A recent article by Tom Chivers of the Telegraph  mentions the book in the context of reports that “306 children died in Pakistan because of the infectious disease in 2012, a dramatic surge from the 64 children in 2011″. On Amazon the book got over 70 reviews in three days, every one condemning it.

But of those of you leaping to criticise, I have to wonder how many have actually read the book? I mean, are you not open to the possibility that it might actually contain valuable information that could protect our children’s health?

Me neither. Having recently blogged on the daft complaint about an episode in the Cbeebies Get Well Soon series and having read many, many comments from parents rhapsodizing about the series, saying how helpful it has been to their sprogs and how much it is enjoyed by them, it occurred to me that if Melanie is a cracking good story full of engaging characters and told by a talented and imaginative story-teller, it could be a very dangerous book indeed. I bit the bullet and spent £2.63 on the Kindle edition.

I must say that in this age of cultural diversity and political correctness, it is refreshing to find a children’s book whose characters have managed to hang on to good old 1950s values (as well as clothes and hairstyles). Mothers are homemakers, boys play football, girls play with dolls and fathers don’t feature at all – presumably because all the action takes place during the daytime when they’re at the office.

Here’s what happens in the book:

Melanie is off school with measles. Some children in her class are scared of catching measles. One sanctimonious little twit named Jared announces that he won’t catch measles because he’s been vaccinated and that the unvaccinated boy next to him, Travis, is going to die. Travis, while missing the point entirely, still manages to pwn Jared by pointing that, although he hasn’t had any jabs, he’s still alive.

Jared didn’t know what to say to that!

Melanie’s friend, Tina, goes home and asks her mother about measles. She is told that,

For most children it is a good thing to get measles…Many wise people believe measles make the body stronger and more for the future,

We learn that Tina is unvaccinated because when her old brother, Sam, got jabbed he was very sick afterwards and, although he apparently recovered enough to lead a normal life and go to football training after school, he now has a “weak immune system”.

Having been persuaded that getting measles is just about the most fun a child can have, Tina wants to visit Melanie so she can catch measles. Her mother thinks that’s a “great idea”. (I assure you I am not making this up; it really is in the book.)

They visit Melanie who, as it turns out, was vaccinated and yet managed to end up with the “worst case of measles the doctor had ever seen”. But Melanie is proud of her big spots and can’t wait to show them to her friend. She says they’re not itchy or hurty at all and she is quite well enough to be up playing with her dolls like a proper little girl.

Tina and her mother take her some carrot juice and melon, so that Tina’s mother can give readers a mini-lecture on the importance of Vitamin A, probably picked up from some quack magazine.

I read that if your body has plenty of Vitamin A, you won’t get measles…

Happily, Melanie gets better and Tina laments that she didn’t catch measles. Cue another lecture from Mum about the benefits of her healthy lifestyle of raw food, exercise, sunshine, etc.

The totally unexpected twist, of course, is that the smugly vaccinated Jared does get measles. Tina isn’t a bit surprised, given all the sweets and other crap he eats. We’re not told as much but presumably all those sweets he’s been eating is the reason why Jared doesn’t seem to be enjoying his measles nearly as much as Melanie and is lying in bed looking miserable instead of up and playing happily with a train set or something.

In spite of the story ending abruptly with Tina expressing the hope that one day she’ll be “lucky enough to catch measles”, she says nothing about visiting poor Jared.

Serves him right, I guess.

In a nutshell then, the book is intended to convince children that: (1) Not only do vaccines not work but children who are vaccinated are more likely to get the very disease they are vaccinated against; Then again, (2) measles is a mild disease, if you get it you’ll probably hardly notice it, unless you have a weak immune system from eating a poor diet; (3) vaccines, on the other hand, can make you very sick; (4) Best thing to do is strengthen your immune system by eating the right food because that will stop you getting measles. Notably, the recommended diet and lifestyle resembles the one I and many of my generation were given as young children. As far as building immunity against infectious diseases went, it didn’t work for us.

And, in case it isn’t obvious, here’s the really good news:

As a book for children, it has no redeeming features. It is unclear what age group the book is aimed at but no child of any age is going to be absorbed by these boring and humourless characters because they have not been created to entertain or enthrall them. They are but one-dimensional mouthpieces for the author’s anti-vaccine message, which is leadenly delivered in painfully forced dialogue. Badly written and singularly unengaging from beginning to end, Melanie’s Marvelous Measles is, I’ll wager, a book that no child would choose to read for themselves.

