UK Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination - [SZ]

[Guest guest]

1 - Child Health Safety's story -

<http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/pharma-decide-uk-vaccination/\

>UK

Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination

2 - OFFICIAL JABS NEWS RELEASE ALSO BELOW

Contact JABS ORGANISATION Jackie Fletcher 01942 713565 -

01952 677180 Mob: 07788 502154 - 0121

722 3004 Mob: 07841 470908

______________________________________________________________________________

CHS Story -

<http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/pharma-decide-uk-vaccination/\

>UK

Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination

March 8, 2009 by childhealthsafety

UK press reports today show UK's New Labour Government appears to

have placed control of UK vaccination programmes from 1 April 2009

in the hands of the drug industry and introduced what is potentially

a compulsory vaccination law without Parliamentary debate under

<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation & title=The+\

Health+Protection+%28Vaccination%29+Regulations+2009 & searchEnacted=0 & extentMatch\

Only=0 & confersPower=0 & blanketAmendment=0 & TYPE=QS & NavFrom=0 & activeTextDocId=35470\

25 & PageNumber=1 & SortAlpha=0>The

Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009. [see:

<http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3812>Jab makers

linked to vaccine programme - Sunday Express By Lucy ston HEALTH

EDITOR and

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4953256/Scientists-to-be-given-pow\

er-to-decide-on-vaccinations.html>Scientists

to be given power to decide on vaccinations Sunday Telegraph - By

Donnelly, Health Correspondent 07 Mar 2009]

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.

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 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 recommended by the JCVI.

The JCVI is drawn from the British Medical professions and includes

members with drug industry financial conflicts of interest

[<http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/DOI-2008.htm>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].

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 and family's best

interests [more below] .........

............ Read on for detailed story, analysis and

information:-

<http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/pharma-decide-uk-vaccination/\

>UK

Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination

______________________________________________________________________________

2 - OFFICIAL JABS NEWS RELEASE

Contact JABS ORGANISATION Jackie Fletcher 01942 713565 -

01952 677180 Mob: 07788 502154 - 0121

722 3004 Mob: 07841 470908

ABS

1 Gawsworth Road

Golborne

Warrington

Cheshire

WA3 3RF

Press contacts:

Jackie Fletcher 01942 713565

01952 677180 Mob: 07788 502154

0121 722 3004 Mob: 07841 470908

JABS PRESS RELEASE

Sunday 8th March 2009

UK Government hands control of vaccination to the JCVI

JABS has become concerned that the Labour Government is introducing

compulsory vaccination under The Health Protection (Vaccination)

Regulations 2009 (1) without Parliamentary debate. It is evident from

a reading of the legislation that all vaccination decisions for the

UK childhood vaccination programme as from 1st April 2009 will be

handed from the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee on

Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), currently an advisory body whose

members have direct and indirect financial ties to the pharmaceutical

industry.

JABS has become concerned about the following points:

* The Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament. The JCVI is

not. It is a voluntary advisory body and is made up of medical

professionals which includes members with potential conflicts of

interest because of direct and indirect links with vaccine

manufacturers

[<http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/DOI-2008.htm>Declarations

of Interests].

* According to the new legislation: '...The Secretary of State

must make arrangements to ensure, so far as is reasonably

practicable, that the recommendation of the JCVI is implemented...'

This new legislation appears to make the Secretary of State junior to

an advisory body. The advisory body was itself previously junior to

the Secretary of State. Why is there a need to change positions when

the Secretary of State tended to implement the recommendations of the

JCVI previously in any event?

* Why has there been no parliamentary debate about the handing

over of power? The use of a statutory instrument to transfer power

from the Secretary of State in this manner, appears unconstitutional

and a major change in practice. Is this change lawful?

* Given the ambiguous wording of the regulation it appears to

pave the way for compulsory vaccinations: '...Those conditions are

that the recommendation must - (a) relate to new provision for

vaccination under a national vaccination programme or to changes to

existing provision under such a programme...'. Is the UK Government

planning to introduce compulsory vaccination for children by the back

door? Ostensibly allowing it to be a JCVI decision that the Secretary

of State is newly obliged to implement?

