:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
UK press reports today show UK’s New Labour Government appears to have placed control of UK vaccination programmes from 1 April 2009 in practical effect into the hands of the drug industry and introduced what is potentially a compulsory vaccination law without Parliamentary debate under The Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009.
Jab makers linked to vaccine programme” – Sunday Express By Lucy Johnston HEALTH EDITOR
Scientists to be given power to decide on vaccinations” Sunday Telegraph – By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent 07 Mar 2009]
Giving the JCVI control over vaccination policy appears little different to giving control directly to the drug industry because of a closely similar approach and in some cases interests of one too many JCVI members. The JCVI is drawn from the British Medical professions and includes members with drug industry financial conflicts of interest [Declarations of Interests] and an historically poor record to the present day on vaccination and child health safety [revealed in Freedom of Information documentation - more below].
The new law, introduced in a manner which raises doubts as to its legal and constitutional validity, will mean that when the drug industry produces a vaccine for adults or children, the Secretary of State is obliged to implement whatever recommendation the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation makes.
This new law puts the unpaid JCVI members in a powerful financial position for the drug industry, with the power to decide adult and childhood vaccinations. And if the JCVI decides unvaccinated children should not attend school, as is the position in the USA, that could see compulsory UK childhood vaccination by the “backdoor”.
Contradicting Department of Health claims the JCVI is independently appointed, the JCVI is appointed by an appointments commission under DoH control [more below].
The approach of several JCVI members and other health officials has been shown to be inappropriate and over-zealous, as demonstrated in UK legal proceedings seeking to have children vaccinated against parents’ wishes and when not in the children’s and family’s best interests [more below].
GPs, practice and clinic nurses could be in a difficult position ethically and legally in their relationships with parents and particularly in relation to those vaccinations currently recommended by the JCVI which are recognised not to be clinically necessary, whilst exposing young children to risks of adverse vaccine reactions which are also not being properly monitored by health officials. Mumps, rubella, chickenpox, ‘flu and Hepatitis B vaccines are examples of vaccinations recognised not to be clinically necessary for children whilst being recommended or under consideration for recommendation by the JCVI.
No Debate Over Backdoor Law
The Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 have been introduced without debate against the backdrop of what appears a covert media vaccination strategy [more below]. These new regulations became law by being “laid before Parliament”, which normally means being placed in the library in the English Parliament for 20 days with no objection being raised within that time – none appears to have been.
Paragraph 2 places an
Obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure implementation of JCVI recommendations so far as is reasonably practicable”
No Jab No School
Whilst the Government may initially deny this law introduces compulsory vaccination, this new law could pave the way for withholding schooling and nursery education for unvaccinated children should the JCVI make such a recommendation. That is the position recently mooted by BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour [more below].
When Mary Creagh MP floated compulsory vaccination last year the current BMA chairman, Dr Hamish Meldrum described Mary Creagh’s proposals as ‘Stalinist’ and said forcing parents to have their children innoculated was “morally and ethically dubious”: No jabs, no school says Labour MP .
A Political Issue
The UK’s New Labour Government denies parents choice. Single vaccines are denied to children of worried parents whom New Labour have failed for 11 years to convince of the safety of multiple vaccines, have allowed vaccination rates to fall and then claim children will die if not vaccinated. That does not appear responsible government.
Official Conservative Party policy is to offer the choice.
No Need for New Law
If the Government denies this new law is a way of introducing compulory vaccination there is and was no need for such a new law. The Secretary of State was already implementing the recommendations of The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The JCVI was formerly an advisory body.
Cost Not Safety Is Overriding Concern
Under the new law the Secretary of State can only object to a JCVI recommendation if it is insufficiently backed by evidence of cost-effectiveness. There is no requirement to ensure the vaccinations are safe or to object to or reverse a JCVI recommendation on safety grounds. Freedom of Information documents show that in 1991 the known dangerous Pluserix MMR was withdrawn from supply by the supplier, a GlaxoSmithKline company and the vaccine was not proposed to be withdrawn by the JCVI, Medicines Control Agency, health officials or Government. The Medicines Act licence was continued instead and supply of the proven dangerous vaccine was thereby allowed to be continued to the third world [British Government’s Reckless Disregard for Child Health Safety].
