Best of: Too Many Too Soon Too Little Too Late
Dachel Media Update: Zucker Punched Again

Urgent Questions: Men B Vaccine and the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

UK joint committee
By John Stone

Urgent Questions About Men B Vaccine and the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: Open Letter to Andrew Earnshaw, Secretary to the Committee

As a Downing Street petition to the British government about the general availability of the recently marketed Meningitis B vaccine Bexsero becomes the most signed in history Age of Autism’s UK editor poses some serious and awkward questions to the committee that recommended the vaccine for infant use.

Dear Mr Earnshaw,

I refer to your letter [1] on behalf the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation Secretariat to Michael McMahon, convener of the Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament, of 7 January 2016 regarding petition PE1584 presented by Mr Angus Files with myself in support. While noting your defence of the position of Prof Pollard as chair of the JCVI I am surprised that there is no reference to his role as the developer of Bexsero vaccine. Contemporaneous with his appointment to the JCVI chairmanship a document submitted by Oxford University to the Higher Education Funding Committees’ survey REF2014 describes the position thus:

Oxford University research has also led to the planned use of vaccines against serogroup B meningococcal disease, which have been licensed and recommended for the prevention of disease in high-risk individuals, and broader use is under consideration.

It seems likely that at the time of this submission Prof Pollard was already chair of the committee considering this matter, but no mention is made of this. The submission continues:

Meningococcal disease is the leading infectious cause of death in children in the UK, and its prevention is a major objective of the Oxford Vaccine Group, directed by Professor Andrew Pollard. During the period from 2001-2013 more than 10,000 volunteers were enrolled in clinical studies in Oxford, mainly children, and the research provided new insight into the design, development and evaluation of novel vaccines for meningitis and specifically meningococcal disease..

Mention is also made of patents:

The design and development of new vaccines for serogroup B meningococcus by Oxford University have led to a number of patents on the candidate vaccines (based on various surface proteins including Opa, PorA and FetA 17), which provide a licensing position for the University as these vaccines progress through early phase clinical trials.

Without getting into the technical issue of whether conflicts are “personal”, “pecuniary” or “special” I note that the JCVI code of conduct states (2013 Section 42(2) [3]:

If a member has in the last 12 months received, or plans to receive a financial payment or other benefit from a business or representative body relating to vaccines or any other product or service that could be under consideration by JCVI...including... holding a directorship or other paid position...the member must declare this interest... If this interest is specific to an agenda item and the payment or other benefit is connected specifically with the product under consideration, the member will be required to absent him/herself from the discussion and any subsequent vote.

But according to JCVI minutes of February 2014 [4] Prof Pollard led the discussion on Bexsero – numerous references are made to the “the chair” in the record. This could of course be a formal reference rather than a personal reference, but no record is provided of Prof Pollard absenting himself, nor have you suggested that he did in your letter. This also conflicts with the long established Nolan Standards in Public Life.  The JCVI needs to explain how this conflict was allowed to arise, and without being disclosed.

I also note that Prof Pollard and his deputy Dr Riordan took part in an industry sponsored presentation in September las year discussing the JCVI’s business [5]:

Evening of Evidence/Vaccination Science to Policy: Introduction of new vaccines to the UK vaccine schedule with limited evidence of efficacy: Meningococcal Group B and maternal pertussis vaccination

The event was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, which was by that time commercial beneficiary for both products mentioned. Prof Pollard’s paper was entitled:

JCVI decision-making process informing the recommendation for the introduction of Bexsero to the UK vaccination schedule

Dr Riordan’s paper was entitled:

Evidence considered by the JCVI to recommend antenatal pertussis vaccination in the UK

It is troubling that that business of the committee could be shared in this way, nor was this hospitality disclosed in the minutes of the following JCVI meeting.

Another disclosure in recent publications by Prof Pollard, which is not replicated in any JCVI minutes further raises eye-brows [6, 7]:

The University of Oxford receives unrestricted educational grants for courses and conferences organised by AJP from vaccine manufacturers

The fact that such a relationship has to be disclosed for an academic publication but is thought not to be relevant to his position as chair of the JCVI is disturbing, particularly as it demonstrates the Prof Pollard has a continuing professional interest in cultivating vaccine manufacturers which is not dependant on him being paid by them. Again, the JCVI needs to explain why such matters are not disclosed in the minutes of meetings, and how they can be allowed to arise in first place.

Recent event have suggested how easy it is to manipulate public opinion over vaccine products, however inadvertently. The wider public does not understand the limitations of Bexsero in protecting against Meningitis B (indeed its efficacy is to date entirely unproven [5, 8, 9]), nor that it has serious side effects in up to 1 in 50 cases in persons aged between 10 and 25 [10]. So far the known risks apparently well outweigh the known benefits. It is not necessarily a magic panacea for a disease which occasionally attacks in terrifying ways, but relatively rarely.