What this means, of course, is that it will be forced on them by heartless parents but, to be honest, the book doesn’t actually add anything to what they will be telling their children anyway, assuming they are all, if I may bother a phrase from Tom Chivers, “some hippie-dippie Age of Aquarius type who thinks Natural Equals Good”.

14.1.13 Edited to add this Australian TV news item on the book.

Even if you didn’t see the TV show described above – and I didn’t – you probably sense the writer of that description didn’t approve of it and you probably won’t be surprised that the doctor and infant in question looked something like this:

In case you missed it, only one of the characters in the above pic is real and he is a real-life medical doctor, Dr Ranj. The CBeebies Get Well Soon series is aimed at pre-school children. According to comments from parents about the series on the Dr Ranj fb page,  toddlers love the show, which is intended to “help children understand their bodies and to see the medical world as an environment in which they feel safe”. (Source)

The series has covered a range of uncontroversial conditions like verruccae, constipation and conjunctivitis. I was unaware of it until I got wind of some 60 or so complaints to the BBC about the content of an episode called, Inject to Project. Cue much bristling and hissing from those who say,

“Vaccination is the longest running hoax perpetrated by Allopathy, the most pernicious, and the most dangerous thing that your children will ever face.”

That quote appears on many websites, including the one called ‘Arnica UK Parents Support Network’, which is run by Anna Watson, who authored the above passage and who is apparently spearheading the campaign to complain about the show.

Anna challenges whether it is legal “to promote medicines to children suggesting that they are 100% safe” and whether it is ethical “to promote medicines to children suggesting that they are 100% effective”.

This presumably refers to the bit where the show’s ‘Nurse Morag’ is telling a group of infants that the MMR jabs will stop them getting the measles, mumps and rubella, not the bit where the pharmaceutical sales rep goes to a nursery school and gives a presentation to the children about the benefits of second generation anti-depressants because, as far as I know, that bit didn’t happen.

Sorry to state the obvious but young children don’t choose whether to be vaccinated or not. Even if Nurse Morag made vaccines sound so enticing that three-year-olds en masse had started demanding them from Santa, the decision is not theirs to make – it’s for their parents. And every parent who makes this choice tells their child that getting a jab will stop them getting a nasty disease, just as Nurse Morag did. The complainants seem to think that an age-appropriate explanation of why a child should have a jab is the same as ‘promoting medicines to children suggesting they are 100% effective’. I wonder if those responsible at the BBC have stopped laughing yet?

The other main plank to Anna’s complaint seems to be that (1) while with the doctor, the puppet-child is unaccompanied by a puppet-parent and (2) that the puppet-child says he’s not ready for the injection but is given it anyway.

In a fuller version of the article, which appears, for some unfathomable reason, on a website called The Economic Voice, Anna writes:

Will Dr Ranj, who is a paediatrician from Kent, be struck off?

Yes, she really did ask that! What wouldn’t I give to attend the GMC hearing that considers the case of Dr Ranj and his alleged unsolicited assault on a TV puppet?

Anna continues:

A medical intervention, a vaccine in this case, was administered in a non life threatening situation without consent at all. The minor does not give informed consent and neither do his guardians or parents as they are not there. No risks or contra indications were discussed or considered…(snip)…How many children saw this show alone and will have been left with the idea that medicines and syringes are totally safe and work without fail? How will the BBC find these hundreds of thousands of children and their families and apologise for promoting the dangerous image that it is OK for a single male to coerce a lone child into an injection that carries a potential risk?

I have to wonder what nightmare scenario does Anna envisage might result from the show? Perhaps that a toddler might find his way to a GP’s surgery, demand the MMR jab to the delight of the doctor who does a song and dance but gives no explanation of “risks or contra indications” and doesn’t wait until the kid’s ready before sticking in the needle? Worse, that a child will happen on a discarded syringe and, having been convinced by a puppet show that syringes are totally safe and effective at something or other, will promptly plunge the syringe into herself? Bonkers. But I love the bit asking how the BBC will find all those families and apologise, as if she expects the BBC to commit to doing so.

I’ll let Dr Ranj answer the criticisms. From his response to a critic making a similar noise on the fb page.

