Establishment betrayed its agenda with MMR vaccine

[Guest guest]

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/comment/Establishment-betrayed-its-agenda-with.6029531.jp

Establishment betrayed its agenda with MMR vaccine

Published Date: 31 January 2010

LAST week's condemnation of Dr Wakefield, the physician whose

research suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children,

by the General Medical Council was the climax of 12 years of medical

controversy. A GMC panel that investigated his case denounced Wakefield

as having brought the medical profession " into

disrepute " .

In fact, the controversy over MMR was about a lot more than

Wakefield, the triple vaccine or autism. It was a battle in a wider war;

and when it is put in the context of that broader conflict it assumes a

larger significance. The original paper, published in 1998 by 13 doctors

in the Lancet, did not claim in downright terms a link between MMR and

autism. Nor were Wakefield and his associates entirely alone in their

unease: an EU-funded meta review conducted in 2004 concluded that a

connection between MMR and autism was " unlikely " , but conceded:

" The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies…

are largely inadequate. "

Despite establishment bluster, there was no certainty that the alarm was

unfounded. A decade earlier, in 1988, despite American and Canadian

concern that a form of MMR vaccine containing the Urabe mumps strain

caused meningitis, the NHS introduced mass vaccinations. Only in the

early 1990s, when these fears were realised, did it discontinue the

vaccine and replace it with one containing the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain

instead.

There was understandable alarm among parents after the publication of the

Lancet paper. That is when the reaction kicked in from the establishment.

The increasingly totalitarian mentality of the politico-medical consensus

has seldom been better demonstrated. A de haute en bas attitude of

patronising and bullying parents into conforming to the statist

prescription of a triple vaccine was the knee-jerk response of people who

would not brook contradiction. The obvious response should have been to

offer separate vaccines on the NHS for a limited period, while further

investigations were carried out into MMR.

That would have cost money; but when was the NHS reticent about spending

taxpayers' cash – on pen-pushers and fallible IT systems, if not on

clinical priorities? For middle-class parents the option was available of

resorting to private clinics where single vaccinations were available, at

costs approximately ranging from £250 to £380 for the first course,

administered at 13 months. For less well-off families – the sector of

society that the NHS was designed to help – they were prohibitively

expensive.

That is where the establishment betrayed its agenda. It was determined to

enforce its will on its client state – the vast dependency culture that

Labour has retained in helotry through tax credits, a runaway welfare

system and a culture of womb-to-tomb governmental control. MMR was a

virility symbol. The State said: " We will pump what we like into

your children and you will thank us for it. " When parents said:

" Thanks, but no thanks " , the statist consensus turned nasty.

The climactic example came eight months ago when Sir Sandy Macara, former

chairman of the British Medical Association, put down a motion at the

BMA's 2009 conference that MMR vaccination should be compulsory for all

children attending state schools. Note the precision targeting:

independent school pupils, whose parents could afford single vaccinations

in any case, would not have been affected.

Macara admitted: " Our attempts to persuade people have failed. "

Yes; and why did they fail? Because the whole politico-scientific

consensus – as exemplified in the man-made global warming scam – no

longer commands public confidence.

If the precautionary principle justifies the West spending $50 trillion

to counter climate change, why did it not justify spending a few million

pounds to provide single vaccines on the NHS? It was the precautionary

principle that induced the government to spend a sum that will finally

exceed £1 billion on swine flu precautions, including £155m on vaccine,

of which it now holds 60 million surplus doses. Read carefully, I will

write this only once: the government should not be condemned. In an

uncertain situation involving matters of life and death it took a

responsible decision to protect its citizens. Any lesser response would

not have been tolerated.

If it had brought the same sense of responsibility to the MMR scare and

provided single vaccinations, the problem would have been resolved.

Measles cases have increased, though not to so disastrous an extent as

doom-mongers would have us believe. The blame does not attach to

Wakefield, but to a stubborn and arrogant state nomenklatura that refused

to respond to public concern.

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start January 27 & 28

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccineclass.htm or

http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm