Christina England
vactruth.com
06/16/2010

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 26^th 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.

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 13^th August 1974 entitled

The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children

An outline of the case for compensation for vaccine damaged children.

She wrote:-

“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 9^th 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 9^th 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 19^th 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 £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’.

Christina England
vactruth.com
06/01/2010

In 2006, I was lucky enough to to be given permission to interview Professor Gordon T Stewart at his home in Edinburgh and he really opened my eyes to just how devious the Government really is and how information is withheld from the public for many years on the adverse reactions to vaccines. Prof Stewart who was 91 at the time of the interview, wanted the truth to be told, about what really goes on when it comes to the Department of Health agreeing to a vaccine being given to the general public. To back up his evidence he gave me the unique experience of examining with him an array of letters, documents and papers that he had kept over many years, some of which have still never been seen by the public today. He explained exactly what evidence he had, the in depth studies that he had carried out and about his research. He explained about how shocked he had been about the attitudes of the Department of Health, the Joint Committee of Vaccine and Immunization and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, when he presented them with his evidence and how they chose the ignore the facts in favour of mass vaccination. After studying much of his research and many of his letters, I agree after much thought that the public do indeed have a right to know the truth, especially about what really goes on behind closed doors.

Professor Stewart had been speaking out on the adverse reactions to vaccines since 1950′s.

His main work was surrounding the Whooping Cough and DPT vaccine. Over the years he has written letter after letter raising concerns with the Department of Health and the Government. Most of his concerns were ignored but they were discussed at meetings involving the Joint Sub Committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation and evidence can be found to support this.

Professor Gordon Stewart’s views make him unconventional among medical men.

Here is a little of Professor Stewart’s background:

GORDON T. STEWART, M.D Emeritus professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow Consultant physician, NHS (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine), Emeritus Fellow, Inf Dis Soc of America. Former consultant, New York City, US NIH, WHO, UNICEF etc.

MAIN PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO VACCINATIONS are

1951 Infectivity and virulence of tubercle bacilli. Lancet 2; 562

1952 do J Hygiene, Cambridge 50; 37.

1962 Organisation of Clinical Trials Lancet 1, 1394

1968 Limitations of the germ theory Lancet 1; 1077

1969 Determinants of sickness in US Marine recruits Amer J Epid 89;254

1969 Resistance factors in the control of tuberculosis J Inf Dis 120; 389

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough Brit med J 1; 93.

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough ibid 1; 583

1976 (with WR Bassili) Whooping cough: epidemiological evaluation of immunisation and other factors in the control of infection. Lancet 1; 474.

1977 Vaccination against whooping cough: efficacy versus risks. Lancet 1; 234.

1977 Whooping cough vaccination. Lancet 1; 804

1978 Whooping cough vaccination Brit med J 2; 768

1978 Pertussis vaccine: the United Kingdom’s experience: Invited position paper at the NIH Symposium on Pertussis at Bethesda, Md.,1978. US Government Printing Office: 1979.

1979 Toxicity of pertussis vaccine. frequency and probability of adverse reactions. J Epid Comm Health 33; 150

1979 Infection and immunisation Scot med J 24; 47

1979 Deaths of infants after triple vaccine Lancet 2; 353

1979 Whooping cough in Hertfordshire, UK Lancet 2; 473

1979 Whooping cough in Shetland, UK Brit med J;

1980 Vaccination and notification rates for whooping cough Lancet 1; 1299

1980 Pertussis vaccine: benefits and risks. New Eng J Med 302; 634

1981 Whooping cough in relation to other childhood infections. J Epid Comm Hlth 35; 139 1981 Pertussis vaccine and acute neurological illness in children Brit med J 282, 1968 (with John Wilson)

1981 Medicine and the Community. Chapter 3 in “Legal Issues in Medicine” ed MacLean, SMM, Gower Pub Co., Aldershot, UK.

1982 ABC of whooping cough Brit med J. 284; 1263

1983 Whooping cough in the United States and Britain New Eng J Med 308; 464

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine Brit med J 287; 287

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine: Report commissioned by the Chief Scientist, Dept of Health and Social Security (UK) on Risk-benefit of pertussis vaccines in UK, 1964-82 (pp 135).

——————————————————————————————————————

Pretty impressive I am sure that you will agree.

So here is a top M.D and a Emeritus professor of Public Health, who knew exactly what he was talking about and who tried desperately to get the authorities to sit up and take notice of his advice. Sadly however, his advice fell on deaf ears, as all the evidence I am about to expose shows very clearly and the UK Government took no notice of him what so ever, seemingly viewing him as more of an annoyance than a help.

In one of his papers Whooping cough vaccination—Prof Gordon Stewart he said the following about the whooping cough vaccine.

