UK Government Vaccines Director Threatens Legal Action Against One Click

[Guest guest]

> Circulate far and wide!!

>

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2680 & end=2700 & view=yes & id=3349#\

newspost

>

<http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2680 & end=2700 & view=yes & id=3349\

#newspost>

> *UK Government Vaccines Director Threatens Legal Action Against One

> Click*

> 4 March 2009

> * *

>

>

> *THE ONE CLICK GROUP REPONSE

>

<http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/%20Salisbury%20Threat\

ens%20One%20Click.pdf>

> Professor Salisbury Threatens Legal Action*

>

> *

>

> From Left:* Professor Salisbury, UK Head of Immunisation

> One Click Group Director Jane

>

> *For The Attention Of:

> Professor Salisbury

> Messrs. Blake Lapthom, Solicitors*

>

>

>

> *One Click Group Director Jane writes:* “Firstly, I would like

> to thank the many friends of One Click for their assistance in the

> composition of this Open Letter in answer to the litigation threatened

> against our pressure group by Professor Salisbury, Head of

> Immunisation at the UK Department of Health. From the satire to the

> serious, your creative and constructive proposals from around the

> world have informed this response. I would also like to personally

> thank Professor Salisbury for supporting the wide reach of the

> material published by One Click. As his solicitors write: /‘The

> postings on the website have a wide circulation....’/ Such a ringing

> endorsement from one such as Professor Salisbury is most welcome.

> Thank you.”

>

> *INTRODUCTION*

>

> On 26 February 2009, Professor Salisbury, Head of Immunisation

> at the UK Department of Health, instructed Blake Lapthom, a firm of

> solicitors based in Eastleigh, to initiate legal proceedings against

> The One Click Group unless we comply with the following: The removal

> from our website of the /MMR Vaccine – GMC Formal Complaint

>

<http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2540 & end=2560 & view=yes & id=3151\

#newspost>/

> submitted to the General Medical Council by grandfather Bill Welsh and

> the article entitled /To Encourage the Others

>

<http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/To%20Encourage%20the%20Oth\

ers.pdf>/

> written by investigative writer J . Salisbury not only

> wants these evidence based factual documents removed from the website,

> he also wants One Click to apologise to him for having the temerity to

> publish them. Both these papers deal with vaccine damage that has now

> reached epidemic proportions in Britain and around the world today.

>

> *ONE CLICK RESPONSE*

>

> A most appropriate response to Salisbury’s litigation threat would be

> to take a leaf out of the long and honourable tradition started by

> satirical magazine /Private Eye/ who used to receive legal threats all

> the time. When confronted with such legal threats, the then /Private

> Eye/ Editor, Ingrams, apparently took up a chunky red felt tip

> pen, diagonally scrawled the equivalent of ‘Go Forth And Multiply’ all

> over the legal papers and sent them back to the solicitors in question

> by return. For our international readers unfamiliar with the short

> form of the vernacular, the verbatim first word starts with F and the

> second, with O.

>

> Since Salisbury (forever henceforth to be tagged as Outraged of

> Eastleigh by us due to his solicitor location) has elected to deliver

> his litigious missive to One Click by email alone rather than by post,

> this opportunity has been denied us and so it is via the Internet

> currency selected by Salisbury that One Click will respond.

>

> According to his 26 February letter, Outraged of Eastleigh seems

> particularly piqued that upon One Click’s publication of Bill Welsh’s

> /MMR Vaccine – GMC Formal Complaint/ published on 9 January 2009 and

> ’s /To Encourage the Others/ article on 12 January 2009,

> we did not give him the Right Of Reply.

>

> His Eastleigh based solicitors write on Outraged's behalf:

>

> /“Your website did not ask for any comment from our client

> Before publishing the complaint. Therefore our client was

> Not given the opportunity to address his well founded concern

> About the publication of the details of a complaint

> Made to the GMC [General Medical Council]. As a matter

> Of good practice this complaint should not have been

> Published on the Internet prior to it being considered

> By the GMC.”/

>

> We beg to differ. As a matter of fact, the GMC *had* already formally

> responded to Mr. Welsh and his GMC Complaint prior to One Click’s

> publication of the contents. We know because Mr. Welsh advised us of

> this in writing whilst requesting that we publish his offering. But

> one should never let the facts get in the way of a good Outraged from

> Eastleigh solicitor’s letter though, he?

>

> As a matter of fact, One Click would have been delighted to offer

> Salisbury a Right of Reply had he requested it and indeed it is highly

> unusual for Salisbury to be shy of speaking up at the back. You only

> had to ask, old boy. You most certainly know where we are.