No doubt part of the problem is the catastrophic contemporary failure to differentiate between public and private sectors. The JCVI now comes under the aegis of Public Health England which often works with the pharmaceutical industry and with Oxford Vaccine Group [11] (which also works with the pharmaceutical industry) and both are no doubt agencies of National Health Service. But the result is that JCVI is not fit to represent the public interest.

[1] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee/General%20Documents/20160107_PE1584_C_JCVI.pdf

[2] REF2014: EFFECTIVE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF MENINGITIS VACCINES http://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies2/refservice.svc/GetCaseStudyPDF/15529

[3] JCVI code of Practice 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224864/JCVI_Code_of_Practice_revision_2013_-_final.pdf

[4] https://app.box.com/s/iddfb4ppwkmtjusir2tc/1/2199012147/18992168807/1

[5] http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/course/Evening%20of%20Evidence%20programme%20Vaccination%20Science%20to%20Policy%20UPDATED.pdf

[6] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2815%2970007-1/fulltext?rss=yes

[7] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114286

[8] Consult by Univadis, Bexsero section 5.1 https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/28407

[9] http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/2015-07/web-outcomes-july-2015-subsequent-decision-not-to-recommend.pdf

10] http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM431447.pdf  

[11] http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/about-vaccsline

Yours sincerely,

John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism

 

Post Script:

This is the job description for the chair of JCVI in June 2013: it is noted that Dr David Salisbury and Dr Mary Ramsay were on the interviewing panel.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203967/JCVI_Chair_Information_pack_for_applicants.pdf

Requirements include:

• be committed to and abide by the requirements of
the JCVI Code of Practice (the Code is under revision), including the requirement to declare all relevant conflicts of interests and requirements for confidentiality

• be committed to and abide by the “Seven Principles of Public Life"

• ensuring that the secretariat accurately documents the proceedings of the Committee so that there is a clear audit trail showing how the Committee reached its decisions

• ensuring that the Committee manages appropriately any conflicts of interest that members may have. As such it is very important that the Chair does not carry conflicts of interest that would compromise his/her position as Chair
(conflicts of interest and their management are described in detail in the JCVICode of Practice (the Code is under revision)

• a commitment to evidence-based advice, maintaining the independent integrity of the committee, the values of accountability and probity and to following the best practice principles as set out in the Chief Scientist’s Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees

 

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Stone

Eindeker

The JCVI antics stimulated enormous private demand for the vaccine in the UK, so I think they managed to have it both ways, don't you? There's nothing like telling people that they can't have something to stimulate demand.

You know as well as I do that unless there was active monitoring the adverse events would not get recorded.

Eindeker

Dear John
Real world experience does not support your calculation of 12,000:
Real-world experience of using Bexsero is growing. Nearly 17,000 students in the US were vaccinated in response to an outbreak of MenB disease at Princeton University in late 2013 and the University of California, Santa Barbara in early 2014. Additionally, in the summer of 2014 over 45,000 people between 2 months to 20 years of age, were vaccinated as part of a public immunisation program in the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region of Quebec, Canada[10]. No serious adverse events were reported following the program and rates of fever and local reactions were similar to that of other routine immunisations. The vaccine has also been administered to nearly 4,000 students at the University of Bristol with no serious adverse events being reported. From 2013 to the time of writing over 1 million doses of Bexsero have been distributed in 19 countries worldwide.

As I have explained to you before the JCVI examines cost effectiveness, Bexsero was given a European licence with freedom to market throughout Europe based on clinical safety & efficacy data so Prof Pollard's committee can only recommend adoption or non adoption in the UK on health economic data, ie estimate of how many cases of meningitis prevented at what cost, and I'm sure you remember the committee recommended that there should not be a catch up campaign to immunize 1-12 year olds. Looks like corruption failed there!

@Linda1 the data are the first available from the UK Health Protection Agency on the prevention of meningitis B by Bexsero, do you really think they will "fiddle" these early data to present a favourable picture when in another couple of years there will be more robust data?? Get over it Linda Bexsero appears to prevent meningitis, whether or not you "are in the mood"

John Stone

Eindeker

I didn't make up the figure: it was drawn from the same insert you cited, only of course that was for 10-25 year-olds. It is obviously so much safer for infants!

Of course, the chairman of a government committee approving his own vaccine is quite the sort of ethical practice you enthusiastically support.