“The contrary view, with which I am identified; is that vaccination has been at best only partially effective in controlling whooping cough and has never been proved to be adequate in protecting infants below one year of age who are in the United Kingdom at least, the only group of children whose health is seriously menaced by whooping cough.

As I view the problem, the marginal advantages of the vaccine in children over one year of age have to be offset against adverse effects of the vaccine itself, which are very common indeed and may be followed occasionally by irreversible brain damage, paralysis and mental deficiency. Because of this danger, or for fear of it, many parents and doctors are reluctant to vaccinate their children.”

Prof Stewart again and again showed his research to the authorities, and it is important to remember that he did not pluck his figures out of thin air nor did he make up evidence, this was something he had studied and researched for many years and he naturally expected that the Government would sit up and take notice, but true to form they did not. Vactruth.com has decided it is high time to expose a couple of Professors Stewart’s letters and show our readers just what does goes on behind the scenes and the type of evidence that our Governments choose to ignore when it comes to using our children as pincushions.

Letter number 1 was written to Mr P Allen the Secretary of the Committee on Safety of Vaccines on the 13^th February 1980.

The letter begins by pointing out that it is very important that all information should be made available to the public about a vaccine. Prof Stewart writes about information regarding the whooping cough vaccine.

“In reply to yours of 11^th 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 that the important matter confronting us is the safety of the vaccine. It is not in the public interest to withhold additional information relating to the safety of a vaccine, which has come to our attention as a result of a collaborative programme and which is highly germane to our report.”

The letter continued a little later to say-

“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 Professors Dudgeon and Miller were in the same vein, although the NCES to which they refer is nowhere near completion”

Then the letter says (and this is worst part)-

“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 to the Ombudsman to blame your department in no uncertain terms.”

I might mention that Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and Professors Dudgeon and Miller were on the the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunization at the time.

Another letter written by Professor Stewart that I came across on my travels, is one written by him to a Dr John Badenoch, who was none other than the Chairman of the JCVI at the time. This letter was written on 15^th May 1981 which was more than a year after the first one. He appears very angry and says:-

Report on Whooping Cough 12.5.81

“The editorial in the BMJ reassures Doctors that pertussis vaccine can safely be given to 600,000 infants and that only two will have serious reactions with permanent disability. This is a dangerous conclusion to draw from your report”

He later says:-

“ The assertion made on pages 179 and 182 that attack rate is significantly affected by rates of vaccine acceptance is statistically untenable and the Department has admitted this in correspondence with me.”

The problem I see with all this, is that many thousands of children suffered permanent disability and death through having the whooping cough vaccine and the Government sat back with their fat cigars and allowed this to happen.

The (4/18/97) The Tainted History of the DPT Vaccine says this about Professor Stewart research

At the moment there is a large push for children to be vaccinated against whooping cough, I would urge parents to read the evidence and weigh up the risks against the benefits and realise that even a vaccinated child can still get whooping cough Whooping cough still infecting millions of vaccinated children …

It is a fact that the Governments do lie and hide facts in a bid to push parents into vaccinating their children as my evidence has shown. Next time you open your newspaper and read about a vaccine and how ‘perfectly safe’ it is, please think twice, it might not be as safe as the Government lead us to believe.

Click here to see both letters.

Bruce Pannier
rferl.org
05/29/2010

The reemergence of an old disease in Tajikistan has led to an outbreak of a “polio war” between Moscow and Dushanbe.

The dispute erupted after news emerged in April that the viral disease, which primarily spreads in areas with poor sanitation and can cause paralysis within hours of contraction, had returned to Tajikistan in a big way.

Two deaths resulting from polio have been confirmed in the Central Asian country, although Russian officials have placed the number as high as 15. Some 104 cases of wild poliovirus have been confirmed, and nearly 440 cases of acute flaccid paralysis, the most common sign of polio, have been recorded.

In Russia, where hundreds of thousands of Tajik migrant workers trek for seasonal work, suspected cases have appeared among young children of Tajik migrant laborers in hospitals in Moscow and thousands of kilometers away in Angarsk, Irkutsk Region. These illnesses have led officials to introduce a number of measures to prevent the disease from spreading.

Tajik children less than six years of age, the most likely group to contract the virus, have been barred from entering the country and testing at border points has begun. In another move that threatens to further damage Tajikistan’s already battered economy, imports of dried fruit were banned by Moscow.

Read the rest of the article.

Scott Friedman
NBCDFW
05/24/2010

She was only 18 years old, but Ainsley Bailey suddenly found herself struggling just to get out of bed.

The Plano teenager said her medical troubles started the day after she received a first dose of Gardasil, the human papillomavirus vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer.

“It got to the point where I couldn’t walk without screaming, the pain in my legs was so bad,” said Bailey.

