Great letter on measles, also showing Salisbury lying by silence.
john

"Under normal conditions, healthy children do not die from or become
disabled
from the complications of measles and if they do, questions should be asked
about their management."
http://www.whale.to/a/donegan.html  http://www.whale.to/w/donegan1.html

Before I am overwhelmed by people quoting from the Department of Health
Handbook 'Immunisation against Infectious Diseases' where it states in
paragraph 22.1.5,

"Before 1988 (when the MMR was introduced) more than half the acute measles
deaths occurred in previously healthy children who had not been immunised,"

they should first check the source for this statement - 'Deaths from measles
in England and Wales, 1970-83' (in the bibliography of the Department of
Health handbook it omits '1970-83' from the title), Miller CL BMJ
1985;443-4,(1). The definition of 'healthy' is somewhat less than straight
forward. It is stated in this study that almost half of the people who died
from measles between 1970-83 (270) had a 'pre-existing condition.' "The
'pre-existing conditions'' in the 126 previously abnormal individuals
included:

Cerebral palsy (24), mental retardation (20), Down's syndrome (19), various
congenital abnormalities (22), Immune deficiency or Immunosuppression (9),
Lymphatic leukaemia (19)...."In those with pre- existing conditions most
were grossly physically or mentally abnormal or both." (ref 2)

I think that most people, medically qualified or otherwise, would agree that
there is probably a gradient between these individuals and healthy ones, yet
the rest are quoted by the Department of Health Handbook as being 'healthy.'

Most importantly, the author states:

"no attempt was made to establish vaccination history."

This is pretty amazing really - to go to the bother of trawling through all
that data and not record such a crucial price of information - we are
supposed to be scientists after all.

So we do not know how many of the people who died in the study were
vaccinated or not but we do know that over 70% of cases of measles in
outbreaks may be vaccinated (3). So if measles vaccination is not saving the
lives of 'healthy' children, how can it possibly hope to save the lives of
those with 'pre-existing conditions' as those with poor immunity produce
less antibodies in response to vaccination anyway

To clarify this matter I wrote to Dr David Salisbury, Principle Medical
Officer, Immunisation and Infectious Diseases Group at the Department of
Health and one of the editors of the book (also the person to whom
professional queries were to be directed). I wrote to him in March of 1999.
My questions were:

1) Where was the additional information from 1984-88 obtained (the paper
only covered up to 1983)? and

2) As the paper stated that, 'no attempt was made to establish vaccination
history,' where the information on vaccination status was obtained?

He did not acknowledge or reply to this letter, nor to the two further
letters that I sent to him in June and July 1999. I also left messages with
his secretary on numerous occasions to no avail. In October of 1999 I wrote
to Alan Milburn, then Secretary of State for Health, complaining about the
lack of response from Dr Salisbury and asking Mr Milburn to furnish this
information for me. This letter was not acknowledged or replied to. However,
a letter that I sent to Mr Milburn regarding another matter was acknowledged
by return of post and answered within the usual time (so it was nothing
personal!).

The inability to supply the requested information leads me to give little
weight to this widely quoted statement in the Immunisation against
Infectious Diseases Handbook and also increases some of the serious doubts I
have about some of the other statements made in this and other publications
by the Department of Health.

Then we have to ask how the children with measles who died were managed.

Standard medical advice is to suppress all fevers with Calpol (paracetamol)
or Ibuprofen. This is not very helpful when fever is a useful response to
infection with a virus or bacterium and runs contrary to the body's natural
attempts to throw out toxins and right itself. In addition, Calpol is
metabolised in the liver. The liver is a major component of our immune
system and is generally much better occupied in carrying out its immune
functions during an illness than blocking itself up detoxifying Calpol.

Parents no longer seem to be given common sense advice about how to look
after a child with an infection - put them to bed, open the window, avoid
dairy products, plenty of fluids, don't feed unless hungry and then only
easy to digest food in small amounts and more rest.

We are all told that symptoms are the problem and must be gotten rid of. But
children only get infectious diseases - whether vaccinatable or non
vaccinatable when they need to learn what to do with their immune system or
when they need a 'clean out' - to put it unscientifically - before taking a
developmental leap.

If you look carefully at children after they have been supportively nursed
through an infectious disease, you will always see them do something new,
depending upon their age and circumstances. An infant may produce a tooth; a
toddler who kept banging into things will walk confidently; a six-year old
who is not reading will suddenly start to read. It is rather like a snake
that has to crack off the old skin before it can grow, children go through
these crises before they can move on to the next step. I have often seen
children with endless snot or lots of warts have both of these cleared by a
healthy bout of chicken pox.

Such infectious diseases do not improve the population, in the harsh
Darwinian view of things, by killing off the weak and leaving only the
strong ones to reproduce; they actually give each individual child the
opportunity to strengthen their own individual immune system and make the
best of what they have.

However, we as a society are not set up to allow the timely unfolding of
such events. We teach people to fear all symptoms and expect their immediate
removal. In the UK more than 50% of mothers with children under five work
away from home, so are not there when their children need to be nursed. So
they give them the calpol plus or minus the non-indicated (for viral
infections) antibiotics and/or antihistamines (to dry up that cough) so that
they can send them back to school/ nursery/ childminder so they can get back
to the office where time off to care for sick children is not viewed so
sympathetically as time off to take the car to the garage, not to mention
the intense pressure that parents are put under by schools to have their
children there every day to keep up their attendance figures in order for
the school not to be penalised by the government.

Is it any wonder that so many children with measles end up in hospital - the
last place they should be with their lowered cell mediated immunity, and
that some of them die - and here I am talking about well nourished children
who live in houses and have clean water supplies - not starving children in
developing countries who are suffering from malnutrition, live in
inadequate, poorly ventilated housing and drink sewage - where measles or
infectious diarrhoea is the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

And so I reiterate, under normal conditions, if healthy children do die from
or become disabled from the complications of measles, questions should be
asked about their management.

References:

(1) Immunisation against infectious diseases HMSO London 1996 para 22.1.5,
p126

(2) Miller CL, Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83,BMJ
1985;290:443-4

(3) Hutchins S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Swint E, Hadler S, Measles
outbreaks in the United States 1987 through 1990 Padiatr Infect Dis J
1996;15:31-8

Competing interests: None declared