No Public Scrutiny
The JCVI will dictate vaccination policy. This takes away from Parliament democratic control over vaccination health policy. The Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament. It is since 1987 official Conservative policy to offer parents choice but the “vaccination right” is not a right to single vaccines but only to MMR, as dictated by the JCVI.
The JCVI is answerable to no one. And in contrast:-
- is unelected,
- meets in private,
- takes decisions without public consultation or prior debate
- with no public scrutiny [save now for minutes published under FOI, but sometime after the event]
- is unpaid but has questionable links to the drug industry [Declarations of Interests]
- is comprised of voices uncritical of any aspect of vaccination safety
- and that was more than evident from the behaviour of the three JCVI experts involved in the Dr Jayne Donegan GMC case, and which saw a comprehensive exoneration of Dr Donegan’s advice on vaccination
- has no independent public or elected representatives
- has an historically abysmal record on safety to the extent of recklessness [including to the present day]
- it habitually decides matters on papers presented for the first time at meetings without prior consideration by members
- there is no requirement for the members to have qualifications in the formal professional assessment of adverse vaccine reactions, but they are frequently called upon to decide such matters
JCVI Historic Recklessness for Child Health Safety
The JCVI has a legal obligation under English and EU law to apply the precautionary principle in its deliberations. An account of how the JCVI has historically brought about widespread national harm to British children from a reckless approach to child health safety can be seen here: British Government’s Reckless Disregard for Child Health Safety
The latest information shows nothing has changed.
There is a considerable and growing body of research either showing how vaccinations are causally involved in or implicated as the only realistic causal explanation for the pandemic increases in autism, asthma, allergies, diabetes and many other new emerging conditions in modern western economies. Here are examples in relation to autism and allergies: Explaining Vaccines Autism & Mitochondrial Disorder, Mercury in British Vaccines, Autism and Your Child’s Allergies.
Despite data and evidence of such a kind, the 17 June 2008 JCVI meeting decided that all children will be vaccinated regardless of risk – with the JCVI claiming “UK data provide no evidence that vaccination is harmful to children with mitochondrial disorders“: minutes 17 June 2008, and as amended: Draft minutes for main JCVI meeting 15 October 2008:
How should a responsible body of experts respond when presented with the information coming from the USA, politically, in the media, in new research and with cases like Hannah Poling in the US Federal Court? And how did they respond?:-
- it was dealt with under Item 15 “Any Other Business”
- the JCVI dismisses the case of Hannah Poling and all else,
- they propose to vaccinate all children at risk of developing mitochondrial dysfunction like Hannah Poling as a result of vaccination:-
- [recent research shows the at risk group is large - a minimum of 7 percent of currently autistic children and as high as 70 percent can have developed mitochondrial dysfunction. This puts between between 1 in 70 and 1 in 800 British Children at risk according to the current UK rate of autism of 1 in 58, as revealed by Cambridge University research presented at IMFAR, May 2008].
- have no plans to take any action of any kind to protect British children or to make any kind of investigation or to recommend any other action
This is not responsible and especially when compared to what responsible action would and should look like.
JCVI Zealotic Approach
The present practice under the JCVI’s recommendations is to vaccinate in a “one size fits all” approach, even if that means putting those at risk in harm’s way.
The court case of A & D v B & E  EWHC 1376 (Fam) (13 June 2003) about forced state vaccination of two children against their mothers’ wishes and the subsequent GMC proceedings against Dr Jayne Donegan show that some JCVI members who have given evidence in legal proceedings on vaccination issues are prepared to give incorrect evidence to have children vaccinated when not in the best interests of the child or the family.
The Donegan GMC case shows that despite the correct evidence being in favour of not needing to vaccinate in individual cases, some JVCI members are prepared to give their expert opinions in legal proceedings to the contrary.
