reports of suspected adverse reactions to GSK’s Cervarix vaccine were tampered with was to ensure the underlying conditions indicated by the reported symptoms could not be identified.  In addition, no clinical follow-up was carried out on any Cervarix Yellow Card report of a suspected adverse reaction. 

To diagnose an individual it is essential to consider all symptoms suffered by that individual and carry out a clinical assessment on a case-by-case basis.  For example, how do you know if you might have flu?  If you have fever, cough, headache, aching muscles and tiredness then you may have flu.

What the MHRA did was to carry out a paper analysis of the Yellow Card reports.  They separated out the symptoms reported for each individual so that it would be impossible for anyone to identify the underlying conditions each individual suffered.  SOURCE: MHRA 29 July 2010 “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis”

Here are the 5 categories each symptom was separated into:

A. Injection-site reactions
B. Allergic reactions
C. ‘Psychogenic’ events
D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions
E. not currently recognised

So if we consider by analogy a disease most people know about, flu, if this approach was applied to infectious disease reports each symptom would be split up and put into one or more of these categories.  As the symptoms are no longer linked together it is impossible to say whether anyone was suffering from ‘flu or any other disease.  There would be no way of telling.

Thus, the MHRA set about hiding the numbers and types of suspected ADRs suffered by British schoolchildren. This was not a conspiracy but fact – that is what the MHRA did.

If this approach were adopted to reporting infectious diseases generally the public could have no idea which diseases are present in the population at any time.  There can be numerous infections diseases circulating simultaneously.

For example, a symptom of encephalitis is headache – in the period Sept 08 to 29 July 2010  information from MHRA recorded that in 4703 Yellow Card reports there were 848 reports  which included headache as one of the reported symptoms and  which might therefore be of encephalitis. A “quick and dirty” analysis of the MHRA data issued at that time shows that of just 5 of the 32 symptoms of encephalitis at least 2300 reports include at least one symptom of encephalitis.

But this is what the MHRA said having carried out no clinical investigation or analysis of any of the Yellow Card reports:-

The four cases of encephalitis reported so far, amongst the number of girls immunised, do not exceed  the numbers normally expected in the absence of vaccination. There is therefore no suggestion at present that the vaccine can cause encephalitis.”

SOURCE: MHRA 29 July 2010 “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis“

This shows

  • MHRA only recorded a report as suspected encephalitis if those specific words appear on the Yellow Card report
  • and confirms MHRA did not consider what underlying conditions are indicated by the symptoms reported on the Yellow Cards

Most reports were by school nurses who are likely only to report the symptoms and not diagnose underlying conditions.

School Head Teachers & Governors

It is obvious from these figures that UK parents are obliged under their Children Act 1989 legal duties to refuse consent.  This also puts head teachers and school governors in a remarkable position for putting children at risk by allowing these vaccination programmes to take place on school premises. Under English law they stand legally in “loco parentis” – in the place of the parents whilst children are under their care in school.

School Nurses & Other Medical Professionals.

Obviously medical practitioners bear a heavy duty of disclosure to obtain informed consent but they are not fulfilling it.  Additionally, it is obvious that anyone proposing to have this vaccine needs to be screened for 1) pre-existing medical conditions putting them at risk and 2) risk of adverse reactions based on prior clinical history.  That is not being done.

Properly informed consent is not being obtained – which legally can give rise to claims for “battery” – not simply negligence and easier to prove.

Parents are being told their 13-year-old girls may be given the vaccine even if the parents refuse consent. Girls of this age might be subject to pressure to persuade them even if parents have refused consent. There are reasons why this may not be lawful under “Gillick competence”.

ANNEX I

LIST OF MHRA REPORTED SYMPTOMS OF ADVERSE REACTIONS TO GSK’S CERVARIX HPV VACCINE – Source MHRA “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis” 29th July 2010

[Also downloadable as a spreadsheet from here 130728 Single list of all Cervarix Yellow Card Reports]
System Organ Class Category A to E Reported event (Preferred Term)