Eindeker

Hi John
Why not just make figures up to suit?
and say 12,000 get severe side effects with no long term monitoring each time how can we seriously assess the net benefit ie 1 in 50 SAE's
In reality in a real life situation Bexsero showed 1 vaccine related SAE in 15000 recipients. 6.2 in http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM431447.pdf Meningitis, as you know is a horrible disease With early diagnosis and antibiotic treatment, most children make a full recovery, but it is fatal in one in 10 cases. About one in ten of those who survive are left with severe long-term problems, such as limb loss, and one in three have less serious problems including deafness and learning difficulties.

Talking of SAEs & the VAERS data base I guess you haven't seen this analysis of deaths reported to be associated with Gardasil http://justthevax.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/all-those-hpv-vaccine-deaths-arent.html makes interesting reading So 19 of 22 (86%) of the reports for 2016 through August 22 are anecdotes. One didn’t even have a death reported. One blamed the death on other causes. One was a brain tumor 1,651 days after vaccination. One said just “Death.”
There is no evidence in VAERS to support that any deaths can be linked to HPV so far in 2016.


Linda1

Eindecker,

From your article:

"The new data, released by Public Health England (PHE), shows that the number of Men B cases in infants aged less than one, has dropped by 42 per cent in the 10 months since its introduction.

Overall, 37 cases were recorded in this age group over the period – compared to an average of 74 cases in the same period over the previous four years."

I'm in no mood today. I don't think it's possible to suggest effectiveness from 10 months since the incidence of meningitis is cyclical, going up and down, over years. Notice the 37 cases were compared to an "average" of 74 cases over the previous 4 years. What were the cases each year? Were there years that had less than 37 and years that had three times 37? This is potentially deceptive reporting. A red flag too is all the horrible images in the article - classic fear mongering to sell vaccines. And of course, no mention of the babies who ended up in the ER after the vaccine, looking like the images in the article. We don't talk about them.

John Stone

Hi Eindeker

So, over half are still getting Men B but if more children fail to develop normally as a result this is scarcely going to be picked up by our health officials. I don't know how many childen this is (perhaps around 20) but if say 600,000 infants get the vaccine three times (alongside half-a-dozen other hefty vaccines) and say 12,000 get severe side effects with no long term monitoring each time how can we seriously assess the net benefit? No doubt when the autism figures shoot up yet again they will just shrug "Nothing to do with me, gov.."

Eindeker

Just an update on Bexsero:
"The new data, released by Public Health England (PHE), shows that the number of Men B cases in infants aged less than one, has dropped by 42 per cent in the 10 months since its introduction"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/men-b-vaccine-has-halved-number-of-cases-in-babies-lab-tests-sho/
Got to be good news, once again another vaccine demonstrates its effectiveness in preventing disease

Georg Elser

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/24/meningitis-b-vaccine-petition-nhs-not-cost-effective

Dr Helen Bedford and Dr David Elliman
(the infamous twosome)

For a cash-strapped NHS, extending the meningitis B vaccine isn’t cost-effective

Angus Files

John as we all know the unquestionable Tomljenovic paper was rejected not because of lack of evidence, quite to the contrary, but because of preference,the rules were optional
Simply,the corruption runs all too deep that is why the Parliament`s will have none of it the rules are optional to the JCVI spin doctors..

MMR RIP

Linda1

Eindecker,
Truly sorry that you had a bad bout of pertussis. Unfortunately, many children suffer a bad bout of the vaccine. Some do not survive as you did. Many are so badly affected that they never go on to lead the lives they were meant to lead. Many survivors of DPT vaccine injury are not able to go to school, let alone university, to study high level courses in say, for instance, microbiology, due to the devastating damage done by the vaccine. And while it was terrible that you went through it, you did then gain long lasting immunity that the vaccine could not provide, immunity which then prevented you from passing the disease to other babies for the next 30 years or so. And of course, the part cell versions are fairly worthless at preventing the illness, but there are still significant risks in taking them as well.

DPT is also known to affect genetic expression variably in different individuals. Not a good thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23668887

Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2013 May 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Leukocyte transcript alterations in West-African girls following a booster vaccination with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.

"...several studies suggest that DTP affects the mortality ratio between girls and boys [4-6], being associated with several fold higher female than male short-term mortality [6-10]. Also, DTP-vaccinated girls have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated girls. The excess mortality is seen a long as DTP is the most recently [sic] vaccination. Other inactivated vaccines may have similar sex-differential effects [9,11]."

In the discussion of the paper:

"THE IMMUNOLOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THE NON-SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF VACCINES IS NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT."

