FEAT DAILY NEWSLETTER      Sacramento, California http://www.feat.org

December 23, 2001        News Morgue Search  www.feat.org/search/news.asp

All Hell Breaks Loose In UK Media over Blair, MMR Vax & Autism (But Dead Silence in the US Press.)

Revelaton: Blairs Have An Autistic Relative.

Here is the Weekend Collection, so far. Thanks to R. Miles.

·        No 10’s Fear Of Needles

·        Blair Should Say Whether Leo Has Had The Vaccine

·        Come Clean on MMR, Labour MP tells Blair

·        Blair Hints That Leo Had MMR Jab As Vaccine Rebellion Mounts

No 10’s Fear Of Needles

Privacy is paramount when it comes to the young Blairs, we are told. But

that doesn’t help parents faced with an agonising decision report Gaby

Hinsliff and Kamal Ahmed

[The Observer.]

http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,624229,00.html

Up a steep flight of stairs in a slightly shabby building near

London’s Victoria station is a GP’s surgery. The only clue, among the

plastic toys and piles of magazines in the waiting room, that it lies at the

heart of the national debate over the safety of the controversial measles,

mumps and rubella vaccine is a picture propped up on one of the women GPs’

desks. It features a family of grateful patients: Tony, Cherie and Leo Blair.

The surgery is where the Prime Minister’s wife brought their son for

mother and baby classes. It is also where, if the family do follow Government advice, she should have brought him for that jab.

Today The Observer reveals the strongest indication yet from those

close to the Prime Minister that his 19-month-old son, Leo, has, in fact,

been given the MMR injection. Downing Street has so far insisted that what

transpires behind a GP’s office door must remain private on grounds of

medical confidentiality. But the question now is whether the Blairs, who

have famously kept a rigid grip on their family’s privacy, should admit the

fact publicly and instil national confidence in a life-saving public health

measure.

The debate has shifted from whether the vaccine is safe - as almost

the entire medical establishment insists it is - to whether politicians

should lead by example. Does the Blairs’ right to privacy outweigh the risk

of a measles epidemic if parents, convinced the Prime Minister knows something they don’t, refuse the vaccine?

Some critics believe Blair’s refusal to say anything publicly is

hampering efforts to increase MMR uptake. The latest figures show that

parents need reassuring. In the first three months of this year, 72 per cent

of two-year-olds in London had the MMR vaccination, against the 85 per cent

needed to guarantee ‘herd immunity’ - the point where a sufficient number

have had the jab to guarantee the virtual elimination of measles. Uptake is

higher elsewhere in the country but often still below the crucial 85 per

cent figure.

Dr Ian Gibson, Labour MP and one of the leading medical experts at

Westminster, said Blair should set an example by talking about his personal

response to the MMR issue. But the Blairs are only the latest prominent

family to be drawn into this simmering row. The first personal challenge was

in January when the then pregnant Public Health Minister, Yvette Cooper, was

handling a routine Commons debate on vaccination. The Tory health spokesman,

Philip Hammond, stung by allegations of scaremongering about MMR, retorted

that ‘all three of my children aged under seven have been vaccinated with

the triple dose vaccine’. Cooper was not forthcoming, but when journalists

pressed her afterwards, she told them her daughter Meriel ‘has had all her

vaccinations’ as recommended.

Cooper was still on her last days of maternity leave with her second

child Joel when the furore over Leo Blair began two weeks ago. As fellow

Ministers rejected enquiries, she told her press officers that her views

were already public and could thus be repeated.

Then the Daily Mail stoked up the story. On 11 December, the day after

a study commissioned by the Government on autism concluded there was no link

between the condition and MMR, the paper’s parliamentary sketchwriter

Quentin Letts revealed that his four-year-old son Claud is autistic. The boy

has had the triple vaccine, and Letts said that while he did not know

whether that caused his illness, it came as a ‘vicious kick in the guts’

that Cherie Blair refused to discuss Leo’s vaccination. Parents felt ‘stupid

and duped’, worrying that she knew something they did not, he said. And so

began a Mail campaign, with all leading MPs known to have young children

being asked to declare whether they had inoculated them.

>> DO SOMETHING ABOUT AUTISM NOW <<

Subscribe, Read, then Forward the FEAT Daily Newsletter.

To Subscribe go to    www.feat.org/FEATnews     No Cost!

* * *

Blair Should Say Whether Leo Has Had The Vaccine

[In the Independent.]

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=111455

For the second Christmas in succession Leo Blair has commanded the

attention of the media. This weekend Tony Blair is under pressure to reveal

whether his son has received the MMR vaccine, as recommended strongly by his

own government for all toddlers. Last year, Leo was given prominence for a

different reason. He appeared on most front pages as the star turn on the

Blairs’ Christmas card. Since the card is released to the media every year

as a PR exercise, the Prime Minister knew that Leo would attract widespread

attention. He did not seem worried about privacy then. That was the pre-election Christmas when his government’s spin- doctors were keen to portray Mr Blair as a family man, in contrast to the childless William Hague.

