Blame Is The Name Of The Game By F. Edward Yazbak , MD , FAAP

In an open letter to “Dear Sir/Madam” dated “June 2006” and originating from the 7 th Floor of the Old Building at The Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, David Elliman, Consultant in Community Child Health and others authoritatively circulated information that “sounded true”.

It is not exactly clear who the intended “Dear Sir and Madam” were.

As others will be responding, I will only comment on the fourth paragraph of the “letter”:

“ We are now faced with a potentially serious situation. Years of low uptake mean large numbers of unprotected children are now entering school. Unless this is rectified urgently, and children are immunised, there will be further outbreaks and more unnecessary deaths. It has been suggested that allowing parents to choose single vaccines would have averted this situation. The reasons why this would not be an effective solution have been well rehearsed. In spite of having carefully considered this option, no country offers them as an alternative to the MMR vaccine.”

So, did Elliman and friends state the whole truth and nothing but the truth and could the statements they made stand in a Court of Law?

***

We are now faced with a potentially serious situation

This sounds true but the whole truth is that

•  The U.K. Department of Health (DOH) issued a clear directive titled “Immunization against Infectious Disease 1988 ” in which it stated unequivocally: “For children whose parents refuse MMR vaccine, single antigen measles will be available.”

•  The UK DOH in fact outlawed the monovalent measles vaccine in 1999

 

The “Nothing but the truth statement” is therefore: “ We are now faced with a potentially serious situation due to the inexcusable and ill-advised decision of the UK DOH to outlaw the single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.”

 

In addition, measles outbreaks have been reported in Germany and in several other European Countries. We have some twenty cases of measles in the state of Massachusetts right now. The “whole truth statement” would therefore be “We are now faced with a potentially serious situation like many other developed countries and we need to do the right thing.”

***

 

Years of low uptake mean large numbers of unprotected children are now entering school.

 

This statement also “sounds true” but it is not the whole truth.

 

Elliman intimates that the “years of low uptake” resulted from Wakefield 's research and publications.

 

The fact is that MMR vaccination rates were down BEFORE Wakefield as clearly demonstrated in Table I

 

Year

Diphtheria

Tetanus

Pertussis

Polio

MMR

1994-95

609 k

628 k

593 k

615 k

671 k

1995-96

587 k

601 k

574 k

593 k

572 k

1996-97

572 k

576 k

574 k

564 k

561 k

1997-98

576 k

578 k

589 k

577 k

563 k

Decrease

5.4%

8.0%

0.7%

6.2%

16.1%

 

Table I

 

When one compares 1994-95 with 1997-98, the percent decrease (16.1) in the number of children receiving MMR vaccinations ( 1 dose per child) is 222% larger than the average percent decrease (5.0) in the number of children receiving 3 doses of Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis and Polio vaccines.

 

Parents in the United Kingdom have historically been concerned about the safety and efficacy of the whooping cough vaccine. This resulted in pertussis vaccination rates dropping to 30% in the late seventies, a fact that renders the pre-1998 statistics provided by the DOH even more significant: As shown in Table I, approximately 19,000 (3.3%) fewer children received 3 doses of pertussis vaccine in 1997-1998 than in 1993-1994; in comparison, 87,000 (13.6%) fewer children received just one dose of MMR vaccine.

 

The following table lists the percentage of children who received their primary courses of vaccination by their second birthday.

 

Year of 2 nd Birthday

Diphtheria

Tetanus

Pertussis

Polio

HIB

MMR

1995-96

95.7

95.7

93.7

95.6

94.2

91.9

1996-97

95.7

95.7

94.2

95.7

95.1

91.5

1997-98

95.5

95.6

94.2

95.5

95.1

90.8

 

Table II

 

The figures supplied by the DOH clearly reveal, once more, that in the 3 years preceding the publication of Wakefield's report in The Lancet, a smaller percentage of children received the MMR vaccine than any other vaccine offered and that, while the percentage of children receiving other vaccines remained the same or increased, the percentage of those receiving MMR decreased every year.

[Source: 1. “NHS Immunisation Statistics , England : 1997-98” at http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/sb0121.pdf

2. “Immunisation against Infectious Disease 1996. The Green Book” at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthprotection/Immunisation/Greenbook/DH_4097254

 

 

The whole truth statement is therefore “Years of low uptake that started before Andrew Wakefield published his research in 1998 and the unavailability of the monovalent vaccines mean large numbers of unprotected children are now entering school.”