>

> Instead, Salisbury has elected to despatch a solicitor’s letter

> threatening all sorts. Headed /‘Not For Publication’/, the letter

> states amongst its four page offerings: /“We reserve the right to show

> this letter to the Court on the question of costs...”/ What is good

> enough to be displayed in the public courts is certainly good enough

> for One Click Readers and Contributors to see too. Furthermore, it

> seems rather unfair for Salisbury to want to carry out his legal

> bullying behind closed doors.

>

> One Clickers simply cannot believe that Salisbury did not want us to

> publish his letter and therefore despite it being headed /‘Not For

> Publication’/ we are publishing Outraged of Eastleigh’s Right of Reply

> for this is what it amounts to. There is absolutely no legal

> impediment in so doing. See Professor Salisbury Threatens One

> Click

>

<http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Outraged%20of%20Eastleigh,\

%20Salisbury,%2026%20February%202009.pdf>.

> We will leave the two named documents in question to do the rebuttal.

>

>

> *From Left: Grandfather Bill Welsh

> Investigative writer J *

>

> *NEXT STEPS*

>

> What is Salisbury planning to do? Launch suits against every portal in

> the world that has carried this material that he so much detests or

> any reference or link to it? Have a go at all the Blogs? Try to force

> that from Timbuktu to Alaska and beyond, these documents and all

> references to them MUST BE TAKEN DOWN from Blogs and websites around

> the world? Outraged of Eastleigh, we wish you all the best with this.

> Of course you realise that by adopting this approach, these documents

> could well become the cause celebre of 2009? That around the world,

> people who’d never really heard of these documents before would

> certainly hear about this? Backed by court action this has the

> potential to go nuclear.

>

> Fully in line with the principle of open dialogue and Right of Reply

> perhaps in Salisbury's next letter to us as Outraged of

> Eastleigh despatched by his lawyers, he might care to make comment on

> the following. It’s not just the MMR vaccine that he’s got to worry about.

>

> • It has recently been announced that the US vaccine court awarded

> damages to a ten year-old child, Banks, who it said had

> developed acute brain damage involving autistic spectrum disorder as a

> result of his MMR vaccination. The ruling was unequivocal. It

> concluded from the evidence provided by a full neurological

> examination of the child 16 days after his MMR vaccination that the

> jab had caused Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which in

> turn had led to Pervasive Developmental Delay, a disorder on the

> autistic spectrum. It also turns out from this ruling that the vaccine

> court had heard two previous cases where the Special Master had found

> that the MMR vaccine had caused Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis.

> Another ruling in the US vaccine court

>

<http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3395891/another-ruling-in-the-us-vac\

cine-court.thtml>

> , /The Spectator/

>

> • Published in The Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009

> (No. 38) <http://tinyurl.com/ckhw4d> is the edict that in the future,

> as of 4 April start date, it will be the Obligation on the Secretary

> of State to ensure implementation of Joint Committee on Vaccination

> and Immunisation (JCVI) recommendations. This says: /“The Secretary of

> State must make arrangements to ensure, so far as is reasonably

> practicable, that the recommendation of the JCVI is implemented.”/ So

> the Secretary of State will have to take orders from an unelected

> committee long recognised as dealing with commercial matters, and well

> known for turning a blind eye to adverse reactions despite having a

> sub committee with the sole purpose of discussing them. None of this

> has been discussed openly through the proper parliamentary channels.

> Could this deceptive move be paving the way for forced vaccination UK,

> by stealth?

>

> • A 2007 analysis of HPV vaccine Gardasil adverse event reports

> revealed that there have been at least 3,461 complaints of adverse

> reactions and eight deaths. The ‘side effects’ reports also included

> 28 women who miscarried. Other side effects reported to the FDA

> included paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures

> were also reported. Three young women in the US died shortly after

> receiving Gardasil, while two other women in Europe also died after

> the vaccine

> was administered.

>

> • Cervarix, GSK's cervical cancer vaccine, is now being administered

> in the UK to girls as young as 11 after the company won a lucrative

> /£100m a year supply contract with the UK Department of Health

>

<http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Materials-Formulation/Gardasil-vs-Cervarix\

-winner-gets-UK-supply-contract>/.

