A Brief History of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism Part 5: The Kulenkampff et al. Paper

Introduction

This series hopes to explore the history of British Antivaccinationism and Vaccine Scepticism.  It is divided into 7 main eras: the period of Inoculation, 1721-1798; the introduction of vaccination, 1798-1853; the imposition of mandates, 1853-1898; the remaining history of the National Antivaccination League, 1898-1972; DTP Vaccine Scepticism 1972-1998; Andrew Wakefield and vaccines cause autism, 1998-2019, and Covid 19, 2020 to present. This section will look at a paper published in 1974 showing cases of injury from the DTP Vaccine (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis). It caused new demands for compensation for vaccine injuries.

Prior Concerns about the DTP Vaccine

There had been some prior concerns about possible vaccine risks, but they were not as mainstream. There had been some reports of encephalitis caused by the vaccine in the literature between 1948 and 1960.

The Paper

The paper was called ‘Neurological Complications of Pertussis Inoculation’ and it was published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood. It can be found for free online via Research Gate for anyone who wants to read the full paper.

The paper looked at 36 children who had been seen at the Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, who had neurological injuries within 14 days of inoculation. The paper argued that there was a causal connection between the vaccine and the symptoms due to the timing of onset of symptoms as well as similarities between complications from the disease and the natural virus.

Symptoms included convulsions, long term neurological injury, and in one case death was reported as an outcome linked by the authors to the vaccine.

The authors suggested that more statistical work be carried out on the rate of vaccine injuries and injuries from natural infection, as well as withholding vaccination from those with certain contraindications.

The Effect on Vaccination Rates

The effects on vaccination rates were drastic. The DTP vaccination rate declined from 78.5% in 1971 to 37% in 1974. The vaccination rate did not recover until into the 1980s.

Demands for Compensation

There was a lot of concern about lack of compensation for injuries. No government program existed to compensate injuries. There was also evidence that the government compensation for the thalidomide scandal had been inadequate. As such new movements emerged to demand compensation.

An organisation was created to this effect – The Association of Vaccine Damaged Children. This organisation sought to prove the reality of vaccine injuries and to demand compensation. They argued that if children were demanded to take the risk of vaccination, then the family should be compensated should the vaccine go wrong. However they did not seek to demonstrate that vaccine injury was common, only that it was real.

The media also covered some cases of vaccine injury in a sympathetic way. There were also some doctors who supported the thesis put forth by Kulenkampff. Dr. Gordon Stewart reported 160 cases of encephalopathy that he believed were vaccine induced. He also provided quotes to the media.

The 1979 Act

As a result the government passed the Vaccine Damage Payments Act in 1979. This act provided a low level of compensation for vaccine injuries, £10,000, for those 80% disabled by vaccination, or the family of a vaccine death. The compensation applied for those who were both injured by a vaccine and for those who contracted a virus from a vaccinated individual. The legal standard applied was ‘balance of probability’ i.e. proving a 51% probability that the injury is vaccine induced.

The government believed they could keep payments low, because vaccine injuries were so rare.

Conclusion

Confidence in vaccination slowly recovered by the mid 1980s. Vaccination had been normalised in Britain by this time. The next scandal to affect vaccination in the UK was the Andrew Wakefield et al. 1998 paper on the MMR vaccine.

Two sources used for this article were the book Vaccinating Britain and the article the Pertussis Vaccine Controversy (these are obviously sources supportive of vaccination).

Leave a comment