By Ellen Bown, Contributing Author from the UK
Professor Salisbury, Director of Immunisation of the Department of Health sent out a letter on the 2nd May 2008 saying that three doses of vaccine need to be given to each individual, the second dose of vaccine should be given between 1-2 months from the first and the last dose should be given 6 months after the second.
However, in his green book he states “There is no clinical data on whether the interval between doses two and three can be reduced below three months.”
Contradicting this information he goes on to say “Where the second dose is given late and there is a high likelihood that the individual will not return for a third dose after three months or if, for practical reasons, it is not possible to schedule a third dose within this time-frame, then a third dose of Cervarix can be given at least one month after the second dose.
I was concerned about this contradiction and put it to him in an email dated 1st March 2011. The reply from the DOH was:
“Separating doses of HPV vaccine over time improves the immune response to the vaccine so that it provides good protection. The recommended vaccine schedule was developed and assessed by medicines regulators based on evidence from clinical trials. Reducing the period of time between the second and third doses of HPV vaccine may lower the immune response generated. However, it is likely to be better than not receiving the third dose at all, hence the advice given in the Green Book. This faster schedule does not raise safety concerns.”
Even though this faster time schedule has never been tested?
The eMC Medicine Guides resource is a leading medicines information website for medicinal professionals, as well as the general public in the UK, written by doctors and pharmacists.1
Under Cervarix their guidance states that “the person prescribing this medicine knows your full medical history”. It goes on to say when the vaccine should not be given and this includes “those who are allergic or sensitive to or have had a reaction to any of the ingredients in the medicine”.
I was concerned about this as none of the leaflets given to parents and children list the ingredients, the school nurse is unlikely to be aware of this and does not have access to a child’s medical history.
I put the following question to Professor Salisbury in my email; “Your green book states under “contradictions” that:
“The vaccine should not be given to those who have had: a confirmed anaphylactic reaction to any components of the vaccine. If the vaccine ingredients are not listed on the leaflets and the administrator does not hold the child’s medical records, as is the case when vaccinations are undertaken at school, how can either the nurse or the parent know that the child should not have this vaccination?”
The reply from the DOH was “The Patient Information Leaflets contained within the packaging of HPV vaccines contain a list of vaccine constituents. It will be for the medical professional providing the vaccine to check, at the time of vaccination, whether the patient has previously had a reaction to the vaccine or constituents based on locally developed protocols.”
The answer is in itself a contradiction because in reply to one of my other questions in the same email correspondence they state “As the administrator does not access the medical records this is not an issue.”
In this case their reply confirms that the school nurse/administrator does not have access to a child’s medical records and therefore cannot know whether they have had a previous reaction to the vaccines ingredients. That’s if the school nurse even bothers to follow protocol.
The eMC medicine guide also says “Cervarix is not suitable for everyone and some people should never use it” & “over time it is possible that Cervarix can become unsuitable for some people” & “Some side effects may be serious”. The vaccine has only ever been tested on healthy individuals.
So in short this vaccine should only be administered by your own GP and even then it is dubious as to whether he is fully aware of all the facts surrounding the drug.
References:
- http://www.datapharm.org.uk/Pages/emc-medicine-guides
The One Click Group, June 2009:
Professor David Salisbury is a publicly paid health official. Instead of looking after the medical best interests of all British citizens, Salisbury has elected to run a threatening campaign of arrogant hostility towards any one and any group that investigates and reports on vaccine damage and informed consent.
Whilst the UK Department of Health and its ‘Basil Fawlty’, (comedian who unsuccessfully attempts to run a little hotel) of the UK government vaccine industry David Salisbury persists in spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on vaccine promotion PR campaigns whilst financially linked to the vaccine manufacturers, his posturing is not only incredible, but also unethical, morally wrong and medically ludicrous.