Vaccination – An Open Letter to the Privy Council

By Mary W Maxwell

A year and a half ago, I don’t know what possessed me, I decided to go to the top of the heap in UK with a complaint about the court handling of the vax issue. At the moment there is no point going to the US Supreme Court.

Except for Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the Wyeth case, the American judiciary has disgraced itself by supporting the unconstitutional legislation that prevents a citizen suing the vaccine manufacturers when their child is vaccine-injured.

(The majority opinion, penned by old man Scalia, said “Plaintiffs’ design defect claims [are] expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act.”) Herewith my letter to the Privy Council.

From Mary W Maxwell, Marblehead MA, USA,   October 19, 2013

To the Lords of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s Most Honourable Privy Council,

I respectfully ask for your attention to an urgent, very urgent, matter. The matter arose last month when Mrs Justice Theis of the Family Division of the High Court ruled, surprisingly, that two sisters, age 11 and 15, must be given the MMR vaccination (measles, mumps, and rubella) against their mother’s wishes. The urgency to which I refer is not based on any danger to those two girls. They are past the age at which MMR has allegedly caused developmental problems. I refer, rather, to the way we seem to be bounding down the slippery slope to a point where law and reasoning simply disappear….

I happened to read Salon.com’s critical report of the Simpsonwood conference, held in the US by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000. … I noted that someone at Simpsonwood said “It’s what Walt wants.” The word “it” there refers to a certain interpretation of the results of research into thimerosal. “Walt” refers to CDC official Walter A Orenstein, MD. In other words, it was said that researchers were asked to find that thimerosal does not cause autism.

One would be curious about anyone wanting a finding that such-and-such a substance doesn’t cause autism. What if the substance did cause autism — Should we deduce that someone wants to withhold this knowledge in order that more children would receive the substance and come down with autism?

Lately I have been looking into protests against mandatory vaccination that took place in the 19th and 20th centuries. Courts actually sentenced to prison parents who had already lost a child, if they refused to let the sibling be vaccinated! The protestors, who included many physicians, couldn’t get governments to budge.

What is not widely known is that the original inoculations against smallpox were utter fakes. Writing in 1889, Charles Creighton, MD, exposed Edward Jenner, MD, as a fraud. In 1898, Alfred Russel Wallace, FRS, used a Royal Commission report to show that smallpox vaccines gave no protection, and that the unvaccinated fared better during epidemics than the vaccinated. Still, the Commission managed to find that vaccination should remain mandatory (in the UK).

In 1803 the King of Spain sponsored the Balmis Expedition to inoculate every man, woman, and child in the Spanish colonies of South America and Philippines. Wouldn’t that be an unlikely concern for Spain at a time when the Napoleonic wars were starting? It’s possible the plan had more to do with harming the natives…

In 1998, Drs Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith discovered that a few children with bowel disease, who also had autism, were carrying some measles material in their body. They wrote that up, quite properly, as a “series of cases” in The Lancet. Their article clearly states that they have not proved any causal link between MMR and autism.

Wakefield recommended that doctors use single shots of measles, mumps, and rubella until the combined MMR could be inspected. (The single-shot was subsequently taken off the market by UK authorities!)

Since 1998, it has been constantly said by the media that Wakefield caused “a vaccine scare.” Of course it was the media itself that caused the scare…. The decision to hold a press conference to announce Wakefield’s findings was not a decision made by Wakefield. It was made by the Royal Free Hospital Medical School dean, Professor Ariel Zuckerman.

So if someone should be “blamed” for warning parents about the MMR it should be the dean. But of course blame is not appropriate – telling the public that there is reason to be cautious about something is perfectly OK.

Years later, at a General Medical Council hearing, the dean kept contradicting himself about that press conference, wanting to blame Wakefield for it. On page 98 of his book, Callous Disregard (2010), Wakefield suggests that Zuckerman was pressured to do this by the WHO as well as the UK Department of Health. Here is an excerpt from the hearing:

Coonan (Wakefield’s defense lawyer): The fact is that, knowing what you did from this correspondence (of Wakefield and Walker-Smith) … you did not stop the press conference.

Zuckerman: No, I did not. I should have done but I was assured that this would not arise. So there we are.

Coonan: At the press conference, … at some stage a particular journalist raised the question… of what parents should do in relation to MMR and you directed the journalist to Dr Wakefield for an answer.

Zuckerman: …Yes.

Coonan: After Dr Wakefield gave his answer you explained… the basis of Dr Wakefield’s theory, namely by which the immune system is challenged by the combination of vaccines.

Zuckerman: What I recall happened is as follows. The question was asked. I certainly directed the question to Dr Wakefield for an answer. When he gave his answer, which I did not expect… single measles vaccines were not available in the UK…. I knew that Dr Wakefield had a young family. It therefore was inevitable that they were protected with MMR and the expectation was that he would say “Yes I used the MMR to vaccinate my children”. When he replied in the way that he did, I immediately directed the question to Dr Simon Murch… who rejected that completely and said that he had full confidence in MMR…”

On page 97 of his book Callous Disregard, Andrew Wakefield tells us:

“In fact, the video of the press briefing was played to the GMC. It bore little, if any, resemblance to Zuckerman’s recollection…. Captured on the video was the inevitable question of what parents should do about vaccination…. The truth was that Zuckerman had known for some weeks exactly what my position on MMR was. According to Hutchinson, Zuckerman had called for a press briefing precisely to reflect the differing opinions on MMR, and as she said in her witness statement, “He controlled who spoke and when.” If he had had the concerns that he protested to the GMC, he could have …at the very least, directed the question to someone else who continued to support MMR.”

Probably most doctors today are not aware of all the deceit involved in “the Wakefield affair,” but they will have made a mental note that Wakefield lost his right to practice and so its best to keep one’s head down. I find that when I broach the subject of autism to physicians, as gently as possible, they change the subject in a millisecond. Happily, Professor John Walker-Smith has been fully exonerated by the High Court.  Meanwhile, the number of childhood immunizations keeps going up. The US CDC website, retrieved on July 30, 2013, recommended 24 doses of vaccines by the age of 18 months!

Some US soldiers have tried legal action to stop anti-anthrax shots. In 2008 US District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled:

“[The FDA] considered the relevant data and articulated an explanation establishing a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. The court will not substitute its own judgment when the FDA made no clear error of judgment.”

I believe the Judge could have taken judicial notice of “regulatory capture,” of which every man and his dog is aware, not blessing a  “good-faith decision.”

The new ruling about the 11 and 15-year-old sisters is sad. (Was the case set up to engender feelings of powerlessness? It’s pretty odd that a father would go to court to demand that his daughters be vaccinated.) The courts are being used. These outrages must stop. Law is precious and law has got to have at least something to do with truth and reality.

The courts have the ability and the power to put us back on track.

With thanks for any consideration given to this letter, I am,

Yours sincerely,   Mary Maxwell