 

***

 

Unless this is rectified urgently, and children are immunised, there will be further outbreaks and more unnecessary deaths.

 

The whole truth statement is obviously: “It is evident that the DOH has not been able to convince parents that the MMR is safe in EIGHT YEARS. There is no reason to believe that the parents' attitude will miraculously change. Unless the situation is rectified urgently by making the monovalent measles vaccine available, there will be further disease outbreaks.”

 

Mentioning “unnecessary deaths” is another truth/non-truth.

 

Only one death from measles has been reported recently and the details of the case have been carefully kept secret. Such secrecy can only mean that revealing all the facts will damage the case the DOH is trying to make. Using the argument of confidentiality is ludicrous.

 

The nothing-but-the truth statement would be: “The sad and unfortunate death from measles that occurred recently was unavoidable because the young patient was not able to receive his measles vaccination.”

 

***

 

It has been suggested that allowing parents to choose single vaccines would have averted this situation.

 

This statement is true and correct. Allowing British parents to choose the single vaccines would have CERTAINLY averted the situation.

 

***

The reasons why this would not be an effective solution have been well rehearsed.

 

This enigmatic statement probably refers to the Department of the Health five hollow arguments frequently repeated to the media in defense of its arbitrary policy:

 

  • Offering single dose vaccines with the inevitable gap in between products would leave children exposed to catching either or both of the other diseases
  • Parents might not return to complete the course
  • No other country in the world that offers MMR vaccine recommends the single dose components
  • There is no scientific evidence to show that given alone the measles vaccine would be any safer than the MMR vaccine
  • There is no “proof” that it is safer to offer measles, mumps and rubella vaccines a year apart.

 

 

Obviously the whole truth is in fact that

 

    1. It is better to vaccinate even after a while than not at all
    2. British parents have indeed crossed the English Channel three times to make sure their children were protected against measles, mumps and rubella
    3. No other Country but the U.K. has outlawed the monovalent vaccines
    4. The sudden rise in regressive autism in areas of London followed the introduction of the MMR vaccine (1988) and not the single measles or rubella vaccines
    5. Experience in the United States has shown that regressive autism also increased suddenly after the large scale use of the MMR vaccine (Mid 1970's) and not before when the single vaccines were given three months apart. (See following Graph by The Autism Research Institute)

 

 

***

 

In spite of having carefully considered this option, no country offers them as an alternative to the MMR vaccine.

 

United States

 

Although the health authorities in the United States do not “offer” the single vaccines as an alternative to the MMR vaccine, Attenuvax, Mumpsvax and Rubeovax are readily available to all American children and easily obtained directly from Merck and Co, through any pharmacy or via the Internet,

 

The direct line at Merck and Co is 1 800 637 2579.

As of June 29, 2006 , unlimited quantities of all 3 monovalent vaccines were available in boxes of ten doses plus separate diluent.

 

Cost: Attenuvax (Measles) $150.71/ Box

Mumpsvax (Mumps) $197.01/ Box

Meruvax II (Rubella) $ 168.67/ Box

 

Orders are shipped within 48 hours on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

 

Attenuvax® by Merck can also be purchased from MedicalProduct Sales .com at http://tinyurl.com/qsrj5 . The product reference number is 458900.

 

______________

 

Canada (2005) http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/tmp-pmv/info/measles_e.html

 

“Measles vaccine contains live attenuated measles virus. It is available alone or in combination with live rubella vaccine (MR) or with mumps and rubella vaccines (MMR).

Canada has a high standard of childhood immunization programs, and measles vaccination is included in our national childhood immunization schedule. Routine immunization includes two doses, the first dose given usually to infants after their first birthday. The second dose should be given at least one month after the first dose and before school entry…Measles or MMR vaccine may be given to adults if they were not immunized as children.

Two doses of measles vaccine are recommended for all unimmunized travellers over one year of age who were born after 1970 and who are en route to an area where measles occurs (i.e., is endemic), unless there is serologic proof of immunity or physician documentation of prior measles.”

______________

 

WHO (2006) http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/print.html

“In many countries where the public health burden of rubella and/or mumps is considered to be important, measles vaccine is often incorporated with rubella and/or mumps vaccine as a combined, live, attenuated (weakened) Measles-Rubella (M-R) or Measles-Mumps-Rubella (M-M-R) vaccine. M-R vaccine is about three times more expensive and M-M-R is about seven times the price of monovalent measles vaccine. Measles vaccine is equally effective whether in the monovalent or in the combined form.”