See, Eindecker, that, I believe is the main difference between us. Blindly going around changing the human body in ways that are not AT ALL understood is NOT OK with me, even if serious adverse effects were not as blatantly obvious as they are. It seems to be ok with you. As long as there is a dreaded (or hyped) disease, you will fiercely advocate for any treatment, as long as it is some kind, any kind, of vaccine.

Links to above references:

4 - Aaby P, Jensen H, et al. Routine vaccinations and child vurvival in a war situation with high mortality: effect of gender. Vaccine 2002;21:15-20

5 - Baynam G, Zhang G et al. Gender-specific effects of cytokine gene polymorphisms on childhood vaccine responses. Vaccine 2008; 26:3574-9.

6 - Veirum JE, Sodermann M, Biai S, et al. Routine vaccinations associated with divergent effects on female and male mortality at the paediatric ward in Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine 2005;23:1197-204.

7 - Aaby P, Benn C et al. Testing the hypothesis that diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine has negative non-specific and sex-differential effects on child survival in high-mortality counties. BMJ open 2012;2.

8 - Aaby P. Biai S, et al. DTP with or after measles vaccination is associated with increased in-hospital mortality in Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine 2007;25:1265-9.

9 - Aaby P, Garly ML, et al. Increased female-male mortality ratio associated with inactivated polio and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines: observations from vaccination trials in Guinea-Bissau. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2007;26:247-52

10 - Aaby P, Ravn H et al. Early diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccination associated with higher female mortality and no difference in male mortality in a cohort of low birthweight children: an observational study within a randomised trial. Arch Dis Child 2012;97:685-91.

11 - Garly ML, Jensen H et al. HEPATITIS B VACCINATION ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER FEMALE THAN MALE MORTALITY in Guinea-bissau: an observational study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2004;23:1086-92.

Also among the 23 references to the "Leukocyte Transcript..." paper first noted above:

13 - Agergaard J, Nante E, et al. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls. A randomised trial from Guinea-Bissau. Vaccine 2011;29:487-500.
-------------------------------

Have something against girls or just don't know the research Eindecker?

I would caution anyone reading this particular research that unfortunately many boys have also been harmed and many killed by DPT.

John Stone

Ed

Yes, I think it is what Dorit Reiss calls the benefits of agency capture.

Grace Green

Thank you, Dr. Yazbak, for that link. With prices like that those poor people must be living on cabbage and potatoes (yes, we autistic people can do irony if we try really hard!)

Ed Yazbak

Mrs. Allen, John,

You may be interested in the price per dose (CDC and Private Sector) of recommended Pediatric and Adult vaccines in the United States. (February 1, 2016)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/

John Stone

Angus

I seem to remember their answer to the Tomljenovic paper was to cite the stringent rules of the committee, which rather continued to beg the question whether they were being applied, and I guess the story is the same here. The rules are absolutely splendid, and they are even alluded in their discussion, but despite the pieties it is less clear that they are being adhered to.

Angus Files

Just reading your post-script and cant see many rules that they have abided by and upheld. Do they just make the rules up to be broken at one time if you broke the rules you were punished, seemingly not for JCVI and all who sail in her.

Thanks Jenny together world wide we will make an impact as the numbers swell of damaged kids so will our ranks sadly.

MMR RIP

Jenny Allan

"It wouldn't be very surprising if people are now saying that autism is identifiable at 6 months. A most massive assumption is being made about safety, which I last wrote about here before my short trip to Scotland:"

Thank you John (and Angus), for making the time and effort to persuade our Scottish health and political 'high heid yins' to be cautious about following England with MenB vaccinations. This won't make any difference to the actions of our Scottish Government, already implementing infant Men B Vaccines, but it is another 'brick in the wall'. One day the wall, held up with emotional appeals, lies and manufactured fears, will crumble.

I share your concern about potential MenB vaccine damage to babies. Parents in the UK - WAKE UP!!

John Stone

Jenny

Somewhere I have seen the statistics. It seems to be that the older you are the rarer the disease gets but more likely it is to be fatal (is this because people are not alert to early symptoms?) but of course it is very rare. If someone is warning that the vaccine may not be ideally effective (and presently its effectiveness seems to be purely conjectural) and it may not be entirely safe (we know for sure it isn't) then they are talking some sense.

I am very worried about the new cohort of infants. We already likely have an autism rate of 1 in 30 but where are we going to be with this not to mention the new vaccinations in pregnancy. If Bexsero goes round making older children ill it may not be very be very good PR for the product, but if infants fail to develop it will undoubtedly be blamed on something else, their genes etc.