1) The programme is make-believe and involves puppets, not real patients, in fictional situations used to illustrate real life – therefore please take it in that context. 2) In the episode, Deep came in for a pre-booked vaccination appointment – the aim of the episode was to explain to him why he was having it and to allay his fears not to ‘persuade’ him to have it. 3) In any case a child would not be able to give informed consent – hence the decision was already made. 4) Yes, I am a real doctor and I deal with children and with issues around such treatments everyday – each episode was checked, considered and discussed at many levels and is consistent with current NHS practice and recommendations. 5) The majority of people who watch the show appreciate its intentions and have found it valuable, informative and entertaining. So let’s just leave it at that.

Of course, they won’t leave it at that. Anna is urging everyone who has complained already to complain again. In an email to supporters she writes,

OFCOM are unsure if they are going to investigate and the BBC may investigate if we take our complaints to Stage 2. If you complained please write again to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, if you are not happy with their (lame in my opinion) reply. Please do this within 20 working days of your complaint, and they will carry out an independent investigation.

We are not told the contents of the BBC’s ‘lame’ reply, apart from the first line. Here we go:

The reply was returned as quick as you could say “No conflicts of Interests” with the opening line “Firstly, we’d like to reassure everyone that no programme on CBeebies receives commercial sponsorship of any kind.” Obvious what other types of complaints they had received that morning, but nothing in response to my concerns.

That might be because her concerns are risible.

In fairness, I owe a debt of gratitude to Anna Watson. Having seen my two strong, healthy and fully vaccinated kids grow into adolescence, I confess that when the MMR controversy started by the disgraced Andrew Wakefield erupted in the late 1990s, I didn’t take much interest, until Anna and a couple of other anti-vaxers joined in a discussion at the Think Humanism forum, some years ago.

Their arguments and the refs they provided in support were very persuasive, in that I was persuaded to take a far stronger pro-vaccine position than I held already. I was also persuaded to read up on Andrew Wakefield and that was one of the things that inspired me to start this blog.

So, thanks, Anna and friends. Speaking as one who has benefitted from your activity, I’ll leave you with some advice on how to continue your campaigning work and ensure further publicity from the likes of me.

1. DO suggest or imply that anyone who promotes vaccines only does so for financial gain because this is the equivalent of saying, “Hello, I’m a conspiracy theorist and incapable of understanding any argument except my own.” The key point here is that it is an ad hominem. Whatever is said about vaccines stands or falls according to the available evidence and not according to who says it and why they are saying it. More importantly, there is an ethical reason for promoting vaccines and that why it is WHO and Dept of Health policy to do so; you may not agree with that reason but insulting people who do agree with it by implying some vested interest, is unlikely to make them well-disposed towards you or to take you seriously, so please carry on doing it at every opportunity!

2. DO downplay the risks of infectious diseases. I’m sure we all appreciate such crystal-clear reasoning as this:

If you are frightened of the disease called Measles have the vaccine of course, as it seems that you are less likely to contract it, but if you are not frightened of the disease then is fear of death from measles really an option? (sic)

The year I got measles – together with every other child in my class and some 763,500 other people in England and Wales, there were 152 measles related-deaths. I remember the boy who sat next me at school had to wear a hearing aid forever afterwards. The American CDC states that about 30% of measles cases develop one or more complications. In the past few years we’ve seen reports of measles-related deaths in the UK and in other developed countries. Claiming that mortality from certain diseases stands at zero and complications are small isn’t going to endear you to the thousands of people who know different but I won’t suggest you should find them all and apologise. Au contraire! Just keep up the good work!

3. DO continue to promote homeopathy and other quackery on your website, as this should ensure that you will be perceived as a grolie and not worth giving the time of day to.

4. DO go that extra mile to make yourself sound as daft as possible when complaining. Asking whether a doctor who perforated a puppet on a TV show will be struck off the medical register and calling an explanation to young children about why they are getting vaccines the same as ‘promoting all medicines as 100% safe’, are excellent examples, as is calling your article,‘BBC misses another child protection issue’, as if it’s comparable to the Jimmy Savile scandal. Keep them coming!

By the way, you might like this graphic, courtesy of the Skeptical Libertarian.

For those to whom correlation equals causation, it’s worth noting that since the Arnica Network started in 2007, there has been an increased uptake of the MMR vaccine and it’s now the highest it’s been since Wakefield published his crappy paper. This, as Dr Ranj declares, is great news for everyone.

Onwards and upwards.

Update 31.12.12 I’m amazed to see this article has had nearly 5,000 visitors in 24 hours and that Dr Ranj has been inundated with tweets from outraged supporters. He’s responded with the suggestion that all those who wish to show their support for the Get Well Soon series to please message CBeebies on their facebook page.