“Launched in 2001, the Measles Initiative, is a partnership formed to sustainably reduce and control measles deaths. The Initiative is spearheaded by the American Red Cross, the United Nations Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, WHO and UNICEF. Each partner has a clearly defined role. WHO and UNICEF play a leading role in strategy development, consensus building and programme monitoring. WHO provides technical leadership and strategic planning for the management, coordination, and monitoring of global measles control activities and is responsible for ensuring that all components of the WHO/UNICEF Strategy are technically sound and successfully implemented. UNICEF procures and delivers the measles vaccine and injection equipment to countries and assists with advocacy and community mobilization. Other key partners include the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI Alliance), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Japanese International Agency for Cooperation (JICA), the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).”

_____________

UNICEF http://www.unicef.org/immunization/23245_measles.html

“There are two types of measles vaccines.   Measles vaccines can be given as a single antigen dose or in combination with rubella (MR) or rubella and mumps (MMR). All vaccines are effective and safe.”

In an interview, Edward Hoekstra, MD, Senior Health Advisor, UNICEF Health Section stated: “ Of the children that die from vaccine-preventable diseases, 45 per cent die from measles. It is unacceptable that over 770,000 children die every year from a fully preventable disease. All these deaths can be prevented with an injection of the measles vaccine. The vaccine is highly effective and safe…UNICEF has worked out a strategy with the World Health Organization (WHO). The plan is to increase routine measles vaccination coverage and conduct supplemental campaigns that give a second opportunity for immunizing children. Failure to immunize children against measles at least once is the primary reason for the high number of cases in problem countries. In contrast, we have seen major progress in countries that have offered a second opportunity for measles immunization. The second dose allows us to immunize children we may have missed the first time and it enables us to administer a second dose to other children, thereby guaranteeing that they will be immune to the disease. We have found that, of the 210 countries worldwide, there are much higher death rates in the 52 that give only one opportunity to get the measles vaccine.” http://www.unicef.org/immunization/23244.html

______________

The American Red Cross ( April 4, 2006 ) https://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_283_5255,00.html

“Measles is the leading vaccine-preventable disease worldwide, killing an estimated 470,000 children each year. In Bangladesh , approximately 20,000 children die annually from measles-related illnesses, but the disease can be easily prevented with a simple vaccination that costs less than one dollar per child.

From February 25 through March 16, the Measles Initiative partners, the American Red Cross, UN Foundation, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), UNICEF and World Health Organization (WHO), supported the Bangladesh government in vaccinating more than 33.5 million children between nine months and 10 years old. The Bangladesh campaign is the largest measles mass vaccination of its kind in history. The scope of the campaign is like vaccinating the entire population of California in just three weeks.

In order to accomplish this feat, the Bangladesh Ministry of Health recruited more than 800,000 volunteers and promoted the campaign via radio, television, print and door-to-door canvassing…

This campaign is a joint effort by the Government of Bangladesh and the Measles Initiative partners. Over the last five years the Measles Initiative partners have supported 41 countries in vaccinating more than 200 million children, saving 1.2 million lives. Following the success of campaigns initially held in Africa, the Measles Initiative partners have expanded the program into Asia this year.

Bangladesh is among the first Asian countries to engage in a mass vaccination campaign. Currently 30 per cent of children in Bangladesh miss routine vaccinations, creating a cycle of infection, illness and death.”

***

The whole truth therefore is that ONLY the United Kingdom has banned monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines –

 

ONLY THE UNITED KINGDOM

 

By banning the single vaccines, the U.K. medical authorities attempted to force parents into accepting the MMR vaccine. Seven years and several million pounds later, they have not succeeded.

 

The only thing they succeeded in doing was to force many parents to purchase the monovalent vaccines at a much higher price.

Price List

Measles

Mumps

Rubella

 

 

 

£170

 

 

£120

 

 

£70

 

£235

 

£200

 

£180

£260

 

 

While the available mumps and rubella vaccines are similar to the U.S. Mumpsvax and Meruvax II, the measles vaccine available from French sources appears to be the Schwartz strain Rouvax (Lirugen) vaccine.

http://www.e-med.co.uk/separate_MMR_vaccinations.html

 

It is worth repeating that any licensed U.S. physician can purchase single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines today for $15.00 to $20.00 per dose and that the U.K. DOH will certainly be offered a substantial discount for buying in bulk.

 

***

 

It comes as no surprise that Brent Taylor, Professor of Community Child Health, University College London also signed Elliman's letter.