Number of cases

A. Injection-site reactions Pain in extremity 485

485

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site swelling 113

113

A. Injection-site reactions Oedema peripheral 109

109

A. Injection-site reactions Limb discomfort 106

106

A. Injection-site reactions Hypoaesthesia 105

105

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site erythema 85

85

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site pain 81

81

A. Injection-site reactions Erythema 45

45

A. Injection-site reactions Paraesthesia 37

37

A. Injection-site reactions Skin discolouration 33

33

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site rash 32

32

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site mass 29

29

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site reaction 26

26

A. Injection-site reactions Pain 23

23

A. Injection-site reactions Contusion 21

21

A. Injection-site reactions Musculoskeletal stiffness 21

21

A. Injection-site reactions Peripheral coldness 20

20

A. Injection-site reactions Local reaction 19

19

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site inflammation 18

18

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site warmth 18

18

A. Injection-site reactions Pain in extremity 16

16

A. Injection-site reactions Local swelling 15

15

A. Injection-site reactions Sensation of heaviness 15

15

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site haematoma 12

12

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site pruritus 11

11

A. Injection-site reactions Rash macular 10

10

A. Injection-site reactions Oedema peripheral 9

9

A. Injection-site reactions Feeling cold 8

8

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site induration 8

8

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site nodule 8

8

A. Injection-site reactions Livedo reticularis 8

8

A. Injection-site reactions Swelling 8

8

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site anaesthesia 6

6

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site swelling 6

6

A. Injection-site reactions Muscular weakness 6

6

A. Injection-site reactions Myalgia 6

6

A. Injection-site reactions Neck pain 6

6

A. Injection-site reactions Pain 6

6

A. Injection-site reactions Rash 6

6

A. Injection-site reactions Erythema 5

5

A. Injection-site reactions Feeling hot 5

5

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site erythema 5

5

A. Injection-site reactions Pruritus 5

5

A. Injection-site reactions Cyanosis 4

4

A. Injection-site reactions Feeling abnormal 4

4

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site infection 4

4

A. Injection-site reactions Musculoskeletal stiffness 4

4

A. Injection-site reactions Pallor 4

4

A. Injection-site reactions Sensory disturbance 4

4

A. Injection-site reactions Tenderness 4

4

A. Injection-site reactions Asthenia 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Feeling hot 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Inflammation 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site discharge 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site discolouration 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site irritation 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site reaction 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site urticaria 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site vesicles 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Limb immobilisation 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Musculoskeletal pain 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Poor peripheral circulation 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Sensory loss 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Skin warm 3

3

A. Injection-site reactions Dry skin 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Grip strength decreased 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Hypoaesthesia 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Injected limb mobility decreased 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site cellulitis 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site coldness 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site discolouration 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site mass 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site pain 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Peripheral coldness 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Pruritus 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Sensory loss 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Skin discolouration 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Skin reaction 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Skin reaction 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Tenderness 2

2

A. Injection-site reactions Blister 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Complex regional pain syndrome 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Extensive swelling of vaccinated limb 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Hyperaesthesia 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Hyperaesthesia 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Hypokinesia 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Hypokinesia 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Immobile 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Impetigo 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site abscess 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site anaesthesia 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site coldness 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site discomfort 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site haematoma 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site haemorrhage 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site haemorrhage 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site joint movement impairment 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site joint pain 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site movement impairment 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site movement impairment 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site papule 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site paraesthesia 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site rash 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Injection site scab 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Joint swelling 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Limb immobilisation 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Local reaction 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Local swelling 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Lymphoedema 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Mass 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Mobility decreased 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Muscle rigidity 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Muscle spasms 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Muscle tightness 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Musculoskeletal pain 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Nausea 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Nodule 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Pain of skin 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Paraesthesia 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Peripheral vascular disorder 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Rash 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Rash maculo-papular 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Rash pruritic 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Scab 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Sensation of heaviness 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Sensation of pressure 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Tremor 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Urticaria 1

