Despite growing evidence that there was a problem the situation continued throughout the decades. In 1980 Professor Gordon Stewart made his feelings very clear as he felt that the government was withholding important evidence and information regarding the truth of this vaccination from the public. In a letter to Mr. P. Allen of the Committee for the Safety of Medicine (4) (5) (6) he wrote:

On page one he wrote:

“In reply to yours of the 11th February, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with you that there is nothing more that can or should be done. Let me say again the important matter confronting us is the safety of the vaccine. It is not in the publics interest to withhold additional information relating to the safety of the vaccine, which has come to our attention as a result of a collaborative programme and which is highly germane to our report.”

He continued on page two with the following:

“The situation changed when Dr Pollock saw fit to assure the public on more than one occasion that the vaccine was “perfectly safe”, that fears which had been expressed were groundless and that parents and doctors could therefore use it without fear. The reassuring statements issued by Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and by Professors Dudgeon and Miller were in the same vein, although NCFS to which they refer is nowhere near completion. This was so much at variance with what by that time, our Committee knew to be the case that a caution if  not a corrective statement was certainly called for. The lack of a corrective statement amounts to a repetition of the same dismal history which caused the problem in the first place and led the Ombudsman to blame your Department in no uncertain terms.”

In his letter Professor Gordon’s makes it very clear that the government knew that there was a problem with this vaccine but was choosing to ignore it. However, it was not just the whooping cough element that was proving a problem. The DPT vaccine as a whole had been causing huge problems as a document published by the WHO (World Health Organization) in 2000 (7) proved.

The WHO reported the following:

“Vaccines against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT)

Minor local reactions such as pain, oedema and erythema occur in 40% to 80% of cases when DTP vaccine is administered. In rare cases, a nodule can form at the point of injection and remain there several weeks. A sterile abscess appears in 6 to 10 cases per million doses administered.

Mild systemic reactions consist of temperature over 38°C and irritation (40% to 75%), drowsiness (33% to 62%), loss of appetite (20% to 35%), and vomiting (6% to 13%).

Severe adverse events

• Specific severe adverse events are described:

• Persistent, inconsolable crying for more than three hours (mostly from pain, 1%).

• Temperature in excess of 40.5°C (0.3%).

• Unusual screams (0.1%).

• Convulsions (usually related to fever, one case in 12 500 does administered) (Farrington et al., 1995).

• Hypotonic–hyporesponsive episodes (one case in 1750 doses administered)(Cody, 1981).

• Anaphylactic reactions are rare (two cases in 100 000 doses administered) (Edwards et al., 1999; CDC, 1996).

• Convulsions are more frequent when there is a personal history (with a relative risk of 6.4) or a family history (relative risk of 2.4) of convulsions in the child

• (Edwards et al., 1999; Livengood, 1989). There was an increased relative risk for convulsions 0–3 days after DTP vaccination (Farrington, 1995).

• Systematic administering of acetaminophen or any appropriate antipyretic at the time and at 4 and 8 hours after immunization decreases the subsequent incidence of febrile and local reactions (AAP, 1997). It may also be of benefit if there is a personal or family history of convulsions (Ipp et al., 1987; CDC, 1987).”

The author did go on to add:

“The US Vaccine Safety Committee agreed in 1994 that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that pertussis vaccine could cause permanent brain damage (Edwards et al., 1999). Furthermore, the experts rejected the alleged causal link between DTP vaccine and autism, infant spasms, Reye syndrome and sudden infant death syndrome.”

Although my evidence from doctors, pediatricians and neurologists paint a different picture.

In 2009 the UK Discussed Making the MMR Compulsory

This is not the first time that the UK has tried to make vaccinations compulsory. In 2009 the British Medical Association was calling for the MMR vaccination to be made compulsory due to the fall in vaccination rates of the under 5 year olds. (8)

If the UK Health Authority is discussing making the DPT vaccination compulsory for newborns and succeeded the news recently announced on WDDTY (What Doctors Don’t Tell You) news site may be accurate.

The controversial website WDDTY (9) recently announced that the DPT was not the only vaccination likely to be made compulsory for newborns in the UK. They reported that the BBC had also announced that the UK Health Authority was also discussing making the MMR vaccine compulsory for newborns as well.

I was unable to verify their news source but if this is the case how dangerous could the MMR potentially be in newborns.

How Dangerous in the MMR for Newborns?

In 2010 I exposed a series of hidden documents that I stumbled across whilst researching at the Kew Archives. One of the documents that I exposed was a Ministry of Health Circular released in September 1968. (10)

Section 7 – Routine Vaccination of the circular stated that:

“Live measles vaccine should not be given to children below the age of nine months since it usually fails to immunise such children, owing to the presence of maternally transmitted antibodies.”

The circular advised that the measles vaccination should instead be given to children in their second year of life after the completion of the immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus whooping cough and polio.

This is interesting because the advice given by the Ministry of Health matches the advice given by Thomas Morson Pharmaceuticals in their manual for the single measles vaccination Attennuvax. (11) The manual states:

“Infants below 15 months of age may fail to respond to the vaccine due to the presence of residual measles antibody of maternal origin: the younger the infant the lower the chance of seroconversion. Children below 12 months should not normally be given Attenuvax unless they are at special risk.”

Yet more advice warning about the dangers of the single vaccines being given to very young children can also be found in the product license for the single measles vaccine, Mevilin L.  Mevilin L is a measles vaccine containing the live attenuated measles strain Schwartz , the exact strain used in MMR vaccines today.

The product license reads: (12)

“Mevilin L should not be given to children under the age of one year of age unless at special risk.”

More crucially the license says:

“The vaccine should not normally less than three weeks before or after immunization with any other live virus vaccines.” (emphasis added)

All this important advice fell on deaf ears however, because by 1988 the Schwartz strain of measles was incorporated with two other live virus vaccines to become the MMR’ Pluserix.

Story continues here.........