Ainsley’s mom, Gaynell Bailey, started keeping a daily journal documenting her daughter’s symptoms, including abdominal pain, muscle pain, chest pain and chronic fatigue. There’s no scientific evidence the vaccine caused her symptoms, but the Baileys believe there has to be a connection.

Read the rest of the story.

Christina England vactruth.com 05/20/2010 How a mother is supposed to decide what vaccines are safe, when the governments change their minds so frequently, is anyone’s guess. One minute the government makes it categorically clear that the measles vaccine should never, under any circumstances, be given to a child under the age of nine months, the next minute they are saying the complete opposite and actually advising it. Take this circular that was issued to the government in 1968, entitled Notes on the use and storage of Measles vaccine (live attenuated) for routine vaccines for example.

Click here to see the government document on the measles vaccine.

It clearly states under Section 7 – Routine Vaccination 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. This was the advice from the good old JCVI who at the same time said that the vaccine 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.

However despite this advice, reports are now saying the complete and utter opposite.

I do appreciate times move on and medical advances do as well but something as fundamental as ‘the presence of maternally transmitted antibodies’, does leave me to question this new research.

OK moving swiftly on. In the 1968 report in Section 6 – Reactions it says:-

“Mild febrile reactions and transient rashes may be expected to follow the administration of the vaccine in a substantial proportion of cases. The rise of body temperature which may occur from 5 to 10 days after vaccination – usually about the 8^th day – is due to the multiplication of the attenuated virus. This febrile reaction, when it occurs, seldom lasts more than 24 to 48 hours. The Committee on Safety of Drugs has agreed that severe and unusual reactions to measles vaccine should be reported on the yellow card used for reporting adverse reactions to drugs. The Committee does not however, wish to receive reports of mild febrile reactions and rashes associated with the use of this vaccine.”

I bet it doesn’t as this may clog up the system. So what this actually says is, a mother lets her perfectly healthy baby have a vaccine that will give the baby a mild dose of measles ,while risking her child’s health with other adverse reactions to save her child from ultimately catching measles. Totally bizarre thinking if you ask me.

What this also proves is that the UK government as far back 1968 knew that the measles vaccine gave children adverse reactions, in fact, after reading the papers it is very clear that they seem quite happy to be offering babies a vaccine that they admit in a substantial proportion of cases gives them high fevers and rashes. Well I guess you could say it is all in a days work to them and on this score nothing has actually changed. Currently the measles vaccine is not being given as a single vaccine and is being given instead as part of the MMR. This now means that your baby can expect to enjoy a  few more side effects than he/she would have had from the single measles vaccine.

• MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) Vaccines: Adverse Reactions …

“How safe is the MMR vaccine?

“The drug company that makes the MMR vaccine publishes an extensive list of warnings, contraindications, and adverse reactions associated with this triple shot. These may be found in the vaccine package insert available from any doctor giving MMR, and in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) at the library.(8,9) The following afflictions affecting nearly every body system — blood, lymphatic, digestive, cardiovascular, immune, nervous, respiratory, and sensory — have been reported following receipt of the MMR shot: encephalitis, encephalopathy, neurological disorders, seizure disorders, convulsions, learning disabilities, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), demyelination of the nerve sheaths, Guillain-Barre’ syndrome (paralysis), muscle incoordination, deafness, panniculitis, vasculitis, optic neuritis (including partial or total blindness), retinitis, otitis media, bronchial spasms, fever, headache, joint pain, arthritis (acute and chronic), transverse myelitis, thrombocytopenia (blood clotting disorders and spontaneous bleeding), anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions), lymphadenopathy, leukocytosis, pneumonitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, pancreatitis, parotitis, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, meningitis, diabetes, autism, immune system disorders, and death (Figure 49).(10,11)”

The most interesting fact given in the 1968 circular and something that needs a great deal of thinking about today is in Section 8 – Relation to other immunising procedures where it offers the following advice:-

“An interval of three to four weeks should normally be allowed to elapse between the administration of measles vaccine and any other vaccine, whichever is given first.”

My question is, if this is so, then why the hell did they dream up putting the measles vaccine into a multi vaccine just a few years later? It is obvious to me that their very clear advice seems to have gone completely out the window, as nowadays, not only is the measles vaccine part of a multi vaccine but now they are saying it is safe to give children many vaccines in one day. In fact Paul Offit is actively giving the advice to parents that multiple vaccines are quite safe saying that even as many as 100,000 are perfectly safe. I wonder how he would feel offering to be the pin cushion he wants our children to be.

Dr Offit

“Paul Offit, M.D., chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Henle Professor of Immunologic and Infectious Diseases at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, is the Chief US spokesman/liar for vaccination. The Voice of Sauron. On the board of Every Child By Two. Believes children can safely take 100,000 vaccines!”

Mind you in saying this according to some he does share the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine Rotateq, that looks to have made him millions. Honestly what some people will do to get rich is beyond me.