The outcome of the GMC case against Dr Jayne Donegan demonstrated that the court case of A & D v B & E was incorrectly decided and as a result of inappropriate evidence from JCVI “experts”.
The result of the A & D v B & E was the JCVI position overriding the ethical and appropriate clinical approach in individual cases and parents’ concern for what is best for the child. The latter is despite parents’ legal obligations for their children under the Children Act 1989.
Potentially Difficult Position for Family Doctors and Other Health Professionals
Family doctors, practice and clinic nurses could be put in a difficult position ethically, which also has legal implications:-
- it is unethical and potentially a criminal matter to administer a vaccine without fully informed consent, including on adverse reactions
- Providing treatment to a patient that is not clinically needed and misleading patients as to the clinical need for a treatment so as to vitiate their consent can mean the administration of the treatment is a criminal offence: Appleton v Garrett (1995) 34 BMLR 23.
- fully informed consent is not obtained 99.9% of the time
- in practical terms it cannot be provided because data on adverse reactions is not being properly collected or at all
- much of the information provided by the NHS and Department of Health is misleading and incorrect if followed by health professionals
DoH Scaremongering Over Clinically Unnecessary Vaccines for Children
The Department of Health’s approach to vaccination is to adopt a scaremongering approach, which is not justified on up-to-date statistics nor on risk-vs-risk comparisons of vaccination adverse effects to disease [See more below - "The Push for Vaccination Is Commercially Driven"]
- the BMA, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and JCVI are on record stating:“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine“: British National Formulary (‘BNF’) 1985 and 1986
- rubella vaccination is unnecessary for boys and is only relevant for teenage girls and women of childbearing age to protect the unborn child in the first three months of pregnancy from a risk of an average of 50 cases p.a. of congenital rubella syndrome, of which approximately 10% [ie. 5 cases] may have serious outcomes
- The JCVI proposal to vaccinate infants against ‘flu could now be pushed through even though it was opposed previously because it was not to protect children but old people and also because vaccine expert Dr Tom Jefferson went public on the flu vaccine not working and putting children and adults at risk of adverse reactions for nothing:-
- The JCVI are again proposing chickenpox vaccine for all infants even though clinically unnecessary and greater health problems could be caused as a result – Children need chickenpox jab, say doctors – By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor Telegraph 8 Nov 2007
- The proposals for Hepatitis B vaccination for infants make no sense when at-risk groups are intravenous drug abusers and those who practice unsafe sex, not infants and when the vaccine has a very poor safety profile, including criminal proceedings in France into the withdrawn introduction of universal hepatitis vaccination which saw the first cases of childhood multiple sclerosis in France:-
Covert Government Media Campaign
The Government is currently engaged in what the British public may see as a covert media campaign to promote vaccination with this new law as the backdrop. An announcement in Parliament referred to a media PR campaign to start in late February 2009 to support the MMR in the UK – see this link Measles in Hansard [official record of proceedings in the English Parliament] of the 3rd February 2009. The announcement does not appear linked to the introduction of the new law.
There are two items in Hansard: one on measles and one on MMR;
A public relations campaign is planned to start in late February to support the MMR vaccination.”
We also underlined our commitment to immunisation by stating that immunisation is a ‘right’ in the NHS constitution.“
PCTs must set targets to improve vaccination uptake and agree these with their strategic health authorities (SHAs). The SHAs, with the help of the Department, monitor the PCTs against these targets.“
BBC & Medical Establishment Involvement
Following the Parliamentary announcement, BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour broadcast a programme with Professor Hugh Pennington and a US representative discussing compulsory vaccination and comparing the position in the USA. No one was invited to put any contrary position for balance. Listen online:-
Should measles vaccination be compulsory? 18 Feb 2009 Listen to this item
Could a “no jab, no school” rule be the solution to increasing infection rates?