 

Taylor has consistently refused to make the data from his published MMR studies available despite   repeated requests from Chairman Burton of the Committee on Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, Bernard Rimland PhD, Founder of the Autism Society of America and Founder/President of the Autism Research Institute and Jane Orient, MD, FACP, Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons.

 

On February 9, 2004 , U.S. representative Dave Weldon, MD, testifying in front of a special committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) stated: “…I am repeatedly informed by researchers who encounter apathy from government officials charged with investigating these matters, difficulty in getting their papers published, and the loss of research grants. Some report overt discouragement, intimidation and threats, and have abandoned this field of research. Some have had their clinical privileges revoked and others have been hounded out of their institutions.

 

An example of the latter is Dr. Andy Wakefield who has described to me how the intellectual climate at the Royal Free in London became intolerable for him and he was forced to depart. Virtually all of his ongoing research now has to be privately funded, while those seeking to disprove him receive government money. I witnessed some of this

first hand at a hearing, when a Dr. Brent Taylor made repeated inappropriate comments about Wakefield and his work causing me to seriously question Dr. Taylor's integrity and motives.” [ http://tinyurl.com/gfn7c]

 

How Brent Taylor who said in 2002 that ''If you ask people who look after children with autism, they will tell you these children have bizarre eating habits'' became an expert on autism is another story. [ http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynews/june2002/mmrwhotobelieve16.htm ]

 

In any case, one MUST question Taylor's motives and the appropriateness of his name on Elliman's anti-Wakefield letter just a few days before he is quoted in the June 29, 2006 Pulse as saying 'This is computer incompetence. We don't know if children have had their vaccinations. It's back to the days of the abacus.' [ http://www.pulse-i.co.uk/articles/fulldetails.asp?aid=9944 ]

The Pulse article, titled “ Vaccine uptake plunges in IT chaos”, goes on “ Shocking failures in a new Connecting for Health system for tracking child immunisation have caused uptake rates to plummet … Uptake in trusts using the new Child Health Interim Applications has plunged by up to 19 per cent for the five-in-one vaccine and 10 per cent for MMR, the agency revealed…The HPA said falls in uptake had occurred in 10 PCTs in London, because of failures to generate vaccine invitations and flag up unvaccinated children, with trusts in the east of England similarly affected…a GP in Tower Hamlets in east London, in one of the affected trusts, said: 'It's a nightmare. Targets are not being met because of the sorry state of the system.'…”

Pulse discussed an equally serious situation in an article titled “ MPs prepare for vaccine pay fight” on December 3, 2005 . “Influential MPs have pledged to take the Government to task over controversial changes to GP childhood vaccine pay. Members of the House of Commons health select committee attacked the Government's immunisation campaign for being in 'chaos' and said they would be 'massively concerned' if GPs opted out…”

Committee member Mike Penning stated 'I also understand why GPs are going to [opt out]. This is not a charity ­ they have to run a business and at the same time provide the best possible cover. It seems to me the Government's immunisation programme is in chaos .'

Fellow committee member Paul Burstow, Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton and Cheam, said he hoped the matter would be raised when the committee next took evidence from the Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt. ‘If the change in the payment system results in a fall in vaccination levels - that would be a serious cause for concern.'

On November 24, 2005 , the Nursing Times Online News had published a similar report titled “Some GPs considering dropping vaccination service.”

“More than one in seven British general practitioners (GPs) is considering stopping providing childhood vaccinations because new government plans mean they won't be paid as much for the service.
GPs used to be paid according to average uptake of four vaccines - measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP), polio and Hib. If they vaccinated an average of 90% of eligible children, they received around 8,500 pounds for an average practice. Those practices that vaccinated between 70 and 90% of children were paid a lower amount of around 2,800 pounds for an average practice.
But in April the Government changed the rules so just two vaccinations were counted - MMR and the new 5-in-one Pediacel vaccine.
This has led to a drop from around 90 to 25% in the proportion of GPs hitting the higher target…”

Fears, concerns and predictions in late 2005 have recently became a painful reality.

Under the title “ GPs opting out of childhood jabs” , BBC News announced on June 16, 2006 that “ Children in the most deprived areas of the country are being put at risk because GPs are not providing vaccinations, figures suggest. One in eight practices in deprived areas are not giving immunisations, because they cannot hit government targets, the Liberal Democrats said.