So now we are talking about maternal DPT, maternal influenza (likely with mercury). Then, in the UK:

At two months DTaP+IP+HIB, 13 strain pneumococcal, oral rotavirus, Men B

At 3 months DTaP+IP+HIB, oral rotvirus, Men C

At 4 months DTaP+IP=HIB, 13 strain pneumococcal, Men B

At 12/ 13 months HIB/Men C, MMR, 13 strain pneumococcal, Men B

It wouldn't be very surprising if people are now saying that autism is identifiable at 6 months. A most massive assumption is being made about safety, which I last wrote about here before my short trip to Scotland:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/12/bexsero-offit-article-still-the-theoretical-basis-of-the-ever-expanding-vaccine-schedule.html

Jenny Allan

@Eindeker "John/Jenny You need to understand the licensing process in Europe for a new medicine/vaccine & why John's comments in the last 2 paragraphs of his letter are not relevant to Prof Pollard."

Not sure what "the licensing process in Europe" has got to do with the main topic on this thread. I am well aware of the EMA procedures and have a saved copy of their MenB deliberations, but in the UK, scheduled child vaccines are part of the NHS, and are administered free, (as is all NHS health care).

After the EMA passed MenB vaccine for European administration, Bexsero became available 'across the board' in UK private clinics. The cost for the standard 3 jags is in the region of £400; most UK families will not be able to afford this. The JCVI has the job of deciding whether or not to include new vaccines provided free within the UK NHS child schedules and adult recommendations.

Private vaccinations, however expensive, don't make much profit for the manufacturers. The NHS on the other hand is a potential 'gravy train' for the makers of vaccines and pharmaceutical products incorporated into prescribing schedules. For this reason GREAT CARE must be taken by those persons on NICE and JCVI panels, particularly since vaccine manufacturers are indemnified from responsibility from unsafe vaccines.

Professor Pollard, is identified as having a clear role in both developing and promoting Bexsero; whether or not he was actually present during the committee's deliberations, is irrelevant. His influence will have been part of the decision. As far as I can ascertain from the letter to John from Mr Earnshaw, the committee was uninterested in the vaccine's safety record. The vaccine was passed, as you stated, on purely financial grounds.

Jenny Allan

Two Meningitis vaccine spokespersons on BBC Breakfast TV this morning. The mother of a child killed by meningitis (not told what strain), was in favour of older children receiving Bexsero, but with some reservations, namely proper safety testing.

A spokesperson from a pharmacists' association, also stated some stats which demonstrated child deaths from Men B VERY rare and declining in the UK, presumably due to recent 'awareness' campaigns, resulting in timely treatment. This is VERY IMPORTANT and undoubtedly has saved lives. The vast majority of fatalities from MenB are young babies, and this cohort has been targeted for vaccination by the UK Government. Present shortages of MenB vaccine preclude any 'roll out' of vaccination to include older children. Hopefully, the emotional fuss over ONE child Men B death will die down and common sense will eventually prevail.

This 'promotion' of all vaccines as always 'safe and effective', is dishonest and I would like ALL parents to receive copies of the manufacturers' vaccine inserts IN ADVANCE before bringing their children to the clinics. (With virtually ALL other medications inserts are included). In the UK, child vaccinations are not mandatory, but are very heavily 'pushed' by NHS health professionals.

John Stone


The Jenner Vaccine Foundation

http://www.jenner.ac.uk/jenner-vaccine-foundation

The Foundation seeks to enhance philanthropic support of vaccinology and is currently evaluating options for enhanced fundraising activities. The Foundation currently supports vaccine research and development through the Jenner Institute. The Foundation Board appoints the Director of the Institute, elects Jenner Investigators (currently numbering 29) and has funded space and facilities for vaccine research and development.

The Foundation actively supports enhanced collaborative interactions between researchers at The Pirbright Institute working on veterinary vaccines and those at Oxford University developing new vaccines for human use. The Foundation has also provided support for scientists from the former Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research to continue their work as part of the Jenner Institute. The Foundation draws Trustees from both Oxford University and the Pirbright Institute and has an external chair and three further independent trustees.
Trustees:

Prof David Salisbury CB (Chairman), WHO Advisor on Immunisation, former Director of Immunisation, UK Department of Health

Dr Norman Begg, VP and Chief Medical Officer, GSK Biologicals

Dr Bryan Charleston, Head of Livestock Viral Diseases Programme, The Pirbright Institute

Prof Paul Fine, Professor of Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Prof Sir Andrew McMichael FRS, University of Oxford

Prof Venugopal Nair, Head of Avian Viral Diseases Programme, The Pirbright Institute

Prof Andrew Pollard, Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, University of Oxford

Dr Ian Tarpey, Head Global Poultry / Discovery & Technology, MSD Animal Health, Netherlands