[Better software than BBC's RealPlayer is Real Alternative which will allow you to play RealMedia files without having to install RealPlayer/RealOne Player:-
Download Real Alternative]
The Push for Vaccination Is Commercially Driven
Historic official statistics show that the need for control of disease across social populations has never been lower: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics.
The financial markets have long been aware that the pharmaceutical industry “blockbuster” patented drug business model has been failing. The drug industry has been adopting other business models since the 1980s and:-
- with vaccines they see the same business model as Bill Gates – everyone must have Windows software on their computer – everyone must be vax’ed
- over the past 20 years and more they have built up a network of influence with government, with health official and the medical professions
- they have promulgated the belief that vaccines are magic bullets and must not be criticised in any way by anyone
- adverse vaccine reactions appear taboo, are rarely discussed, little researched or reported
- have brought about the situation where the medical evidence base of published journals can no longer be trusted as reliable: [Doctors Without Borders Why you can't trust medical journals anymore April 2004 Shannon Brownlee, Washington Monthly]
- covert lobbying organisations are working without the public or journalists realising: [LobbyWatch]
We vaccinate children against diseases like mumps when the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s position on this was [their joint publication the British National Formulary]:-
“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”: British National Formulary (‘BNF’) 1985 and 1986
The JCVI’s official position on this was also the same pre-MMR according to JCVI minutes obtained under Freedom of Information.
The medical ethics and legality of vaccination in such circumstances are therefore questionable, albeit financially lucrative for the pharmaceutical industry.
At the same time, monitoring of vaccination risks is at best inadequate and in reality practically non-existent. If a child suffers a serious adverse reaction, the child and parents are “dumped” by the Government and UK National Health Service: British Government & Establishment’s Efforts to Deny Compensation to MMR Vaccine Child Victims.
“Independent” JCVI – Under Department of Health Control
The following are mutually contradictory official statements showing what the DoH says is not true regarding JCVI “independence”.
“The JCVI is appointed by the Appointments Commission and is independent of the department.” [Hansard - Health: Vaccines]
“The Commission was established in 2001, and is based in Leeds. We are governed by a board of directors which is directly accountable to the Department of Health.” [Appointments Commission]
The Sunday Times And Glaxo
MMR vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has appointed to its Board the head of News International James Murdoch. Murdoch is also boss of The Sunday Times, London, England publisher of stories by freelance journalist Brian Deer to discredit research into the link between MMR vaccine and autism in the US and UK [James Murdoch joins Glaxo board - Andrew Jack and Ben Fenton Financial Times 2 February 2009].
Murdoch will serve as a member of GSK’s corporate responsibility committee, where he will help to review “external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group’s business and reputation“:[James Murdoch takes GlaxoSmithKline role – Chris Tryhorn The Guardian Monday 2 February 2009.
Some wags have now dubbed the newspaper “The Sunday Glaxo”.
A British Parliamentary Health Select Committtee Report found that the drug industry spends “considerable resources” on building relationships with journalists to counter concerns regarding drug safety and to undermine critical voices and that the drug industry considers this “entirely legitimate”:-
The use of PR to counter negative publicity
221. Public relations is particularly important during times of bad publicity, especially when the safety of brands is called into question. Considerable resources are invested into building long-term, sustainable relationships with stakeholders and ‘key opinion leaders’ and journalists. These relationships are used to promote the use of certain brands and counter concerns relating to safety. Efforts to undermine critical voices in particular were identified, under terms of “issues management”. In later evidence, in response to the ISM’s memorandum, Pfizer stated that PR is entirely legitimate and can “help to educate and inform”. According to the PMCPA, PR activities may include “placing articles in the lay press, TV documentaries, soap operas etc”.186 The following example of a project worksheet shows the marketing campaign process and the targeting of consumers and the press.
The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry House of Commons Health Committee Fourth Report of Session 2004–05
James Murdoch took up his appointment alongside Sir Crispin Davis the CEO of The Lancet medical journal’s owners. Sir Crispin is brother of Judge Nigel Davis whose English High Court judgement in February 2004 saw the end of British children’s MMR vaccine injury claims [MMR Judge Faces Probe Over Brother's Links to Vaccine Firm - Evening Standard, London 9 May 2007].