1

A. Injection-site reactions Urticaria 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Rash 130

130

B. Allergic reactions Urticaria 89

89

B. Allergic reactions Pruritus 60

60

B. Allergic reactions Erythema 47

47

B. Allergic reactions Swelling face 42

42

B. Allergic reactions Anaphylactic reaction 41

41

B. Allergic reactions Dyspnoea 33

33

B. Allergic reactions Rash generalised 31

31

B. Allergic reactions Rash pruritic 31

31

B. Allergic reactions Oedema peripheral 29

29

B. Allergic reactions Lip swelling 26

26

B. Allergic reactions Rash macular 24

24

B. Allergic reactions Dizziness 23

23

B. Allergic reactions Hypersensitivity 22

22

B. Allergic reactions Eye swelling 18

18

B. Allergic reactions Paraesthesia oral 17

17

B. Allergic reactions Malaise 15

15

B. Allergic reactions Throat tightness 14

14

B. Allergic reactions Rash 13

13

B. Allergic reactions Swollen tongue 13

13

B. Allergic reactions Chest discomfort 11

11

B. Allergic reactions Rash erythematous 11

11

B. Allergic reactions Feeling hot 9

9

B. Allergic reactions Flushing 9

9

B. Allergic reactions Pruritus generalised 9

9

B. Allergic reactions Dermatitis allergic 8

8

B. Allergic reactions Pallor 8

8

B. Allergic reactions Pharyngeal oedema 8

8

B. Allergic reactions Urticaria 8

8

B. Allergic reactions Fatigue 7

7

B. Allergic reactions Oropharyngeal pain 7

7

B. Allergic reactions Paraesthesia 7

7

B. Allergic reactions Angioedema 6

6

B. Allergic reactions Dysphagia 6

6

B. Allergic reactions Headache 6

6

B. Allergic reactions Inflammation 6

6

B. Allergic reactions Pyrexia 6

6

B. Allergic reactions Throat irritation 6

6

B. Allergic reactions Blister 5

5

B. Allergic reactions Dyspnoea 5

5

B. Allergic reactions Hyperventilation 5

5

B. Allergic reactions Hypoaesthesia oral 5

5

B. Allergic reactions Vomiting 5

5

B. Allergic reactions Wheezing 5

5

B. Allergic reactions Anaphylactic shock 4

4

B. Allergic reactions Eyelid oedema 4

4

B. Allergic reactions Hypersensitivity 4

4

B. Allergic reactions Hypoaesthesia 4

4

B. Allergic reactions Local swelling 4

4

B. Allergic reactions Nausea 4

4

B. Allergic reactions Pain in extremity 4

4

B. Allergic reactions Dermatitis allergic 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Erythema 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Eye pruritus 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Eyelid oedema 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Hyperhidrosis 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Laryngeal oedema 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Limb discomfort 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Nasopharyngitis 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Ocular hyperaemia 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Pain 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Petechiae 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Rash erythematous 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Rash macular 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Rash maculo-papular 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Rash pruritic 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Skin irritation 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Skin reaction 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Somnolence 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Swelling 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Vision blurred 3

3

B. Allergic reactions Abdominal pain 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Abdominal pain upper 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Anaphylactic reaction 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Blister 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Body temperature increased 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Cold sweat 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Dermatitis contact 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Dizziness 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Face oedema 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Feeling cold 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Heart rate increased 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Heart rate irregular 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Heat rash 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Lip swelling 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Peripheral coldness 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Pharyngeal oedema 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Pruritus 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Rash generalised 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Skin discolouration 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Skin disorder 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Swollen tongue 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Tachycardia 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Type i hypersensitivity 2

2

B. Allergic reactions Anaphylactoid reaction 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Asthenia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Asthenopia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Asthma 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Back pain 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Breath sounds abnormal 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Bronchospasm 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Chest pain 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Chills 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Condition aggravated 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Confusional state 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Conjunctival hyperaemia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Contusion 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Convulsion 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Cough 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Dermatitis 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Dry throat 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Dysphagia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Eczema 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Eczema 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Eyelid disorder 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Eyes sunken 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Fatigue 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Feeling abnormal 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Feeling hot 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Feeling jittery 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Generalised erythema 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Gingival swelling 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Headache 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Hypersomnia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Hypertension 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Hypoventilation 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Increased bronchial secretion 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Infusion site swelling 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Laryngeal oedema 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Lethargy 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Lip blister 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Lip ulceration 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Local reaction 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Loss of consciousness 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Migraine 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Muscle tightness 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Musculoskeletal stiffness 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Myalgia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Mydriasis 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Nausea 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Neck pain 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Oedema mouth 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Oedema mouth 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Oesophageal discomfort 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Oral discomfort 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Oral pain 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Palpitations 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Panic reaction 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Paraesthesia oral 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Periorbital oedema 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Photophobia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Piloerection 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Pulse absent 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Purpura 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Pyrexia 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Rash follicular 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Rash papular 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Respiratory rate increased 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Sensation of foreign body 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Sneezing 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Somnolence 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Speech disorder 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Stridor 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Swelling 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Swelling face 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Syncope 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Systemic lupus erythematosus rash 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Tenderness 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Thirst 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Throat irritation 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Throat tightness 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Tremor 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Type IV hypersensitivity reaction 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Urticaria pigmentosa 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Visual impairment 1

