Recently the world has been told about the six ‘little women‘ with big voices, these ladies were dubbed the ‘little women’ by the FDA because they dared to take their concerns regarding the Gardasil vaccine and confront the FDA with them, in the form of a powerpoint presentation. For more about these outstanding women please read their amazing story which I highlighted in March on the American Chronicle. HPV wonder vaccines now under intense scrutiny by the FDA … Sadly for the FDA this rather derogatory term has now made their story a known worldwide.
I am now going to add another totally amazing and outstanding women to those six and make it seven, her name is Rosemary Fox MBE. Little is known outside the UK about Rosemary Fox and her fight with the UK Government to get compensation for vaccine damaged children but times are changing and the truth about what really goes on behind closed doors is being exposed.
I will begin by giving a brief synopsis of the Rosemary Fox story from her own book.
Taken from the first page of Rosemary Fox’s amazing book Helen’s Story: Amazon.co.uk: Rosemary Fox: Books
“In September 1962, Rosemary Fox took her eight-,month-old daughter Helen to the doctor’s to be vaccinated against polio, blissfully unaware that she was condemning her happy, healthy baby to a life of sickness and convulsions. In 1973, when Helen was assessed as having the mental age of just three, Rosemary began a campaign for compensation for vaccine damaged children. It would take 27 years.
Back in 1973, the British Governments view was that the severe damage caused to some children by smallpox, polio, or measles vaccinations was a small price from freedom of disease, and those cases received little publicity. Rosemary and 600 families with whom she formed The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children were condemned for causing the public to question the safety of vaccination.”
To read any more I suggest that interested parties buy her book.
Thirty seven years on and not a lot has changed in regards to the distorted thinking of Governments worldwide but Rosemary did change the laws around compensation for vaccine injured children, her fight although far from easy was certainly not fruitless.
Letters bounced to and fro from Rosemary’s organisation for years and the content was at times heated but what went on internally was little more than criminal. Sadly I cannot publish these documents because copyright would be impossible to get but I can publish small sections and refer the public to the address and website of where these can be obtained.
I was introduced to Mrs Fox by Prof Gordon Stewart and pointed in the direction of where information had been recently released to the public, by an interested party. I have since had conversations with Mrs Fox and she was kind enough to tell me about her story.
I will begin my interpretation of what went on, with a few quotes from a letter written by Mr R P Pole to a Mr Foster on 26th July 1976.
The letter can be obtained in full from the National Archives in Kew Gardens, Richmond, Surrey, England UK website The National Archives
Mr Pole was a member of the JCVI and represented the Department of Health
The letter was headed – Mrs Fox’s claim to the European Commission on Human Rights
In his letter Mr Pole was discussing a meeting he was about to attend between Department of Health lawyers, the Foreign Office lawyer, and Parliamentary Council.
In Point 3 he says
“Can we produce an example of a consent form actually in use, Do different authorities have different ways of getting consent?”
Interesting phrasing don’t you agree, especially as he worked for the Department of Health and represented them in meetings of the JCVI, please refer to Gi/TO NOT POR PUBLICATION CHSC(VI)(1977) THIRD MEETING CENTRAL … for an example of his activity already on the internet? It appears from his comment that Mr Pole had no clue as to whether consent forms even existed, let alone how they may be implemented.
However, for me, the real gem in his letter was contained within point 5.
“To what extent do we dispute what Mrs Fox claims? We should consider her case sentence by sentence.”
Well, that would certainly be a good place to start, don’t you agree? The icing on the cake however, was what he wrote next.
“Do we admit any part of her claim?”
This for me highlights the real truth of the behaviour, lies and sheer arrogance of what goes on behind closed doors. This is what parents of vaccine injured children are really fighting.
So what did. Rosemary Fox claim? In effect Mrs Fox’s report to the government was a fair and well executed document. It was balanced and well written and showed she understood what she believed to be the benefits of vaccination.
In a report 13th August 1974 entitled
The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children
An outline of the case for compensation for vaccine damaged children.
“Every year a few children are destroyed by immunisation and vaccination. These are vaccine damaged children – a minority group who suffer brain damage and sometimes death from a procedure which confers a very great benefit on the majority.
The last public statement (DHSS) regarding compensation for these children is that would be neither appropriate or feasible. This report sets out why we, the parents of these children, feel that not only is compensation appropriate but that it is long overdue and that, if the immunisation scheme is to continue on the moral basis , a compensation scheme is now a matter of urgency.
This Association has compiled details of approximately 220 children who were seriously ill following vaccination and who are now brain damaged, physically handicapped, blind, dumb, epileptic, – which disabilities occur in the children either singly or in a combination.
When cases of damage from all vaccines were being compiled, it became obvious that two out of every three cases the ‘triple antigen’ vaccination was involved.”
Later in the report she writes:-
“The DHSS states that brain damage following vaccination can arise in some cases due to an incompatibility between the child and the vaccine, and this risk is now freely admitted.”
