The Chair of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, Prof Andrew Hall of the Gates Foundation funded London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine received a knighthood today in the Queen’s Birthday Honours . Meanwhile, the scandalous history of the JCVI as recounted by Dr Lucija Tomljenovic of British Columbia University in her paper presented to the British Society for Environmental Medicine continues to go unaddressed. Dr Tomljenovic's paper is already widely recognised as one the most damning indictments of science-government cronyism ever assembled.
Beneath are some quotes from Tomljenovic’s paper:
Deliberately concealing information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to
comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole
purpose of protecting the national vaccination program….
Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained. As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics)  but also, their own Code of Practice…
The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with
vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”, and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text
(i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions Minutes 1986-1992).
In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:
1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective
2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase
vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;
3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to
their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;
4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;
5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;
6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and
safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the
licenses would eventually be granted;
7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;
8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;
Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice.
Dr Tomljenovic’s full meticulously documented paper ‘The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: are they at odds?’ can be
downloaded from the BSEM website .
A sinister and likely illegal piece of legislation from 2009 places an obligation on the British government follow the advice of the JCVI, placing it virtually outside the law or poltical accountability. The committee, under Sir Andrew's chairmanship, airily dismissed Dr Tomljenovic's evidence without dealing with specific examples of their dereliction at their meeting on 3 October 2012 (p.7&8) merely asserting their infallibility.
With further thanks to ChildHealthSafety.org.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.