1

B. Allergic reactions Vomiting 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dizziness 327

327

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Syncope 296

296

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Nausea 151

151

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Headache 109

109

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pallor 108

108

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Vomiting 77

77

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Malaise 74

74

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Tremor 61

61

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Vision blurred 46

46

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Feeling hot 45

45

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Flushing 40

40

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Cold sweat 35

35

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Syncope 27

27

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hyperhidrosis 25

25

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Presyncope 23

23

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hyperventilation 21

21

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Loss of consciousness 19

19

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dyspnoea 18

18

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Paraesthesia 18

18

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Chills 17

17

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Convulsion 17

17

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pyrexia 16

16

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Somnolence 16

16

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dizziness 15

15

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Fatigue 15

15

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Heart rate increased 14

14

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Unresponsive to stimuli 14

14

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Muscle twitching 13

13

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Rash 13

13

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Asthenia 12

12

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Feeling cold 12

12

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypoaesthesia 12

12

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Panic attack 12

12

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Chest discomfort 11

11

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dyskinesia 11

11

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Eye rolling 11

11

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Tachycardia 11

11

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Tearfulness 11

11

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Nervousness 10

10

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Erythema 9

9

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Headache 9

9

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Rash macular 9

9

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abdominal pain 8

8

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Chest pain 8

8

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Peripheral coldness 8

8

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abdominal pain upper 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Anxiety 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Fall 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypotension 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Lethargy 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Muscular weakness 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Photophobia 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Visual impairment 7

7

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Confusional state 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Deafness 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Feeling of body temperature change 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Muscle rigidity 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Musculoskeletal stiffness 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Mydriasis 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Nasopharyngitis 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Throat tightness 6

6

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dizziness postural 5

5

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dysgeusia 5

5

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Feeling abnormal 5

5

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pallor 5

5

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Skin discolouration 5

5

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Urticaria 5

5

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abdominal discomfort 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Blindness transient 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Body temperature increased 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Decreased appetite 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hot flush 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Migraine 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Muscle spasms 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pulse abnormal 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Respiratory rate increased 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Tinnitus 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Urinary incontinence 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Vomiting 4

4

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abasia 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Agitation 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Balance disorder 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Blindness 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Blood pressure decreased 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Cyanosis 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Disorientation 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Disturbance in attention 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dyspnoea 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dysstasia 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Emotional disorder 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Feeling drunk 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hearing impaired 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Heart rate irregular 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypoventilation 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Nausea 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pain 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pain in extremity 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Panic reaction 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Rash 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Sensory loss 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Somnolence 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Throat irritation 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Vertigo 3

3

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Amnesia 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Blood pressure increased 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Body temperature decreased 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Bradycardia 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Circulatory collapse 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Colour blindness acquired 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Consciousness fluctuating 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Diplopia 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dry mouth 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dry throat 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dysarthria 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dysphagia 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Emotional distress 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Heart rate decreased 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Heart rate increased 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypertension 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hyperventilation 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypoacusis 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Malaise 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Muscular weakness 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Myalgia 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Neck pain 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Oropharyngeal pain 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Paraesthesia oral 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Presyncope 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Procedural dizziness 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pruritus 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pulse pressure decreased 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pupil fixed 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Rash generalised 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Retching 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Salivary hypersecretion 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Shock 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Vision blurred 2

2

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abdominal discomfort 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abdominal distension 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abdominal pain 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Abnormal behaviour 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Altered state of consciousness 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Aphasia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Asthenia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Asthma 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Back pain 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Blindness transient 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Blood pressure increased 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Blood pressure systolic decreased 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Body temperature decreased 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Bruxism 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Burning sensation 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Chills 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Condition aggravated 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Convulsion 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Cough 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Deafness transitory 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Depressed level of consciousness 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Discomfort 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dissociation 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Disturbance in attention 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Dry mouth 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Ear discomfort 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Ear pain 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Epistaxis 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Eye pain 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Eyelid oedema 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Face injury 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Facial spasm 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Fatigue 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Fear 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Feeling of despair 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Foaming at mouth 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Gait disturbance 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Grand mal convulsion 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Grip strength decreased 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Head banging 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Head discomfort 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Heart rate irregular 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Heat rash 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hemiparesis 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hot flush 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hyperhidrosis 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypersomnia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypoaesthesia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypoaesthesia facial 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypokinesia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Hypotonia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Incontinence 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Lip swelling 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Livedo reticularis 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Migraine 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Muscle contracture 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Myoclonus 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Nervous system disorder 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Oral discomfort 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Palpitations 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Paraesthesia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Peripheral circulatory failure 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pharyngeal oedema 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Photophobia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Poor peripheral circulation 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pruritus 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Psychomotor hyperactivity 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Pyrexia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Respiratory arrest 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Respiratory rate decreased 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Seizure anoxic 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Sensation of heaviness 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Sensory loss 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Sinus tachycardia 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Sleep attacks 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Sudden onset of sleep 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Tachypnoea 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Tremor 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Urticaria 1