Poor uptake in these areas could lead to major disease outbreak, they warned…

The Department of Health said that if GPs opted out, primary care trusts were responsible for providing vaccination…

An investigation of NHS data by Lib Dem MP Steve Webb has shown that, although 94% of practices are still providing immunisation services, those that have opted out are concentrated in deprived areas.

Overall, in the 61 most deprived PCTs, 12.5% of practices have chosen not to carry out childhood immunisations compared with 0.2% in the 61 least deprived PCTs.

It is believed that practices are choosing to opt out because they have little chance of hitting the higher payment target…

Recently published figures show that measles outbreaks are on the rise in areas where uptake of MMR is lower - with 449 cases so far this year compared with 77 cases last year.” [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5086262.stm ]

So the whole truth is that it is the system that is to blame and NOT Andrew Wakefield, regardless of what Elliman, Taylor and their chorus say or write.

The measles outbreaks are on the rise where practices are opting out and causing low MMR uptake.

***

Parting Questions

Why did Dr. Elliman compromise a respectable institution such as The Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children by issuing his letter?

Why did the British press believe the Elliman letter when very little work could have exposed the real facts?

 

Conclusions

 

  • The information distributed in a letter signed by David Elliman and others was intended to blame Andrew Wakefield for creating problems that he never caused.
  • The whole truth and nothing but the truth has been discussed in this review
  • It is time the U.K. Department of Health stop playing Russian Roulette with the lives of innocent children
  • Monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines should be made available through the DOH and the National Health Service
  • Maybe then, children in the U.K. will be better protected
  • The harm that was caused by the ill-advised decisions of the DOH is enormous.
  • It is time that sanity prevails.

 

F. Edward Yazbak , MD , FAAP, TL Autism Research, Falmouth , Massachusetts

July 1, 2006

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter was released 30 June 2006 by concerned doctors in response to the open letter of the 26th June 2006 (see below)

 

An open letter

 

It is perplexing to us why, in the face of replication by US scientists of the earlier detection of measles virus in the diseased intestine of UK children with regressive autism, Elliman and colleagues should want to ‘ draw a line' under this clearly unresolved issue'. This flies directly in the face of scientific logic and professional responsibility.

 

The vaccine-strain gene sequences obtained from the diseased intestine of some of these US autistic children is deeply worrying and runs counter to the prevailing belief that the vaccine virus should be cleared from the body in a matter of weeks. Further research will determine whether or not this association is causal. In this context, it is relevant that we have recently published the finding that intestinal inflammation is significantly worse in autistic children who received 2 doses of MMR compared with those who received only one i.e. a possible re-challenge effect.

 

A recent letter from Judith Moreton of the Department of Health to the mother of an affected child, forced to come to the US for appropriate clinical care, confirmed that the department were aware of Dr Walker's work but indicated that it was not evident from the published summary of the work whether the children had received MMR. Any official, genuinely concerned with the issue of vaccine safety would have either attended the poster presentation in the first place – thereby clarifying this issue - or have Dr Walker put on the next plane to London in order to find out.

It is also pertinent to add that Dr Walker's statement regarding causality was intended to indicate that whilst an association between the factors of interest had been confirmed in his study (i.e. vaccine-strain gene sequences in diseased tissues), this does not currently confirm that the association is causal. Careful rephrasing of Dr Walker's statement may read as though he denied the possibility of any association at all. He did not.

 

The authors state that no other country offers the single vaccine as an alternative. On the contrary, single measles vaccine is available in many countries including the US . If the desire is genuinely to protect UK children against measles, then re-introduction of single vaccines as an alternative to MMR should be a government priority.

 

Every aspect of the original 1998 report of the first 12 children with this disorder has been endorsed by independent research. Initial criticisms of our work reporting a temporal link between MMR exposure and autistic regression included the fact that ‘ no one has been able to find the virus in these children's tissues '. This finding was duly reported in 2002. The government's fallback position was that ‘ no one else has been able to find it '. Now that they have, the fallback appears to be ‘ stop looking '.

 

No.

 

 

Dr Andrew J Wakefield

Executive Director, Thoughtful House Center for Children,

Austin , Texas

 

Dr Carol Stott Ph.D (Cantab).

Chartered Psychologist, Senior Research Associate, Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin , Texas

 

Dr Peter Fletcher MB BS PhD

Former Medical Assessor to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines

 

Dr Peter Harvey

Consultant Neurologist

 

Dr Richard Halvorsen

GP

 

F. Edward Yazbak , MD , FAAP,

TL Autism Research, Falmouth , Massachusetts  

 

Jane Maroney El-Dahr M.D.