The outcome of an investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints found no impropriety and resulted in no action taken regarding the relationship between Judge Davis and his brother Crispin Davis’ GlaxoSmithKline board position. A statement issued on Judge Davis’ behalf to The Telegraph newspaper legal correspondent, Joshua Rosenberg stated that “the possibility of any conflict of interest had not occurred to him“. Sir Crispin Davis received a knighthood in June 2004.
Recent statements by UK Sunday Times’ journalist Brian Deer shows he helped the US Department of Justice present the US Court of Federal Claims on a number of occasions with last-minute documents to defeat the prospects for the US children’s claims [Full quote below]. The production of last-minute evidence is a litigation tactic which can prejudice the Court’s view and can leave an opponent with little time to counter it. The Federal Court has previously upheld claims of US children developing autistic symptoms from vaccines including the MMR vaccine: [AUTISM - US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments - It’s Not Just MMR]
The DoJ was sending out just before the recent US Court decisions the article in The Sunday Times of London by journalist Brian Deer, attacking the basis for the US children’s claims and published the Sunday before the Court decisions.
These events are closely similar to the UK in 2004. Just before a crucial English Court decision throwing out UK children’s legal aid funding for claims for the same injuries the same journalist published similar articles again in The Sunday Times London unusually again substantially based on the journalist’s own unqualified medical opinions. It was later discovered the Judge in the UK case was the brother of director Crispin Davis of MMR vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline.
No other journalist has been writing the same kinds of stories.
The prospects for the US children were also already harmed by the journalist’s reports published internationally since 2003 in the UK Sunday Times which have hindered research into the children’s injuries and are believed to have had a deterrent effect on other experts coming forward.
UK journalist and political commentator Melanie Phillips wrote [Monday, 16th February 2009 [ A deer in the headlights The Spectator]:-
Last week there was a big vaccine damage judgement in the US – the ‘Cedillo’ case – in which the court said the Wakefield theory about MMR was out to lunch in la-la land.
If his [Deer's] boast is true, it would seem that the US court — whose ruling looks pretty thin to me — arrived at its conclusion based on Deer’s allegations. In other words, two major quasi-legal hearings relating to Andrew Wakefield’s theory, one of which is being reported by Deer, have depended significantly or wholly upon a journalist’s own allegations.
This is what Deer posted on the Left Brain Right Brain website in the wake of that case:
“….. I’m also very proud that ….. the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, copiously borrowing pages of evidence from my website and displaying some in court. I was surprised by this…….. on a number of occasions I would come home, find an email from the department of justice asking me for a document, and see that the next day it was being run in court. …….. I recall supplying a key document on the O’Leary lab business, which the DoJ didn’t seem to know about just weeks before the hearing”
Freelance journalist Brian Deer confirmed the “Data Fixing” article was based solely on his own opinions stating in a blog on which he has routinely posted [Brian Deer on February 20th, 2009 22:15:38]:-
I wouldn’t want folk to lose sight of my landmark report of the weekend before last: I believe the first time ever that a journalist has gone behind the words on the page of a medical research paper, and compared its claims with original case data.
The issues go much wider than just MMR: with my findings raising the question of why we give such weight to what we read in the journals.
The work of journalists is always eventually open the scrutiny [sic]. ….. if what I published was untrue, I would get caught out eventually. ……
I was told by a very senior medical journal editor the other day that a guy at the New York Times has for years been trying to accomplish something similar with other papers, but, to my knowledge, I’m the first ever to do it.
Perhaps this is immodest of me, but I’m very proud of this accomplishment, which will always be a highlight of my professional career.
The Sunday Times journalist then goes on to confirm he will be using confidential medical details from children’s records to publish more reports:-
I’ve got some great tables comparing the Lancet paper with the children’s actual histories and diagnoses. Eventually I will publish them
The companion article to the “Data Fixing” story was amended online [18 Feb] with a statement “This article is the subject of a legal complaint” [Hidden records show MMR truth Brian Deer, The Sunday Times - February 8, 2009] – since removed.