John Stone

This is job description for the chair of JCVI in June 2013: it is noted that Dr David Salisbury and Dr Mary Ramsey were on the interviewing panel.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203967/JCVI_Chair_Information_pack_for_applicants.pdf

Requirements include:

• be committed to and abide by the requirements of
the JCVI Code of Practice (the Code is under revision), including the requirement to declare all relevant conflicts of interests and requirements for confidentiality

• be committed to and abide by the “Seven Principles of Public Life"

• ensuring that the secretariat accurately documents the proceedings of the Committee so that there is a clear audit trail showing how the Committee reached its decisions

• ensuring that the Committee manages appropriately any conflicts of interest that members may have. As such it is very important that the Chair does not carry conflicts of interest that would compromise his/her position as Chair
(conflicts of interest and their management are described in detail in the JCVICode of Practice (the Code is under revision)

• a commitment to evidence-based advice, maintaining the independent integrity of the committee, the values of accountability and probity and to following the
best practice principles as set out in the Chief Scientist’s Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees

Georg Elser

VPD : Vaccine preventable disease you say

Hasn't the efficacy of the Pertusis vaccine been in some doubt for a considerable period of time ?
Has it be withdrawn in some countries because it doesn't work ?

Georg Elser

Eindeker ,
Sorry for your families health troubles of course .

& I certainly don't want to be rude to you , but you have not answered the direct question ?

Will you be making sure all your family takes Bexsero ?
reminder : 1 in 45 adverse reaction to this vaccine

John Stone

A comment just sent to me:-

-----------------------------

The Chair of the JCVI is responsible for ................among other things............

"ensuring that the secretariat accurately documents the proceedings of the Committee so that there is a clear audit trail showing how the Committee reached its decisions"

Yet there is no "trail" in the Minutes allowing a member of the public to know which individuals absented themselves from either participating in certain topics when discussed or from a vote when called for.

We don't know from the Minutes whether or not Pollard absented himself from the discussion and or the chair when Men B vaccine was discussed.

--------------------------------------------

It is a good general point but the one presence in the discussion that we know about is "the chair". It would rather extraordinary at this point if the secretariat suddenly announced that Prof Pollard had absented himself. Another odditiy is that two years later the minutes only appear in draft (which seems to be the unofficial practice of the committee) but my correspondent is bang on the money about vagueness. I also didn't notice any indications of votes taking place. Or anyone raising the issue of Prof Pollard's presence.

Eindeker

Georg

In answer PhD microbiology, I almost died from a VPD, pertussis, parents apparently were told "see if he makes it through the night" I did but with a collapsed lung, wife with permanent hearing loss due to badly managed bacterial meningitis as an adolescent, largely alleviated through allopathic medical science (cochlear implant), uncle crippled with polio in the 1930's.

Does that sufficiently explain my abiding (non-professional) interest in vaccines & VPD?

Georg Elser

Eindeker , tell us smthg about yourself ?

mother ? father ? grandmother ? grandfather ? nieces ? nephews ?

Will you be making sure your family takes Bexsero ?
Pollard , will your family be taking Bexsero ?
JVCI members , will your family be taking Bexsero ?

How do you people sleep at night ? really ? tell us ?

John Stone

Eindeker

What was it I said last time you commented?

"But if it was really all as simple as that it would have been easy for the JCVI and Prof Pollard to avoid him sitting on the decision to recommend the vaccine for which he was lead developer. Since when was that OK?"

Or to put it another way, how would the JCVI's rules allow him to do it? It should be noted that Andrew Earnshaw was responding to Angus Files speech at the Scottish Parliament which referred to issues of conflict when dealing with pharmaceutical companies, but we had not identified at the time that Prof Pollard was lead developer of Bexsero via his directorship of Oxford Vaccine Group, and this is not a point that Earnshaw answers (though we suppose that unlike us the JCVI secretariat must have been aware of it). In fact virtually all the points in my letter are new points, not that Mr Earnshaw necessarily answered satisfactorily all the old points. It should be noted also that Prof Pollard greatly updated his declaration to the EMA in December.

Georg Elser

1 in 45 adverse vaccine reactions - This could be a game changer .

I wonder is the Gardasil rate of carnage is known ?

Eindeker

John/Jenny You need to understand the licensing process in Europe for a new medicine/vaccine & why John's comments in the last 2 paragraphs of his letter are not relevant to Prof Pollard.