She speaks of a booklet that was circulated to all doctors called ‘Immunisation against Infectious Diseases’ and says -
“In the introduction of this booklet, however, it is stated “It should be emphasised that it is always for the individual doctor to decide finally on the type, dosage and timing of the vaccines he uses.”
The investigations of this Association have revealed that there are many instances where this advice booklet is not known or followed and, so far as we can ascertain, little attention is paid to the medical history of each child to ensure that vaccination for each child will be safe. We are aware that until recently many doctors did not know, or could not accept, that whooping cough vaccination could cause brain damage.”
She states very clearly and underlines “Risks have been concealed from parents” she carries on-
“It has been said that until recently there has been a ‘conspiracy of silence’ about the risks in whooping cough vaccination (Hansard 31 st January 1974) and out investigations support this statement.
When whooping cough vaccination was first introduced on a trial basis, it was offered to parents as “effective for the prevention of whooping cough” and the vaccines were said to be “the best which are available” (City of Liverpool in conjunction with the Medical Council -leaflet issued 1953) There was no mention of the risk and no clear indication that this was a trial.”
Does this all remind us of anything? It does me, this reminds me very much of the current Gardasil campaign. Please read HPV wonder vaccines now under intense scrutiny by the FDA … and our six little women.
So basically Rosemary Fox was saying that once again the UK government were advertising a vaccine that was on TRIAL and portraying it as safe and effective. It seems to me that history repeats itself over and over decade after decade.
I personally like the way that Rosemary phrases things in a way that was and still are today. She was strong and decisive.
” We recognise that the decision to carry on any vaccination is a matter for medical experts to decide, but we do question whether national immunity can be purchased at the expense of those few children who have been, or will be, destroyed in the process.”
Exactly, heard immunity cannot be purchased at the expense of children who will die as a result, after all it is not exactly as if they could give their consent now is it?
This report can be found again in full at the The National Archives Ref MH 154 / 1057
Of course by this time the UK Government and the Department of Health were getting slightly hot under the collar to put it very politely. Letters and memos were flying around Parliament like plates at a Greek wedding.
Undeterred however, Mrs Fox’s campaign grew to new levels, as did her determination for justice for vaccine damaged children.
On 9th August 1975 Mrs Fox on finding that she was getting little satisfaction from the UK government, submitted a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights New Scientist – 27 May 1976 – Google Books Result
Her complaint began -
” On behalf of the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, I have collected details of 287 (to date) cases of healthy children who, as a result of vaccination, suffered death almost immediately – 6 cases death later followed prolonged illness – 4 cases last year, or brain damage to such an extent that their lives have been completely destroyed and in many cases are at risk.
In no case was the possibility of such a risk discussed beforehand with parents, or was there any public knowledge of risk. In all cases, parents accepted vaccination in the belief that this was for the protection of their healthy child.”
Once again this complaint can be accessed in full from the The National Archives File MH 154/1057
The complaint by Mrs Fox was a strong and powerful indication that the UK government were letting parents and disabled children down. It proves that if the government admitted a problem, that it could cost millions and jeopardise the future of the vaccine programme which at the time they deemed to be more important than the lives of these children.
This complaint activated a huge hive of activity in Parliament.
On the 9th March 1975 the Under Secretary of State DHSS wrote to a David Knox MP saying:-
” Mrs Fox has sent copies of the report to Mrs Castle, Dr Owen and myself and I wrote to her on 5 th February to say how concerned we were about the line it takes especially the implied intention to attack immunisation programmes in general. I asked Mrs Fox to avoid this because a very large number of children might be affected if their parents were misled into depriving them of the protection which immunisation against various illnesses undoubtedly give to children and counter charges in a public debate.
In his letter he makes it clear that he was of the belief that Mrs Fox’s report made a number of allegations surrounding the of lack of activity/interest regarding a number of public bodies, including his department and he felt that the department was not at fault.
Again this can be found at the The National Archives
Mrs Fox says in the Sunday Mercury – My battle for justice over vaccine June 19th 2006
“Just to get the Government to acknowledge they had a responsibility for them would have been a start. We really wanted them to say there was a danger in some vaccines, take responsibility and do something for these children.
If the Government took this issue of vaccination seriously we wouldn’t have been here, we wouldn’t have been in this situation.
Bottom line was they didn’t know if this was safe. They didn’t know if the three childhood vaccinations – measles, rubella and polio – were safe to use at that time.”
The Sunday Mercury says:-
“MP Jack Ashley brought the debate to Parliament in January 1974, and for the next three years it continued to rage before finally, in 1978, the Government agreed to pay all affected children Â£10,000.”
This was all thanks to a determined mother who was prepared to to do something when she saw injustice and a Government at fault and this is why I feel she should be classed as another ‘Little Woman with a Big Voice’.