1

C. ‘Psychogenic’ events Visual impairment 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Nausea 631

631

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Headache 629

629

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Dizziness 625

625

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Vomiting 260

260

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Malaise 220

220

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Fatigue 216

216

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pyrexia 175

175

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Abdominal pain 69

69

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Diarrhoea 55

55

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Abdominal pain upper 54

54

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Myalgia 49

49

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Lethargy 48

48

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Feeling hot 43

43

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Body temperature increased 36

36

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pain 34

34

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Headache 30

30

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Influenza like illness 28

28

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Nausea 28

28

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Oropharyngeal pain 28

28

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Arthralgia 25

25

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Malaise 25

25

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pyrexia 24

24

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pallor 22

22

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Somnolence 22

22

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Asthenia 21

21

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Chills 21

21

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pain in extremity 21

21

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Rash 21

21

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Arthralgia 20

20

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Lymphadenopathy 18

18

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Vomiting 16

16

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Abdominal discomfort 15

15

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Dizziness 15

15

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Flushing 14

14

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Paraesthesia 14

14

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Fatigue 12

12

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Tremor 12

12

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pruritus 11

11

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Decreased appetite 10

10

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Abdominal pain 8

8

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Neck pain 8

8

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Feeling cold 7

7

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Back pain 6

6

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Cough 6

6

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Hyperhidrosis 6

6

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Hypoaesthesia 6

6

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Lethargy 6

6

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Musculoskeletal stiffness 6

6

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Nasopharyngitis 6

6

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Abdominal pain upper 5

5

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Asthenia 4

4

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Body temperature increased 4

4

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Erythema 4

4

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Feeling of body temperature change 4

4

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Migraine 4

4

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Myalgia 4

4

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Nervousness 4

4

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Back pain 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Decreased appetite 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Diarrhoea 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Lower respiratory tract infection 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Muscle fatigue 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Muscular weakness 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Rash generalised 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Somnolence 3

3

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Cold sweat 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Dizziness postural 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Feeling abnormal 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Gait disturbance 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Head discomfort 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Hot flush 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Influenza like illness 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Joint swelling 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Limb discomfort 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Listless 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Local reaction 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Musculoskeletal stiffness 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Nasal congestion 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Oropharyngeal pain 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pain 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pruritus generalised 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Rash macular 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Skin warm 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Throat irritation 2

2

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Abdominal pain lower 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Abdominal pain lower 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Arthralgia 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Axillary mass 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Bedridden 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Body temperature 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Body temperature fluctuation 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Body temperature fluctuation 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Cough 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Dyspnoea 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Feeling of body temperature change 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Gastrointestinal disorder 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Generalised erythema 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Groin pain 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Hot flush 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Hypoaesthesia 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Hypotension 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Ill-defined disorder 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Immunisation reaction 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Induration 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Insomnia 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Limb discomfort 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Local reaction 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Local swelling 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Loss of consciousness 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Lymphadenopathy 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Mobility decreased 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Muscle spasms 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Muscle twitching 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Musculoskeletal chest pain 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Musculoskeletal discomfort 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Musculoskeletal discomfort 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Musculoskeletal pain 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Neck pain 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Night sweats 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pain in extremity 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Peripheral coldness 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Pharyngitis 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Rash erythematous 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Respiratory disorder 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Respiratory tract infection 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Restlessness 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Rhinorrhoea 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Sensation of heaviness 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Sudden onset of sleep 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Swelling 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Swelling face 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Syncope 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Thirst 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Throat tightness 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Upper respiratory tract infection 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Urticaria 1

1

D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions Weight decreased 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Headache 47

47

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Syncope 35

35

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Influenza like illness 32

32

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dizziness 29

29

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoaesthesia 29

29

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Convulsion 28

28

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Pain in extremity 27

27

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Nausea 24

24

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Paraesthesia 20

20

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Dyspnoea 19

19

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Lethargy 19

19

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Malaise 19

19

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications E. not currently recognised Drug exposure during pregnancy 18

18

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Fatigue 18

18

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Pyrexia 18

18

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Chest pain 17

17

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Vomiting 17

17

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Migraine 16

16

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Pain 16

16

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Back pain 15

15

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Somnolence 14

14

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Tremor 14

14

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dizziness 12

12

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Muscular weakness 12

12

Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions E. not currently recognised Abortion spontaneous 11

