New Petitions

Good morning. I am the chair of Action Against Autism, which is a children's charity. The story behind the petition is that in 1999 the United States Government started to remove childhood vaccines that contained mercury—I use the word mercury rather than thimerosal—because of parental pressure about the number of children who were being diagnosed not just with autism but with many neurological problems, as is happening in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It took the US Government two years to remove those vaccines, and other childhood vaccines were manufactured that did not contain thimerosal to replace those that contained the mercury. There was a free exchange system: the new vaccines, with the mercury removed, were put on the shelves and the ones that contained thimerosal were removed freely. There was no admission that mercury in the vaccines was in any way connected with neurological problems, but the suggestion was made that there was a suspicion that it might be. About three years ago, I raised the issue with Susan Deacon, the then Minister for Health and Community Care. She said, "We are phasing out the use of mercury in childhood vaccines in the UK." I raised the issue again this year with Malcolm Chisholm and he said, "We are phasing out the use of mercury in childhood vaccines in the UK." Nothing has changed.I had Nicola Sturgeon raise the issue in the Scottish Parliament. We are continuing to use this known neurotoxin in childhood vaccines. We are injecting mercury into the bloodstream of eight-week old babies—a procedure that has been banned in most other developed countries. The response from the Scottish Executive was that mercury is contained only in the DTP vaccine, which is given at two, three and four months—it is given to children three times—and that an alternative vaccine called Infanrix, which does not contain mercury, is available to parents if they wish it. Therefore, parents who are informed and who ask their doctors can have Infanrix. I have provided members with a copy of the Official Report of the debate held on 6 February 2003, and it is pretty clear to me from letters in the newspapers that Infanrix should be available. However, the experience of parents trying to access Infanrix has been awful. Just last week, the immunisation co-ordinator for South Lanarkshire said that there was no way he would give Infanrix to parents who asked for it. He did not think that the Scottish Parliament had that sort of jurisdiction over a medical procedure. That is parents' experience, and it is driving a wedge between parents and doctors.The deputy chief medical officer wrote to every doctor in Scotland and told them not that Infanrix was available but that there was no scientific proof that the use of mercury in childhood vaccines was causing neurological problems in children. He did not quote the debate and he did not send out the message, which should have been sent out, that if parents choose Infanrix, they should have it. The way to resolve the issue—I am an advertising man so advertising comes into this—is to advertise to parents and professionals the fact that the Scottish Executive has decided that a choice should be available should parents request it. That is the basis of my petition.

I have been advised that I cannot ask for that through the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is not a devolved issue.Frankly, I think that ordinary general practitioners are victims in this case and a letter should go to GPs telling them that the Infanrix vaccine, which has been licensed for children of two, three and four months, should be made available to parents if it is requested. Just that simple step would resolve the situation.At present, my charity is being contacted by parents who say that they are being refused that vaccine. When I give the parent a copy of the Official Report of the debate and they give it to their doctor, the doctor often says that they did not know and the parent will get the vaccine. Even a simple letter from the deputy chief medical officer to all GPs saying that the vaccine should be made available if parents request it might resolve the situation.

The world is getting smaller and the internet is telling many parents about the problems with vaccination programmes that are being experienced throughout the world. A simple leaflet pinned up in surgeries would be enough. There is plenty information in doctors' surgeries and another simple leaflet would help. However, I am not an expert in that matter.

It is speculative. I deal with such issues all the time and I do not think that the medical hierarchy respects the Scottish Parliament. It believes that it is in charge of things medical and it does not like interference. I have met Dr Andrew Fraser, the deputy chief medical officer, and I think that he is a very astute man who is also a very good politician. I have to be careful with my phraseology here but, perhaps by omission, he managed to cultivate a situation in which his view—and not that of the Scottish Executive—was presented.

Yes, cost comes into it, although I believe that that would be denied. The Infanrix vaccine is double the cost of the normal DTP vaccine. It costs approximately £10 more and if each child is given that vaccine three times, that is £30 more per child. We are talking about 50,000 to 60,000 children per year, so the cost is almost £2 million more. Cost definitely comes into it.

Doctors have to know that there is a choice, because at the moment they do not know that. In my experience, when a doctor eventually contacts the deputy chief medical officer for advice on this matter, he is told that the parents have a choice. We should be able to circumvent that and tell all doctors that a choice is available.You are going to have to start at the beginning again, because you asked me so many questions.

It is said that, according to research, the DPT vaccine, which contains mercury, is more effective against whooping cough than is Infanrix, which is why doctors suggest that they do not want to recommend a vaccine that is less effective. However, the truth of the matter is that mercury is not going to make any difference to the effectiveness of a vaccine. It is a preservative that increases the shelf life—as you put it—of the vaccine, but it does not increase its effectiveness against any disease. It is up to the manufacturers to produce vaccines that are both safe and effective. That is not an issue for parents.

We are moving into an area—that of why the vaccine has not been phased out—that is outwith my petition. We have been looking at the role of vaccination and the number of children who are being diagnosed with neurological problems in the UK. The number of kids in Scotland, England and Ireland with mild to severe neurological problems has more than doubled in the past 10 years. A similar situation is occurring in many other parts of the world. We have to ask what is common to the children of Hawaii, Alaska and Edinburgh. The one thing that is common is vaccination programmes.That work is all parent driven. We started to examine the safety and role of vaccinations because the medical hierarchy seemed totally unwilling to do so. It has a blind belief system as far as vaccinations are concerned. Let me give members a few examples. This year alone, we found out that the wrong haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine had been injected into every Scottish child, and that all Scottish children have to be revaccinated with the correct HIB vaccine. We found out that there is porcine gelatin—that is, from pigs—in the MMR vaccine that has been injected into Muslim and Jewish kids against their religion. We are finding out that mercury is still being injected and that it is not being phased out from earlier vaccines.I am a businessman and people who do such things would not survive in my industry. There seems to be a cavalier attitude that vaccination is the greatest thing since sliced bread; however, I do not think that it is.Why is mercury not being phased out in the UK? I have asked that question of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and the Medicines Control Agency. Frankly, they have not given any reasonable or plausible answers. They do not see the use of a neurotoxin in childhood vaccines as a danger, therefore they have no sense of urgency to remove it. They keep exonerating themselves by quoting the World Health Organisation, which states that there is no proof that using mercury in childhood vaccines causes damage. However, there is no proof because nobody has looked for it; nobody has carried out the appropriate research to find out if this neurotoxin is causing damage.I am sorry if I am drifting away from the point raised by Frances Curran. Mercury was introduced in childhood vaccines in 1934 and autism was identified as a new condition in 1943. I know that that is just a correlation, but it is such that it demands that somebody investigate whether there is any connection between the two. There was increased use of mercury in 1990 in America, and the United Kingdom has the most aggressive use of mercury in vaccines for children under four months old. The increased use, and the increasingly early use, of such vaccines have coincided with a massive rise in autism and neurological problems in children. I do not know why the use of mercury has not been phased out—it is a national scandal that it has not.