Whilst Mr James Murdoch is not reported to have involvement in editorial decisions at The Sunday Times, the recent appointment to the MMR vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline’s Board may give rise to public concern over the close links between key players in MMR litigation in the US and UK and the support at The Sunday Times for the campaigning activities of journalist Brian Deer. Similarly, there is no suggestion of any direct, indirect or other impropriety arising from the relationships noted in this article, the public is entitled to ask questions such as “what medical journal editor, newspaper editor or journalist is going to write unfavourable stories about GlaxoSmithKline and not write favourable stories when his boss in on Glaxo’s board. How will the existence of such relationships influence the thinking and actions of subordinates and others without being asked? How can this be healthy and in the public interest?“
Unconstitutional and Illegal
The use of the system of delegated legislation [to introduce the new regulations by Statutory Instrument] appears unconstitutional. If the Secretary of State is obliged to do what the JCVI mandate, that is a significant legal change. It appears contrary to the legal principle of “delegatus non potest delegare” which means a public official like a Secretary of State, delegated to exercise the power of Parliament and the State cannot delegate the exercise of that power to another.
However, this new law appears to go one stage further and makes the Secretary of State subordinate to an external body. That body, the JCVI, also seems to be an unelected unnaccountable body. Constitutionally, this also appears contrary to principles of democratic government. The JCVI was itself previously subordinate to the Secretary of State.
The JCVI has up to now been a “voluntary” advisory body, and whose members historically were unpaid save for expenses. It has been the subject of criticism for the links of its members to the pharmaceutical industry [Declarations of Interests]. It also has a poor track record on vaccine safety over the last 20 years and more to the extent of being reckless as to child health safety in the United Kingdom, as revealed by numerous documents released under Freedom of Information, including documents relating to the present day [see more below].
The key issue according to a recent House of Lords decision is whether Parliament has “retained ultimate authority and control and so remained responsible in law for the exercise of those powers“: Al-Jedda, R (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for Defence  UKHL 58 (12 December 2007) But in this case Parliament has not retained control. The only way to retain authority and control is to revoke the regulations – but that would acknowledge authority and control had been ceded by the Secretary of State under the regulations.
About The JCVI
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI, the Committee) a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB). It is a statutory expert Standing Advisory Committee established in England and Wales under the NHS and the NHS (Standing Advisory Committee) Order 1981 as the Standing Advisory Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The Committee statutory basis in Scotland or Northern Ireland but, nonetheless, fulfils role and has the same responsibilities in those countries as in England and Wales.
The Committee has no executive function. Its role is purely to provide quality and considered advice and recommendations to the Secretaries on matters set out in its terms of reference. This includes giving advice recommendations on matters relating to communicable diseases, preventable and potentially preventable through immunisation, and also on any specific special matters that the Secretaries of State may from time to time request. formulating its advice and recommendations, the Committee must take account the need for and impact of vaccines, the quality of vaccines and safety and the strategies to ensure that the greatest benefit to the public can be obtained from the most appropriate use of vaccines. Members expected to make a full and considered contribution to this work: Appointments Commission – Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation – Information pack for applicants
Filed under: ADHD, Aspergers, autism, Barak Obama, Child Health Safety, Disease Statistics, Hannah Poling, John Poling, MMR, Obama, vaccination, vaccine, vaccine court, Vaccine Damage, Vaccines | Tagged: ADHD, Andrew Wakefield, Aspergers, autism, Barak Obama, Baron Cohen, CDC, David Kirby, fraud, genetic, genetics, Hannah Poling, immunisation, Jon Poling, Julie Gerberding, MMR, Obama, Professor Baron Cohen, Professor Simon Baron Cohen, research, research fraud, Simon Baron Cohen, vaccination, vaccine, vaccine adverse reaction, Vaccine Damage, vaccine risks, Vaccines, Wakefield | 22 Comments »