11

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Asthenia 11

11

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Headache 11

11

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Loss of consciousness 11

11

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abdominal pain 10

10

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Myalgia 10

10

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Oropharyngeal pain 10

10

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Amenorrhoea 9

9

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Chest discomfort 9

9

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Peripheral coldness 9

9

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Alopecia 8

8

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Cough 8

8

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Decreased appetite 8

8

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Epistaxis 8

8

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Fatigue 8

8

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Influenza like illness 8

8

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Vision blurred 8

8

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Asthma 7

7

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Diarrhoea 7

7

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Feeling cold 7

7

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoaesthesia 7

7

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoaesthesia facial 7

7

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Photophobia 7

7

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Syncope 7

7

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Vaginal haemorrhage 7

7

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Viral infection 7

7

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Vision blurred 7

7

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abdominal pain 6

6

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dysarthria 6

6

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Ear pain 6

6

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Epilepsy 6

6

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Hallucination 6

6

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Insomnia 6

6

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Lower respiratory tract infection 6

6

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Musculoskeletal stiffness 6

6

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Neck pain 6

6

Cardiac disorders E. not currently recognised Palpitations 6

6

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Paraesthesia 6

6

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Post viral fatigue syndrome 6

6

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Sensory disturbance 6

6

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Visual impairment 6

6

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Abasia 5

5

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dyskinesia 5

5

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dysstasia 5

5

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Eczema 5

5

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Erythema multiforme 5

5

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Facial palsy 5

5

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Grand mal convulsion 5

5

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menstruation irregular 5

5

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Oedema peripheral 5

5

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Pallor 5

5

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Sensation of heaviness 5

5

Investigations E. not currently recognised Weight decreased 5

5

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Anxiety 4

4

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Arthralgia 4

4

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Blister 4

4

Investigations E. not currently recognised Blood glucose increased 4

4

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Chills 4

4

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Chronic fatigue syndrome 4

4

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Condition aggravated 4

4

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Confusional state 4

4

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications E. not currently recognised Contusion 4

4

Cardiac disorders E. not currently recognised Cyanosis 4

4

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Dysmenorrhoea 4

4

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Encephalitis 4

4

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Erythema 4

4

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Feeling hot 4

4

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Guillain-barre syndrome 4

4

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Hypotension 4

4

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Lethargy 4

4

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menorrhagia 4

4

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Nasopharyngitis 4

4

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Nausea 4

4

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Rash 4

4

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Rash 4

4

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Skin discolouration 4

4

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Wheezing 4

4

Surgical and medical procedures E. not currently recognised Abortion induced 3

3

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Alopecia 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Aphonia 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Convulsion 3

3

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Disorientation 3

3

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Ear pain 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Epilepsy 3

3

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Feeling abnormal 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Head discomfort 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Hemiparesis 3

3

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Hyperhidrosis 3

3

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Infectious mononucleosis 3

3

Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions E. not currently recognised Live birth 3

3

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menstruation delayed 3

3

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Mouth ulceration 3

3

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Muscle twitching 3

3

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Mydriasis 3

3

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Peripheral coldness 3

3

Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions E. not currently recognised Premature baby 3

3

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Pyrexia 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Sensory loss 3

3

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Tearfulness 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Tremor 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Unresponsive to stimuli 3

3

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Urticaria 3

3

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Urticaria chronic 3

3

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Visual field defect 3

3

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Abasia 2

2

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abdominal pain upper 2

2

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Abnormal behaviour 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Alopecia areata 2

2

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Amenorrhoea 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Angioedema 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Balance disorder 2

2

Investigations E. not currently recognised Body temperature increased 2

2

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Circulatory collapse 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Complex regional pain syndrome 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Complex regional pain syndrome 2

2

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Confusional state 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Crying 2

2

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Dehydration 2

2

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Depressed mood 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Diplegia 2

2

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Diplopia 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Disturbance in attention 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dizziness postural 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Drooling 2

2

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications E. not currently recognised Drug exposure before pregnancy 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dysgeusia 2

2

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Emotional disorder 2

2

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Eye pain 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Facial paresis 2

2

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Feeling cold 2

2

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Gait disturbance 2

2

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Gait disturbance 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Grand mal convulsion 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Groin pain 2

2

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Haemoptysis 2

2

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Haemorrhage 2

2

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Herpes zoster 2

2

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Hordeolum 2

2

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Hot flush 2

2

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Hyperventilation 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Hypokinesia 2