The European Medicines Agency considers all the clinical trial data submitted by the manufacturer of a new product: trial design, efficacy, outcomes, adverse events etc and decides to grant, or refuse, Marketing Authorisation (MA) for the new drug that covers all of Europe. Once MA has been granted the Pharmaceutical Co can then sell without hindrance across this territory. Of course it is up to the national governments to decide whether to pay for the drug on Health Economic (HE) grounds, ie what is the benefit and at what cost. This was the JCVI's role preparing the HE models, which were done & validated independently. I do not believe that a national body can "de-licence" a drug that has been granted MA by EMA on grounds of safety/efficacy etc, unless of course new data became available, and that would have to be done via EMA.

The first HE model produced by the JCVI showed that Bexesero was not cost effective, but I understand the manufacturer came back with a significant discount offer to the UK NHS which now made Bexsero cost effective.

My reading of Earnshaw's response to you is that he adequately addressed the points raised by yourself & Angus, but we will see what his subsequent response is to your recent letter.

So it is unfair to imply improper practice by the JCVI in reviewing Bexsero on anything other than a HE basis.

John Stone

I wondered whether Birgit was being ironic.

Ronald Kostoff

Birgit Calhoun,

"You cannot possibly think that the report you describe is sufficiently objective. You need to give at least 5 references of significant depth and sources to convince me that a pharmaceutical product's claims are correct."

The report below is on the FDA Website, and I assume it formed the basis of FDA approval of Bexsero in 2015. It describes the clinical trials that were used as the basis for approval. The clinical trials are no different from those that were included in the EMA assessment of Bexsero, and were used as the basis for approval of Bexsero by EMA.

Where do I say the Report is objective, in my posting below? Additionally, I don't see how your last sentence relates to what I posted below.

Birgit Calhoun

Ronald Kostoff! Bexsero is a vaccine. You cannot possibly think that the report you describe is sufficiently objective. You need to give at least 5 references of significant depth and sources to convince me that a pharmaceutical product's claims are correct.

Tim Lundeen

Of course, they add insult to injury by prescribing paracetamol (acetaminophen) after vaccination: "The NHS has produced a leaflet for parents on using paracetamol to prevent and treat fever after MenB vaccination ."

Acetaminophen is known to reduce glutathione and thus increase the rate of damage in children, and is associated with increased autism rates:

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673819/
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445737
* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26688372
* http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-14-02227.pdf

Linda1

I was confusing Poland with Pollard in my earlier comment.

But I was thinking, remember when our FDA would insist on long-term studies and safety before they would agree to rubber stamp a drug? At least that's what the media used to tell us when reporting about the poor unfortunates who couldn't get their drug of choice even though they were dying, because the FDA didn't think it was safe enough for them. Compassionate use came later and wasn't easy to get.

How far we've come where we are still most of the time depriving the dying of their treatment of choice, while we are pushing HARMFUL treatments on HEALTHY infants and children in order to theoretically save them from an infection that the great majority never have.

Now the mindset is to make them sick and risk killing them in order to save them, when they aren't really in danger. Insanity.

Angus Files

Spreading rear disease’s ,that’s the science guys…no mention who the lucky 10,000 that were experimented on, no suprise ..
Published by Sarah Loving
Medical content reviewed by Professor Andrew Pollard
http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/menb-vaccine

Side Effects

Studies show that about 2 out of every 3 babies get a fever over 38º C when they are given the MenB vaccine with other routine vaccines at 2 and 4 months of age. The level of fever depends on the child, and has nothing to do with how well the vaccine has worked. The NHS has produced a leaflet for parents on using paracetamol to prevent and treat fever after MenB vaccination .


Very common side effects in babies and children up to 10 years old:
•Fever between 38º C and 40º C (affecting about 2 out of every 3 babies)
•Loss of appetite
•Sleepiness
•Unusual crying
•Sickness and diarrhoea


Very common side effects in children, teenagers and adults:
•Pain, tenderness, redness, swelling, rash and/or hardness of the skin at the injection site

Uncommon side effects in babies and children up to 10 years old (you should consult your doctor if these occur, mainly to check that it is the vaccine causing these symptoms, and not some unrelated disease):
•High fever (over 40º C)
•Seizures
•Dry or itchy skin


Side effects in children over 11 and adults:
•Painful muscles and joints
•Feeling sick
•Feeling generally unwell
•Headache


More serious reactions to the vaccine have not been identified yet. However, there is not enough data to rule out the possibility of a rare but serious reaction.

MMR RIP

John Stone

Sorry, I still had the refs wrong but I believe they are right now.

Ronald,

Who, in their right mind? Who indeed? I also think of all those parents offering up their children for scientific experiment in the development stage. By what right?

Ronald Kostoff

John,

Here is Bexsero prescribing information and 'safety' data from the FDA (who approved Bexsero for US use in 2015) (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM431447.pdf)

1. Approval of BEXSERO is based on DEMONSTRATION OF IMMUNE RESPONSE, as measured by serum bactericidal activity against three serogroup B strains representative of prevalent strains in the United States. The EFFECTIVENESS of BEXSERO against diverse serogroup B strains HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED.

