Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I rise to speak in support of the motion as well as in defence of science. However, I wish also to set out why I think many ordinary people might have a distrust of that science. Vaccination saves lives, as many other Deputies have said. Along with the advent of modern sanitation and access to clean water, vaccination is responsible for saving millions of lives globally. Stephen J. Gould, the renowned scientist, wrote a great essay in which he referred to the death of the daughter of Charles Darwin. Mr. Gould made the point that when people sought to wax lyrical about the golden age of past centuries, he reminded them that, thanks to modern medicine, most of us in the west enjoyed a privilege never before vouchsafed to any human group. He pointed out that our children will grow up; we will not lose half or more of our offspring in infancy or childhood. He said we will not have to sing the song of the death of our children. One sees in old graveyards the headstones of young children struck down in childhood in pandemics and epidemics as well as by diseases of poverty and lack of access to clean water. They died from diseases which today are almost eliminated, including smallpox, polio, yellow fever, diphtheria and measles. We must begin by celebrating the fact that modern medicine has made great strides. We must think before we cast doubt on the efficacy of vaccination what we are actually saying and what the consequences of raising those doubts will be for the lives of people. I start, therefore, by celebrating the fact that millions in this generation do not have to sing the song of the death of their children.

The biggest problem we face globally is the lack of access of so many children to medicines, clean water, sanitation, vaccinations and, often, the food which could save millions of lives. According to the World Health Organization, the number of measles-related deaths decreased by 79% in the 21st century up to 2014. Measles vaccination has played a key role in reducing child mortality. As to the HPV vaccine, we know that more than 90% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV, a disease which killed 270,000 girls worldwide in 2012, while 10% of women have required invasive treatment for a pre-cancer over their lifetimes. Numerous studies show that the HPV vaccine is extremely effective against this virus and has the potential to reduce dramatically the incidence of cancer and to save untold lives. One study in Scotland found a 90% reduction in HPV among young Scottish women. The director of Scotland's HPV reference laboratory says these new findings indicate that the positive impact of the HPV vaccine may be even greater then was initially thought. He says the data demonstrate collectively the significance and continued benefit of HPV vaccination programmes in Scotland which have achieved a consistent and high uptake of approximately 90% in 12 and 13 year old girls.

While we will support the motion, that does not mean the families of girls who experience the onset of illness and other long-term health problems should be sneered at. As the amendment proposes, the HSE should engage with those families and girls. In all honesty, the HSE should engage with every group of people who have concerns about their health and the health of their children. The HSE should engage and look after those who suffer from disabilities and who need access to proper health care. Witness those who were outside the gates of Leinster House today who have been grossly disappointed by the removal of the protocol from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which we ratified last week. There are huge issues with the way in which the makers of Gardasil Merck have collected reports on adverse reactions as well as with the methodology they have used. There are issues with the European Medicines Agency. People have a right to question big pharma and to seek answers about their children's health.

However, people may distrust science and scientists for the same reasons they distrust instinctively many in authority. They distrust the economists who tell them they must accept cutbacks or that a vital public service cannot be funded. They distrust the Ministers who tell them they must accept this or that extra charge on their wages because there is no alternative. Scientists tell those who are disappointed with authority and the misuse of power that they must use this or that vaccine and confusion can easily arise with opposition to authority generally. However, when all of the evidence points to the fact that the vaccine saves lives and prevents suffering, we have a duty to be careful about how we pose questions. My understanding is that much of the illness and many of the effects of which young girls complain can occur in the same age bracket as the age at which the vaccine is administered. This is what parents are concerned about. That does not mean the vaccine caused those ill effects. However, parents might connect those ill effects with receiving the vaccine and they have legitimate questions about the timeframe. We must understand their concerns and answer them without dismissing them and without categorising all of their questions as irrational or anti-science. I have been struck, however, by how sneering and dismissive many who call themselves scientists and defenders of rationality can be. We have a right to question the actions of big pharma and its obsessive drive for profits. We have seen these companies put profits before people's lives and health in the past.

Telling people to trust scientists who show them contempt and who do not engage is not how we should do this. We can defend science and the advances of modern medicine while pointing out that the pursuit of profit and corporations are at the heart of a lot of these serious consequences. We can point that out and campaign for a better health service, better access to life-saving medicines and better oversight and accountability of corporations. At the same time, we must support and defend the medicines and vaccines which all peer review shows effective to prevent life-threatening illnesses.

For that reason, we will be supporting the motion and, indeed, the amendment to the motion that the vaccine should be available to young boys as well as young girls. It has had an amazing effect on reducing cancer in young girls. I welcome the motion.

See this speech in context