2

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Influenza 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Joint swelling 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Livedo reticularis 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Livedo reticularis 2

2

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Local swelling 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Loss of consciousness 2

2

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Malaise 2

2

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menstrual disorder 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Mobility decreased 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Muscle spasms 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Muscular weakness 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Musculoskeletal pain 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Musculoskeletal stiffness 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Optic neuritis 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Pain in extremity 2

2

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Pallor 2

2

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Paraesthesia oral 2

2

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Petit mal epilepsy 2

2

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Pharyngitis 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Photosensitivity reaction 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Photosensitivity reaction 2

2

Congenital, familial and genetic disorders E. not currently recognised Pilonidal cyst congenital 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Purpura 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Rash generalised 2

2

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Rheumatoid arthritis 2

2

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Rhinorrhoea 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Skin exfoliation 2

2

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Sleep disorder 2

2

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Swelling face 2

2

Cardiac disorders E. not currently recognised Tachycardia 2

2

Renal and urinary disorders E. not currently recognised Urinary incontinence 2

2

Renal and urinary disorders E. not currently recognised Urinary retention 2

2

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Urinary tract infection 2

2

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Vertigo 2

2

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Visual impairment 2

2

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Vulval ulceration 2

2

Investigations E. not currently recognised Weight increased 2

2

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abdominal discomfort 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abdominal discomfort 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abdominal pain lower 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abdominal pain upper 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Abnormal faeces 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Abnormal sleep-related event 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Abscess 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Acarodermatitis 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Accommodation disorder 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Acne 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Acne 1

1

Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) E. not currently recognised Acute myeloid leukaemia 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Acute psychosis 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Acute respiratory failure 1

1

Endocrine disorders E. not currently recognised Adrenocortical insufficiency acute 1

1

Endocrine disorders E. not currently recognised Adrenocortical insufficiency acute 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Aggression 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Alanine aminotransferase increased 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Alopecia areata 1

1

Blood and lymphatic system disorders E. not currently recognised Anaemia 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Anogenital warts 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Aphasia 1

1

Blood and lymphatic system disorders E. not currently recognised Aplastic anaemia 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Application site pustules 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Areflexia 1

1

Congenital, familial and genetic disorders E. not currently recognised Arteriovenous malformation 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Arthritis 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Arthritis reactive 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Arthropathy 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Asthenia 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Ataxia 1

1

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications E. not currently recognised Axillary nerve injury 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Axillary pain 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Back pain 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Balance disorder 1

1

Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) E. not currently recognised Benign hydatidiform mole 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Beta haemolytic streptococcal infection 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Blindness unilateral 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Blood cortisol decreased 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Blood pressure decreased 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Blood pressure increased 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Body temperature increased 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Bone pain 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Breast pain 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Breast swelling 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Breast tenderness 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Bronchitis 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Burning sensation 1

1

Cardiac disorders E. not currently recognised Cardiac arrest 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Cell marker increased 1

1

Congenital, familial and genetic disorders E. not currently recognised Cerebral palsy 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Cervix inflammation 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Chest discomfort 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Chest pain 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Chills 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Chorea 1

1

Congenital, familial and genetic disorders E. not currently recognised Cleft palate 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Cold sweat 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Colitis 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Colitis ulcerative 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Condition aggravated 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Conjunctival hyperaemia 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Constipation 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Coordination abnormal 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Csf cell count increased 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Dark circles under eyes 1

1

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Deafness 1

1

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Deafness bilateral 1

1

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Decreased appetite 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Decreased interest 1

1

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Deep vein thrombosis 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Depressed level of consciousness 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Depression 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Depression 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Depressive symptom 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Dermatitis allergic 1

1

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Diabetes mellitus inadequate control 1

1

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Diabetes mellitus inadequate control 1

1

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Diabetic ketoacidosis 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Diarrhoea 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Diarrhoea haemorrhagic 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Discomfort 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Dissociation 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dizziness postural 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Dry eye 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Dry skin 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dysgeusia 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Dyskinesia 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Dysphemia 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Dyspnoea 1

1

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Ear discomfort 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Eating disorder 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Eczema vesicular 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Emotional distress 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Encephalitis 1

1

Blood and lymphatic system disorders E. not currently recognised Eosinophilia 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Erythema 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Erythema multiforme 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Excessive eye blinking 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Exercise tolerance decreased 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Eye discharge 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Eye disorder 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Eye pain 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Eye swelling 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Eyelid oedema 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Facial palsy 1