Pediatric Immunology

New Orleans , Louisiana

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This letter was released to the press on 26 June 2006  by 28 child health doctors:    

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Great Ormand Street

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Hospital for Children

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   NHS Trust

 

7 th Floor, Old Building

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children

Great Ormond Street

London , WC1 3JH

020 7405 9200 ext. 5137

Ellimd@gosh.nhs.uk

 

 

June 2006

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

The time has come to draw a line under the question of any association between MMR vaccine and autism. The UK 's children are in danger of serious illness or death if they are left unimmunised. The number of confirmed cases of measles has increased dramatically this year and, o nly a few months ago, we had the first death from measles since 1992.

 

A large body of scientific evidence shows no link between the vaccine and autism or bowel disease. Confidence in the safety of MMR had been returning and its uptake slowly increasing, so it would be tragic if it is once again shaken by ill-informed reporting of inadequate, preliminary research and supposition.

 

An example of this is recent media reporting of research from America . The principal researcher made it clear that their findings of measles virus in the gut of the children with autism did not prove a link with the MMR vaccine. However, little media coverage was given to this statement and none to another piece of research showing how difficult it is to accurately test for the measles virus.

 

We are now faced with a potentially serious situation. Years of low uptake mean large numbers of unprotected children are now entering school. Unless this is rectified urgently, and children are immunised, there will be further outbreaks and more unnecessary deaths. It has been suggested that allowing parents to choose single vaccines would have averted this situation. The reasons why this would not be an effective solution have been well rehearsed. In spite of having carefully considered this option, no country offers them as an alternative to the MMR vaccine.

 

It is not too late to avert this predictable tragedy. It is time that due weight is given to the overwhelming body of scientific evidence in favour of the vaccine. Misguided concepts of ‘balance' have confused and dangerously misled parents. We all, media, politicians and health professionals, have a responsibility to protect the health of our children.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Dr David Elliman

Consultant in Community Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital , London

 

Dr Helen Bedford

Senior Lecturer in Children's Health, Institute of Child Health, London

 

Dr Patricia Hamilton

President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London

 

Dr Mario Abinun

Consultant Paediatric Immunologist, Newcastle upon Tyne

 

Professor Andrew J Cant

Consultant in Paediatric Immunology & Infectious Diseases, Newcastle upon Tyne

 

Dr Julia Chisholm

Consultant Paediatric Oncologist, Great Ormond Street Hospital , London

 

Dr Natasha Crowcroft

Health Protection Agency, London

 

Dr E Graham Davies

Consultant Paediatric Immunologist, Great Ormond Street Hospital , London

 

Professor Carol Dezateux

Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology, MRC Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, Institute of Child Health

 

Professor Adam Finn

Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol

 

Dr Annabel Foot

Consultant Paediatric Oncologist, Bristol Children's Hospital

 

Professor David Goldblatt

Professor of Vaccinology and Immunology, Great Ormond Street Hospital , London

 

Professor Sir David Hall

Emeritus Professor of Community Paediatrics, University of Sheffield

 

Dr Anthony Harnden

University Lecturer and Principal in General Practice, University of Oxford

 

Dr Paul Heath

Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant, Paediatric Infectious Diseases, St Georges Hospital , University of London .

 

Dr Nik Johnson

Consultant Paediatrician, Hinchingbrooke Hospital

 

Dr Sally E Kinsey, Consultant Paediatric Haematologist, St James's University Hospital

Leeds

 

Professor Simon Kroll

Professor of Paediatrics, Imperial College , London

 

Professor Stuart Logan

Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology, Peninsula Medical School , Exeter

 

Professor Neil McIntosh

Professor of Child Life and Health, Edinburgh

 

Professor Richard Moxon

Action Research Professor, University of Oxford

 

Professor Angus Nicoll CBE

Health Protection Agency, London

 

Dr Vas Novelli

Consultant and Lead Clinician in Paediatric Infectious Diseases,
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children

 

Dr Andrew Pollard

University Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Paediatrician, Oxford Vaccine Group, University of Oxford

 

Dr Mary Ramsay

Health Protection Agency, London

 

Dr Martin Richardson

Consultant Paediatrician, Peterborough District Hospital

 

Dr Roderick Skinner

Consultant in Paediatric Oncology and BMT, Newcastle upon Tyne

 

Professor Brent Taylor

Professor of Community Child Health, University College London















JABS is funded only by donation from well-wishers and those that find JABS helpful. Please help if you can by clicking here.

and.