A report in Family Law Week, “Children ordered to receive MMR vaccination” (13/10/13) notes that one of the girls was vaccinated soon after her birth. Given the first dose of live MMR vaccine was effective and administered at the right age (i.e. after maternally derived antibodies had waned), it is highly likely the girl would have been immune after the first vaccine dose. This can be verified by a blood test (i.e. antibody titre testing). (See my webpage about the MMR ‘booster’ for further background.)
Have these girls and their mother been advised there is a blood test available to determine if they are already immune to measles/mumps/rubella?
How can these girls give their ‘informed consent’ before the medical intervention of vaccination if the court rules they must have this medical intervention?
This case has set a dangerous precedent.
Are we all on course for compulsory vaccination, as dictated by the state? Consider for example the prospect of mandated annual influenza vaccination. This looks like the start of a slippery slope. We need to be alert to the implications, and mindful of vested interests in the vaccine industry, governments, and the scientific/medical establishment.
See below my email forwarded to one of the solicitors involved in this matter of court ordered MMR vaccination, Philippa Dolan of Ashfords Solicitors.
From: Elizabeth Hart <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Subject: MMR Case
Re the case about the two girls and the MMR vaccine in which I understand you are involved, i.e. High Court rules sisters must have MMR jab against their and their mother’s wishes: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/high-court-rules-sisters-must-have-mmr-jab-against-their-and-their-mothers-wishes-8876035.html?origin=internalSearch
Note this comment in the article: “The elder daughter received the MMR jab but not a second dose, and the younger daughter did not receive either.” (My emphasis.)
The measles/mumps/rubella vaccine is a ‘live’ vaccine. When vaccinated at the right age with an effective vaccine, i.e. after maternally derived antibodies have waned, most children are likely to be immune for life. The reason given for the second dose is that a small proportion of children might not respond to the first vaccine (usually because of interference of maternally derived antibodies, or possibly because of a fault in the vaccine).
My argument is, it is not ethical to force people to have a second dose of the vaccine if they’re likely to be immune after the first dose. At the very least they should be offered the opportunity of a blood test (antibody titre test) to verify a response to the first vaccine, even if they have to pay for it themselves. I suggest there is a very important principle at stake here, particularly when the state dictates that healthy people have to have medical interventions, it’s a slippery slope….
I suggest both those girls should be offered the opportunity of a blood test to measure antibodies (although it would have been better to have had the check soon after initial vaccination). Even the second unvaccinated girl should be offered the opportunity in case she has had natural exposure to the disease.
For further background see my webpage: https://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/mmr-jab/
Also see my letter to Professor Paul Offit on this subject: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Letter_to_Paul_Offit_re_MMR_booster.pdf
Given the controversy about the MMR vaccine in the UK, and elsewhere, I think there could be a lot of fallout about this, there are some parents out there who I suspect would be very angry they weren’t given the opportunity of a blood test for their child, rather than an arbitrary second shot.
I request that you bring this information to the attention of the parents and children in this case, plus the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Theis.
I would appreciate your response on this matter.