1

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications E. not currently recognised Fall 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Fear 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Feeling abnormal 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Flank pain 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Flatulence 1

1

Vascular disorders E. not currently recognised Flushing 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Folliculitis 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Frequent bowel movements 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Furuncle 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Gastrointestinal disorder 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Gaze palsy 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Gingival disorder 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Guillain-barre syndrome 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Guttate psoriasis 1

1

Blood and lymphatic system disorders E. not currently recognised Haemolytic uraemic syndrome 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Hallucination, auditory 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Hallucination, visual 1

1

Congenital, familial and genetic disorders E. not currently recognised Heart disease congenital 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Heart rate decreased 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Henoch-schonlein purpura 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Henoch-schonlein purpura 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Hepatitis viral 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Herpes zoster 1

1

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Hyperacusis 1

1

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Hyperglycaemia 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Hyperhidrosis 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Hyperpyrexia 1

1

Immune system disorders E. not currently recognised Hypersensitivity 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Hypertonia 1

1

Ear and labyrinth disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoacusis 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoaesthesia facial 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoaesthesia oral 1

1

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoglycaemia 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Hypomania 1

1

Congenital, familial and genetic disorders E. not currently recognised Hypospadias 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Hypoventilation 1

1

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications E. not currently recognised Inappropriate schedule of drug administration 1

1

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications E. not currently recognised Incorrect dose administered 1

1

Metabolism and nutrition disorders E. not currently recognised Increased appetite 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Increased upper airway secretion 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Infection 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Inflammation 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Injection site erythema 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Injection site injury 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Injection site swelling 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Insomnia 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Intestinal functional disorder 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Irritable bowel syndrome 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Ivth nerve paralysis 1

1

Hepatobiliary disorders E. not currently recognised Jaundice 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Joint stiffness 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Joint stiffness 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Kidney infection 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Labyrinthitis 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Laryngitis 1

1

Congenital, familial and genetic disorders E. not currently recognised Limb malformation 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Lip blister 1

1

Gastrointestinal disorders E. not currently recognised Lip swelling 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Local swelling 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Meningism 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menorrhagia 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menstrual disorder 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menstruation delayed 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Menstruation irregular 1

1

Reproductive system and breast disorders E. not currently recognised Metrorrhagia 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Migraine 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Migraine with aura 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Molluscum contagiosum 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Monoplegia 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Muscle rigidity 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Muscle twitching 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Musculoskeletal chest pain 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Myoclonic epilepsy 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Nasal congestion 1

1

Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) E. not currently recognised Neoplasm malignant 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Neuritis 1

1

Renal and urinary disorders E. not currently recognised Neurogenic bladder 1

1

Blood and lymphatic system disorders E. not currently recognised Neutropenia 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Neutrophil count decreased 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Oedema peripheral 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Oropharyngeal blistering 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Oropharyngeal pain 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Osteitis 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Otitis media 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Pain 1

1

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Palindromic rheumatism 1

1

Blood and lymphatic system disorders E. not currently recognised Pancytopenia 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Paralysis 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Paranoia 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Peak expiratory flow rate decreased 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Petechiae 1

1

Eye disorders E. not currently recognised Photopsia 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Platelet count decreased 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Pneumonia viral 1

1

Renal and urinary disorders E. not currently recognised Pollakiuria 1

1

Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions E. not currently recognised Pregnancy with injectable contraceptive 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Presyncope 1

1

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders E. not currently recognised Productive cough 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Psoriasis 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Psychiatric symptom 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Psychomotor hyperactivity 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Psychotic disorder 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Radial pulse 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Radiculitis brachial 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Rash erythematous 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Rash maculo-papular 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Rash vesicular 1

1

Renal and urinary disorders E. not currently recognised Renal failure 1

1

Investigations E. not currently recognised Respiratory rate increased 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Respiratory syncytial virus infection 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Respiratory tract infection 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Screaming 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Sedation 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Sensation of foreign body 1

1

General disorders and administration site conditions E. not currently recognised Sensation of pressure 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Sensory loss 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Sepsis 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Severe acute respiratory syndrome 1

1

Cardiac disorders E. not currently recognised Sinus tachycardia 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Skin burning sensation 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Skin disorder 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Skin hypertrophy 1

1

Infections and infestations E. not currently recognised Skin infection 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Skin irritation 1

1

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders E. not currently recognised Skin lesion 1

1

Psychiatric disorders E. not currently recognised Somatisation disorder 1

1

Nervous system disorders E. not currently recognised Somnolence 1