Every now and again a political leader’s family becomes a subject of

public interest. Quite often the occasions when this happens are chosen by

the political leaders themselves. Cabinet ministers, from Mr Blair

downwards, often trumpet the fact that their children were sent to state

schools. Recently they have made this point with greater intensity, to

provide a contrast with Iain Duncan Smith who pays for one of his sons to

attend Eton. The message they seek to convey is clear: we have our feet on

the ground, practising what we preach by ignoring the lure of an élitist

education at a private school. Occasionally Mr Blair chooses to give his

family a public profile unrelated to a specific policy. Last year’s

Christmas card was not the only occasion when the media got a glimpse of

Leo.

There are other times when a political leader has to accept that his

family is of legitimate public interest when he would prefer it not to be.

He cannot pick the moments when the lights are switched on and off. The

lights shine with greatest legitimacy when there is a direct link between

government policy and the personal conduct of the political leader running

the Government. Mr Blair knows this to be the case from his own experience.

When he sent one of his sons to the Oratory, a school that had opted out of

local-authority control, there was a political row. Mr Blair’s protests that

this was a family matter did not even convince his Press Secretary, Alastair

Campbell, who was appalled at the decision. At the time, Labour Party policy

was opposed to schools opting out of local-authority control. Mr Blair

resolved the matter by changing the policy. What he could not do was insist

unconvincingly that it was an entirely private matter.

He is trying to make that case now, even less convincingly, over

whether young Leo has been give the MMR injection. The Department of Health

has launched a campaign to persuade parents that their children should

receive the injection. The Health minister, Yvette Cooper, has said that her

children will have the MMR injection; but, as we report on the front page,

the Department of Health is having problems convincing parents. Mr Blair’s

silence is part of the department’s problem. It conveys Prime Ministerial

doubt about MMR. The persistent refusal to reveal their decision will

nurture a wider suspicion that the Blairs decided not to follow the advice

of the Prime Minister’s own health department. Mr Blair should come clean.

His family deserves as much privacy as possible, but not when his actions as

a parent may conflict with the policies of his government.

* * *

Come Clean on MMR, Labour MP tells Blair

[By Benedict Brogan in the UK Telegraph.]

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/22/nmmr2

2.xml

Tony Blair should show leadership by declaring whether he has allowed

his baby son Leo to receive the MMR vaccine, one of Labour’s most distinguished scientific experts said yesterday.

Dr Ian Gibson, the MP who chairs the Commons science and technology

select committee, said the Prime Minister and his colleagues should set an

example by coming clean about their personal response to a flagship Government policy.

He said Ministers should be honest with the public about their

family’s attitude to MMR, which some people claim may cause autism and bowel

disease in children.

Mr Blair faced demands in the Commons on Wednesday to say how he and

his wife Cherie chose to have their son inoculated, amid suspicions at

Westminster that their reluctance to answer suggests they have rejected MMR.

Most Ministers have taken their lead from Mr Blair and refused to say

whether they are following government advice by giving their children the

combined vaccine for mumps, measles and rubella.

But the “don’t tell” policy was under strain last night after Dr

Gibson’s intervention. An academic biologist who also chairs the all-party

cancer group at Westminster, he does not have a record as a Labour troublemaker.

His call for ministerial honesty and leadership will be embarrassing

for Mr Blair and Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary. The Government has

promoted the merits of MMR and has warned that children are being put at

risk because parents are listening to “scare stories” and failing to inoculate them.

Downing Street’s refusal to confirm that 18-month-old Leo had been

inoculated with MMR has led to speculation that Mrs Blair, who has a keen

interest in alternative therapies, may have opted for three separate jabs -

which can cost up to £300.

Dr Gibson told BBC radio’s Today programme that there was a “difficult

dividing line” about the lives of public figures and their families. Some

things should be kept private, he said. “But I think people like their leaders to set an example.

“Whether the issue was nuclear power, mobile telephone masts, or MMR.When the public are confused and not sure, and as an MP I get questions about the safety of MMR, the question frankly is about risk.

“The public do understand about risk. There is risk associated with

any kind of medical treatment. And people need to know what the risk is. The

best criteria for seeing if it’s a risk is when leading figures, be they

footballers or leading politicians, come clean.

“It’s a social thing, they are talking to the nation, they are setting

a message.”

He was contradicted by George Kassianos, an immunisation expert from

the Royal College of General Practitioners.

“Whatever we say and do is between the patient and the family doctor

and it has to stay like that otherwise patients will lose confidence in the

NHS,” he said.

Mr Blair set the tone for the Government on Wednesday when he rejected

calls to say whether he and his wife have chosen MMR for Leo. Mr Blair believes that he would be accused of using his children to promote Government policy.