* The JCVI has a chequered history. The committee was involved in

the approval process for MMR vaccines in 1988. Two out of the three

MMR brands introduced contained urabe mumps strain and were withdrawn

four years later because of a risk of neurological complications.

Recent evidence from the USA shows that US judges have ruled that a

number of children have suffered long term neurological damage

following combinations of vaccines. When the JCVI considered the

ground breaking US Hannah Poling vaccine damage case in which she was

found to have a mitochondrial dysfunction they proposed to vaccinate

all children irrespective of the risk of developing this condition (2).

* If the Secretary of State is obliged to implement any

recommendation of the JCVI, what safeguards are in place to ensure

undue pressure is not placed on the JCVI members from vaccine

manufacturers to introduce greater numbers of vaccines into childhood

programmes or the wider population? Could this be a licence to print

money for the vaccine manufacturers?

* It has been proposed recently by Labour MP Creagh that

children who have not received all their vaccinations should not be

allowed to start school. She said primary schools should be compelled

to demand proof that children had been given the full range of

routine jabs - including MMR - before they could register. She also

said the proposed move would increase the uptake of the controversial

MMR vaccine. Sir Sandy Macara, ex-chairman of the British Medical

Association, suggested linking child benefits to vaccinations (3). As

public confidence in vaccination, and in the MMR vaccine

particularly, has fallen over the last fifteen years is this new

legislation designed to remove parental choice - the 'make 'em have

it' approach as in the USA?

* What happens if the JCVI recommends that children should not

attend school/nursery without being vaccinated? How will this be enforced?

* How far has the Government consulted on this issue? Is the

British Medical Association aware of this new law? The current

chairman, Dr Hamish Meldrum described Creagh's proposals as

'Stalinist' and said forcing parents to have their children

inoculated was " morally and ethically dubious " (2).

A large public consultation was undertaken by the Nuffield Council on

Bioethics and concluded in November 2007 that there was no reason to

change the voluntary system. At the same time as this was published

in the UK there was a huge furore in the US as American parents were

threatened with hefty fines and jail unless they vaccinated their

children before entry into school - is this really the direction we

want to go in?

JABS is concerned that the sole purpose of this new legislation is to

transfer power to the JCVI in order to introduce the compulsory

vaccination of children. The government has said it has no plans to

introduce compulsory vaccinations but has kept this power-shift quiet. Why?

(1) The Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 (No38)

<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation & title=The+Hea\

lth+Protection+%28Vaccination%29+Regulations+2009 & searchEnacted=0 & extentMatchOnl\

y=0 & confersPower=0 & blanketAmendment=0 & sortAlpha=0 & TYPE=QS & PageNumber=1 & NavFrom=0\

& parentActiveTextDocId=3547025 & ActiveTextDocId=3547032 & filesize=2114>http://www.\

statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation & title=The+Health+Protecti\

on+(Vaccination)+Regulations+2009 & searchEnacted=0 & extentMatchOnly=0 & confersPower\

=0 & blanketAmendment=0 & sortAlpha=0 & TYPE=QS & PageNumber=1 & NavFrom=0 & parentActiveTex\

tDocId=3547025 & ActiveTextDocId=3547032 & filesize=2114

http://tinyurl.com/ckhw4d

(2) The JCVI meeting dated 17 June 2008 decided that all children

will be vaccinated regardless of risk. The JCVI claimed " UK data

provide no evidence that vaccination is harmful to children with

mitochondrial disorders " .

Minutes

<http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/JCVI_draft_minutes_final_17_June_08.p\

df>17

June 2008, and as amended:

<http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/JCVI_draft_minutes_final_15_Oct_08.pd\

f>Draft

minutes for main JCVI meeting 15 October 2008:

(3) No jabs, no school says Labour MP

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7392510.stm>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health\

/7392510.stm

JABS is a self-help group for parents who believe their children have

been damaged by vaccines. We neither recommend nor advise against

vaccinations. We aim to promote understanding about immunisations and

offer basic support to any parent whose child has a health problem

after vaccination.