Update 09.04.13 The clip of Dr Ranj singing and dancing about the benefits of the vaccine is now on on youtube. Enjoy!

An open letter from a pro vaxxer to an antivaxxer. Please read and distribute widely. Originally penned by Megan Cran

Dear Anti-vaxxer,

You’ve asked on other threads whether or not us pro-vaxxers would be able to empathize and see things from your point of view.

I’ll ask the same of you.

Imagine that you’ve spent 6 + years of your life studying your ass off so that you can understand the mere basics of biology, chemistry, physiology, pathology, immunology, pharmacology, etc. Because you’d like to be a nurse or a physician. And these are the things you need to know to do your job.

Imagine that through your years of scientific training, frequently studying the available evidence, and relying on the educated opinions of those who are MORE educated than yourself on the matter that you have come to the conclusion that the majority of the biomed has come to: that vaccines are safe and effective.

Imagine that while in the course of doing your daily job, you see people who are immunocompromised or unvaccinated become incredibly ill or die of vaccine-preventable diseases and their resulting complications.

Imagine that you then learn that there is a group of people who INTENTIONALLY refuse to vaccinate their kids. Imagine your shock and dismay upon learning this. Imagine trying to engage these people, to find out why they refuse to use what is arguably the greatest innovation of modern medicine.

Imagine that when you engage these people, you hear some arguments that – initially – make you think about vaccination in a different light. They tell you vaccines are poison. They aren’t as effective as you are lead to believe. That the government and big pharma only push them for profits. That they aren’t actually tested for safety. That these vaccines are responsible for causing a myriad of devastating cognitive issues. They’re KILLING KIDS. And you begin to become concerned.

But, at the same time, these people are saying things that you – as a medical professional – know to be untrue. There’s people talking about injecting vaccines directly into the bloodstream when you know that they’re not given intravenous. There’s people saying that there are over 50 different vaccines – when you know that they simply give multiple doses of the same ones. There’s people saying bypass the immune system – when you know that they activate the adaptive immune system in order to confer immunity.

So, you think to yourself “if they’re wrong about these basic things, are they wrong about these other claims too?”

Imagine that you spend a great deal of your spare time looking into the original claims that first concerned you.
You learn that the “toxins” in vaccines are present in our daily environment in much larger quantities than any vaccine.
You learn that while the pertussis vaccine is waning is effectiveness (75% +), all other vaccines are extremely effective in preventing disease.
You learn that the cost to treat the disease is much much higher than it is to prevent it with a vaccine. And that if pharmaceutical companies really were keen to make as much money off of you as possible, they’d LET you get measles.

You learn that vaccines are thoroughly tested before release, each batch is tested and that their safety and effectiveness is constantly re-evaluated. You read about the switch from whole cell to acellular pertussis vaccine – which lowered the effectiveness but upped the safety.

You learn that a myriad of scientific studies from all over the world provide evidence of no correlation between vaccines and ASD. You learn how the changes to the DSM combined with increased awareness of ASD has contributed to an artificially higher rate of ASD. You read about the heritability of ASD and some of the commonly correlated environmental factors (such as maternal obesity and diabetes).

Imagine that you learn all these things. Imagine that not only can you read all these things, but that your medical training allows you to understand and evaluate claims in a way that laypeople cannot.

Imagine that you happily return to these people who had you so concerned. And you’re happy to explain to them how it’s okay, and they don’t have to be afraid of vaccines – and you can answer all of their concerns and questions.

Imagine that when you do answer them, they ignore you. Or they insist that you must be a shill for a pharmaceutical company. Or an idiot. Or a mindless automaton who is incapable of making up their own minds. Imagine that instead of these people being – as you had originally hoped – relieved and grateful that they didn’t have to worry about vaccines anymore, angry and irate that you would dare to contradict them.

Imagine you have to keep dealing with the same mistruths over and over and over. Imagine that you have to explain to people over and over that there is more formaldehyde in an apple than a vaccine. Imagine that you provide people with 20+ studies showing no correlation between ASD and vaccines – and they ignore them.

Imagine that these people start trying to find out where you work. Imagine they send you threatening emails and facebook messages. Imagine that they make up photoshopped pictures just to make fun of you. Imagine that they mass report comments you make to get you banned from facebook. Imagine.

Can you empathize with us? Can you understand why we’re sometimes quick to insult? Quick to react to insults? Can you understand why we may not always treat you with the respect you deserve?

From my point of view, you are intentionally endangering the lives of your loved ones. And my job is to take care of those loved ones