> HPV vaccines are a cause for concern for many parents after the number

> of deaths and adverse effects associated with administration of the

> leading competitor, Gardasil. In addition, it is not comforting that

> the clinical trial data for Cervarix has been compiled for female

> adolescents and women significantly older (e.g. age 15-25) than the

> target market (girls as young as 11). This Cervarix vaccine contains a

> completely novel combination adjuvant system whose safety and

> efficacy, prior to its introduction, was completely untested on the

> girls destined to receive it. See /Cervarix HPV Vaccine And The ASO4

> Novel Adjuvant System

>

<http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2380 & end=2400 & view=yes & id=2926\

#newspost>/,

> 7 October 2008. How can it be that the UK Department of Health is

> spending £100m of taxpayer’s money on a vaccine that has not been

> tested properly and has the developing evidence base of causing harm

> and death in ever-increasing numbers? Why don’t you pump more money

> into the perfectly good facilities already set up around Britain for

> smear tests and general better sexual health? Why are you spending

> £100m of our money on this damaging vaccine that does not fulfil the

> criteria of ‘unmet need’?

>

> • In view of the recent withdrawal of 76,000 doses of the Gardasil HPV

> vaccine by the Spanish Health Authorities, is the Department of Health

> going to review the safety of its recent programme of HPV immunisation

> in the UK? (See Reuters report

> <http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSLA56308620090210>).

> In view of your Department's mass HPV vaccination policy, do you have

> any plans to advise UK parents of the reports coming out about HPV

> vaccines so that they are more able to reach a balanced conclusion

> about the safety of this vaccination and whether they should, or

> should not, vaccinate their children?

>

> Let us also not forget about the 17,000 doses of the toxic Meningitis

> C vaccine contaminated with a version of MRSA despatched to GP

> surgeries across the land last week. Oh yes, and the chicken pox

> vaccine that you are proposing to include with the MMR jab that

> according to reports, is set to increase the incidence of Shingles by

> 50%. Do you not think that you have enough problems with the

> controversy and litigation swirling over the MMR vaccine already?

> Chickenpox in children is generally very mild. Shingles by contrast is

> at best absolutely awful to endure and at worst, can lead to brain

> damage and death. Shingles is never mild. Questions about vaccine

> safety are increasing every day.

>

> There are so many issues that One Click will be more than happy to

> debate in public with Salisbury. The link between Sudden Infant

> Death Syndrome (SIDS) and vaccines is definitely one of our top agenda

> items. Outraged of Eastleigh, we look forward to receiving your Right

> of Reply on all the above.

>

> *CONCLUSION*

>

> On One Click we defend the right of Free Speech. We defend the right

> to publish formal complaints delivered to the General Medical Council

> subsequent to their formal response and we defend the right to publish

> evidence based articles and place them in the public domain. We will

> not be removing the aforementioned articles from the website and we

> will not be apologising for publishing them. These items have been

> published, referred to and linked by websites and blogs around the

> world and are common currency readily available to all.

>

> One of the dangers for Professor Salisbury, as we are sure his

> solicitors will advise, is that if he is so foolish as to want to take

> on a Mother and her sick child in litigation for being named as owning

> a website that publishes evidence based information over the vaccines

> controversy, amongst the many other health advocacy issues covered by

> One Click, he will end up looking like the defendant rather than the

> plaintiff.

>

> Commenting on vaccines, Dr Fletcher, former Chief Scientific

> Officer at the Department of Health, said: / " The refusal by

> governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the

> greatest scandals in medical history. There are very powerful people

> in positions of great authority who have staked their reputations on

> the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to

> protect themselves. " /

>

> Jane states: /“I will not be bullied by Salisbury. One

> Click will not grovel to him under duress. I predict that if this case

> comes to court, it will serve to lift the lid on the UK vaccination

> policy with the attendant media coverage such as nothing else could

> possibly do so effectively.”/

>

> Salisbury’s proposed legal action against One Click, as just one of

> the internet publishers of these documents, will provide the greatest

> house cleaning service of the activities of the vaccine industry ever.

> It is far better than any other initiative that we could possibly have

> devised.

>

> One Click to Outraged of Eastleigh: If you absolutely insist on this

> course of legal action, Game On. We’ll die all over your shoes and

> cost you millions. Alternatively, One Click is more than happy to

> provide you with Right of Reply any time. In fact, I think that it is

> safe to say that we all positively look forward to opening a mutually

> beneficial dialogue at minimal cost on a range of vaccine issues that

> concern people around the world today.

>

> Could we please have your Right of Reply copy in by next week in

> regard to the aforementioned?

>

> Cheers!

>

> *The One Click Group

> 4 March 2009

>

> ********

> Related