His aides fear a similar reaction to the one that greeted John Gummer,

the Tory agriculture minister in the 1990s, who was photographed feeding his

daughter a beefburger during the BSE crisis.

No scientific evidence has been produced to prove a link between MMR

and autism. The vaccine is strongly backed by the Health Department and the

World Health Organisation.

* * *

Invasion of Privacy? Or Just Hiding The Truth

Health Minister Jacqui Smith refused to tell John Humphrys if her children

had been given the MMR vaccine. Rod Liddle, editor of Today, says she should

come clean

[In The Observer .]

If I were to ask you if your child had received the MMR inoculation,

would you react with astonishment and outrage, claiming the question was a

grotesque invasion of privacy?

My guess is you wouldn’t. My guess is you’d say ‘Yes, he had it a

couple of months ago’ or maybe ‘Oh dear, we’ve really agonised over this

and, having weighed up the pros and cons, decided against’. Considerations

of privacy wouldn’t occur, would they?

Would you feel your child’s privacy had been compromised if you were

asked the same question on a radio programme? Would you say, in response,

with grave hauteur, ‘Sorry, this is a deeply private matter which I am not

prepared to discuss’? Maybe you would. I suspect you wouldn’t.

So why is the Government upset that we should ask this question of a

Minister whose department was responsible for urging all parents in the land

to have their children inoculated?

Because it is outraged, or affects to be so. Angry letters were sent

to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and there was stuff in the press about how

badly we’d behaved. There was even a suggestion Health Secretary Alan Milburn would boycott Today.

Where is the privacy issue here? Are we meant to believe ministerial

offspring would be injured by the revelation that they had been inoculated?

That the non-inoculated contingent at pre-school play group would pelt the

child with Plasticine? That the stigma of being inoculated would lead to a

life of petty crime, anomie and mental illness?

No. The child would not even be conscious of the question or its ramifications. This isn’t an issue about the privacy of ministerial offspring. It’s an issue about the parents, the politicians.

There is a debate to be had about the extent to which a Minister’s

private life is fair game for reportage and speculation. At Today - and the

BBC in general - we’ve always been cautious about what we believe is

legitimate public interest. Let me give you an example. When Leo Blair was

born, we were not left in the dark about the little mite for very long.

There were many photographs of him with the proud father. There were

television interviews. There were the occasional references to the baby in

political speeches. We were privileged to learn, for instance, of little

Leo’s nightly bowel movements.

·        Article continues at:

http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,624228,00.html

* * *

Blair Hints That Leo Had MMR Jab As Vaccine Rebellion Mounts

[By Lorraine Fraser.]

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/23/nmmr2

3.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/23/ixport.html

Tony Blair last night dropped a heavy hint that his baby son Leo had

been given the controversial MMR vaccine, saying that it was “offensive beyond belief” to suggest that he would advise others to have the inoculation if he thought it too dangerous for his own child.

His intervention was made as The Telegraph discovered evidence that

Downing Street’s refusal to say if Leo, aged 18 months, had been treated has

undermined public confidence in the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

Clinics offering alternatives to MMR told The Telegraph that they had

been “flooded” with inquiries from anxious parents since Mr and Mrs Blair

declined to answer questions on Leo.

One London-based company, Direct 2000, said that since the controversy

began a fortnight ago the business had received 1,500 more calls than it

would normally expect, an increase of 30 per cent.

All were from parents asking about separate measles mumps and rubella

vaccinations. Worries about the vaccine followed claims, rejected by the

Government, that it could cause autism and bowel disease in children.

Mr Blair decided to issue a written statement after two newspapers

reported that a relative of Cherie Blair suffers from autism. He called the

reports a “horrible and unjustified” intrusion into the family’s privacy.Crucial facts were wrong, he said, but could not be corrected without further compromising the family’s privacy.

“The suggestion that the Government is advising parents to have the

MMR jab while we are deliberately refraining from giving our child the

treatment because we know it is dangerous is offensive beyond belief,” he

said.

“For the record, Cherie and I both entirely support the advice, as we

have consistently said. It is not true that we believe the MMR vaccine to be

dangerous or believe that it is better to have separate injections, as has

been maliciously suggested in the press, or believe that it is linked to

autism.”

Mr Blair said that if he answered the question directly it would set a

precedent and lead to his being questioned on whether his family abided by

the recommendations made in 18 other Department of Health campaigns, ranging

from encouraging breast-feeding to curbing alcohol abuse.

·        Article continues at:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/23/nmmr2

3.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/23/ixport.html

Lenny Schafer, Editor@feat.org  •  CALENDAR EVENTS@feat.org Michelle Guppy

Catherine Johnson PhD  •  Ron Sleith  •  Kay Stammers  •  Edward Decelie

UNSUBSCRIBE: FEATNews-signoff-request@LIST.FEAT.ORG

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.