Dr Godlee, I recently submitted a rapid response challenging meningitis B vaccination on The BMJ Head to Head article: Is the timing of recommended childhood vaccines evidence based? http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i867
My response has not been published. My response on pertussis vaccination was published, why has my response on meningitis B vaccination been withheld?
I request you address this matter of censorship of my carefully prepared and referenced response, and that it be published on the Head to Head article (see my response below).
Dr Godlee, The BMJ is a business publishing articles and papers which support the use of medical interventions, e.g. vaccination.
The BMJ must be held accountable for the material it publishes, particularly material which may be used to support coercive vaccination policies.
For example, Australia has recently implemented the No Jab, No Pay law which means parents will have to have their children vaccinated with the vaccine products and revaccinations on the National Immunisation Program Schedule to access government benefits and childcare, i.e. 46 doses of vaccines up to teenage years. This is a serious matter as the right to informed consent before the medical intervention of vaccination is being denied, and the community is being made to be compliant to an ever-increasing schedule of vaccine products.
As I mentioned in my response on the Head to Head article, there are people lobbying in Australia for the GSK Bexsero meningitis B vaccine to be added to the schedule, and they are using the questionable adoption of this vaccine product in the UK to justify its implementation in Australia (see Medical Observer articles attached). If Bexsero meningitis B vaccination is added to the schedule in Australia this means it will be compulsory for parents to have their children vaccinated with this product to access government benefits and childcare. It is wrong for parents to be coerced into having meningitis B vaccination for their children as mass vaccination for this rare disease is highly questionable.
Dr Godlee, it is notable that the Head to Head article has been published behind The BMJ paywall, i.e. this article, which may be used to influence international vaccination policy, is not open access for citizens. Only part of the ‘yes’ section of the article is openly accessible, authored by Kathryn M Edwards, Yvonne Maldonado and Carrie L Byington. These people are all affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, USA. The ‘competing interests’ section of the article (which is not openly accessible) notes “The American Academy of Pediatrics has received funding to promote child health, including immunisation programmes, from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, MedImmune, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur.” These people also have other potential conflicts of interest, e.g. Edwards “has conducted a vaccine trial of Group B streptococcal vaccines funded by Novartis”.
Edwards et al, who are affiliated with an organisation which receives vaccine industry funding, have been given a platform by The BMJto air their views, which may impact on vaccination policy, while my valid citizen’s response challenging meningitis B vaccination has been censored.
Dr Godlee, citizens must be allowed to participate in discussion relevant to international vaccination policy, particularly when vaccination is being made compulsory in various jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United States.
I request you ensure my response regarding meningitis B vaccination is published on the Head to Head article, see my response below: