An unauthorised, unverified transcript of BBC Radio 4 Today Programme 2 October 2009. GP Richard Halvorsen and Professor Adam Finn of Bristol University discuss the reporting of the risks of vaccination in the wake of the publicity given to the death of Natalie Morton. Mistakes in transcription or timing are the transcribers.

Notes for non-UK readers. Immunisations are available, free of charge, from the NHS. Dr Halvorsen wrote a book arguing against the need for some vaccines and suggests that others should be administered singly on a lengthy schedule. He runs a commercial vaccination clinic that offers such a schedule (Baby Jabs).

Start transcript.

Presenter (P): The terribly sad death of Natalie Morton, the 14-year old who died after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination was not related to the vaccination. That according to the inquest found that Natalie had an undetected tumour on her lung and heart.

News stories reporting that fact are fewer and smaller, it's fair to say, than those that raise the spectre of the vaccination as unsafe, in the hours after her death.

So, how should we treat these matters? What assessments can we make about the safety of vaccines?

Richard Halvorsen (RH) is a GP and author of The Truth About Vaccines. He's here in the studio with Adam Finn (AF) who's the Professor of Paediatrics at Bristol University.

Good Morning to you both.

RH/AF: Good Morning.

P: Dr Halvorsen, first of all. How reasonable do you think the initial news reaction and indeed public reaction was to what happened in this case.

RH 0:47: I think if an apparently healthy girl, which I believe she was, dies within one hour of receiving a vaccine, I think the initial reaction is one that certainly the vaccine has to be a suspect cause to the problem. And to think otherwise would be unreasonable.

(1:06-30) I think clearly it does not appear to be the primary cause though it's interesting that -eh-a tumour, a malignancy of tumour. A cancer that could apparently kill her at any time sounds very bizarre when apparently she was well enough beforehand, well enough to have a vaccine. Yet she has a malignancy that could have killed her at any time.

(1:30-37) So, I think one has to be still suspicious that the vaccine could have been at least a trigger - maybe to her death - though I accept.not the underlying cause.

P (1:37-48): Are you also suspicious that those who want us to have vaccines and believe they're a good thing, sometimes overstate the benefits and understate the risks?

RH: (1:48-2:24) Well that's absolutely true. I am pro-vaccine. I run a Baby Jabs and Immunisation Clinic. I run an immunisation clinic. Obviously I support vaccines.

But I support the responsible use of vaccines and not  irresponsible mass vaccination.

In the research for my book, The Truth About Vaccines, I very much discovered that vaccines have benefits but those benefits are exaggerated.

The risks of vaccines are downplayed and in fact, the risks of the diseases that are meant to be protected by vaccines are also exaggerated for the prime purpose of encouraging uptake of vaccines because they need so much to get herd immunity.

P (2:26-7): Adam Finn, what's your response to that?

AF (2:27-34) Well, I think that we have to be a bit careful that we use evidence rather than opinion in these kind of conclusions.

P: Of course.

AF (2:35-47): The epidemiology of vaccine-preventable disease provides a very solid base for the programmes that we use. All of which, in this country, are very carefully scrutinised for cost benefit as well as for health benefit.

(2:47-3:00) So, I think it's important to recognise that the opinions that Dr Halvorsen expresses today and in the Daily Mail put him in a very small minority amongst GPs who are equally well qualified to comment and who don't agree with him.

P (3:00-09): And the point, Adam Finn, that you make, is that we don't know - we don't meet - we don't see on the front pages - the people who are protected by vaccines.

(3:09-15) But, of course, we do meet these tragic cases where something goes wrong. Or it appears a vaccine might be linked to something that goes wrong.

AF (3:15-26): Yes. The human species...We were hearing some interesting stuff a few minutes ago about fossils of our evolution. We're a narrative species, aren't we? We learn about the world through stories.

(3:27-42) And stories such as this story this week, and this poor girl, are very powerful. They have very powerful effects on us. But what we don't see, and are not really aware of, the vast armies of people who are walking around healthy, unmaimed, and 'not dead' today because of the vaccines we've been using for the last 50 [15?] years.

P (3:43): Richard Halvorsen?

RH (3:44-4:05): Of course I believe that vaccines do do benefits, and, yet again, I run a vaccine clinic. However, in this vaccine clinic, I also many anxious parents - including many doctors and health professionals who have a concern about the number and quantity of vaccines that are given to young children. 25 before the age of 15 months, now.

(4:06-21) And we talk about safety and the correct safety of vaccines. However, the new HPV vaccine was rushed on at a very fast rate. Partly because of the huge hype by the drug manufacturers to market the vaccine.

(4:22-39) They've been widely criticised for their marketing campaign. They paid doctors' organisations, patients' organisations, doctors. And in fact, they were congratulated for their vaccine as being the Brand of the Year by a marketing campaign for making a market out of thin air.

P (4:39-44): Richard Halvorsen, we're running out of time now. But, we should make it clear, that this vaccine isn't compulsory.

RH (4:45-49): Indeed, it isn't. No vaccines in this country are compulsory, that is true.

P: Richard Halvorsen and Adam Finn, thank you.

End of transcript.

As far as we can tell, and these are approximate timings, Professor Adam Finn, specialist in paediatrics and immunology spoke for approx 1 minute in this discussion.