2. BEXSERO has NOT BEEN EVALUATED for CARCINOGENIC or MUTAGENIC potential or IMPAIRMENT OF MALE FERTILITY.

3. Immunogenicity - Studies assessed the proportion of subjects who achieved a 4-FOLD OR GREATER INCREASE IN HSBA TITER for each of the three strains

4. Reports of UNSOLICITED adverse events occurring WITHIN THE FIRST 7 DAYS after each vaccination were collected in all studies. In the US/Poland study, reports of UNSOLICITED adverse events were collected up to ONE MONTH AFTER THE SECOND VACCINATION. Reports of all serious adverse events, medically attended adverse events and adverse events leading to premature withdrawal were collected throughout the study period for the studies conducted in Chile (12 MONTHS), UK (12 MONTHS), US/Poland (8 months), and Canada/Australia (2 MONTHS).

5. Solicited Adverse Reactions - Solicited Local and Systemic Adverse Reactions WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER BEXSERO or Control (for Poland; similar to other three studies). They don't define 'solicited', but if we assume these are events for which targeted searches were made, they are relatively modest (Table 1).

6. Serious Adverse Events
Overall, in clinical studies, among 3,058 participants 10 through 25 years of age who received at least 1 dose of BEXSERO, 66 (2.1%) participants reported serious adverse events at any time during the study. In the 3 controlled studies1,2,3 (BEXSERO N=2716, Control N=2078), serious adverse events WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ANY DOSE were reported in 23 (0.8%) BEXSERO recipients and 10 (0.5%) control recipients.

7. Summary

So, there we have it, in the FDA's own words. Effectiveness not confirmed; carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, impairment of male fertility, not evaluated. VERY short term adverse events main focus of follow-up; short-term events of up to one year tracked to 'who knows what' level of detail. And, we're assuming even the limited data presented has some validity. Why should we believe this data is any more credible than that in the CDC's paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism (such credibility based on Dr. Thompson's allegation of misconduct in suppressing incriminating data)? Has it been duplicated and triplicated by independently objectively sponsored groups?

When I read the referenced document above, I am reminded of the typical drug advertisements on television. The commercials begin with a glowing picture of how beneficial the drug is, and then they present the (typically) long list of side effects. During the latter, pleasant music is played, and pleasant scenes are shown. That, of course, is meant to distract the viewer from the grotesque reality of many of these drugs in practice. Why is that any different from what the FDA has done in the document referenced above? In the FDA's own words, which are undoubtedly the most optimistic possible, they tell the reader in no uncertain terms that this product has not been thoroughly evaluated for safety, especially for the most potentially serious adverse effects. Who in their right mind would take such a product, or mandate such a product for anyone else?

Georg Elser

In 1995 the coalition “Never again!” was created by the German Auschwitz Committee, Critical Shareholders and several organizations of former slave workers. In a joint appeal the coalition demands that there has to be an appropriate compensation by the companies for slave-workers and their descendants. Also the maintenance of the memorial at Auschwitz, which reminds the public of IG Farben´s victims, should be paid by the corporations. “Never again!” states that without verification of the past we always have to be present so that these crimes might never happen again. More than 1,500 individuals and about 100 German groups have signed this platform. The activities were organized by the Coalition against Bayer-dangers, a group that has monitored Bayer for 25 years.

Wherever you see Bayer - insert Bexsero

Georg Elser

What Bexsero contains
One dose (0.5 ml) contains:
27
Active substances:
Recombinant Neisseria meningitidis group B NHBA fusion protein 1, 2, ³ 50 micrograms
Recombinant Neisseria meningitidis group B NadA protein 1, 2, ³ 50 micrograms
Recombinant Neisseria meningitidis group B fHbp fusion protein 1, 2, ³ 50 micrograms
Outer membrane vesicles (OMV) from Neisseria meningitidis group B strain
NZ98/254 measured as amount of total protein containing the PorA P1.4 2 25 micrograms
1 produced in E. coli cells by recombinant DNA technology
2 adsorbed on aluminium hydroxide (0.5 mg Al³+)
³ NHBA (Neisseria Heparin Binding Antigen), NadA (Neisserial adhesin A), fHbp (factor H
binding protein)
Other ingredients:
Sodium chloride, histidine, sucrose and water for injections (see section 2 for further information on
sodium and latex).

Georg Elser

http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2013/20130114125155/anx_125155_en.pdf

Do NOT use Bexsero:
- If you or your child are allergic to the active substances or any of the other ingredients of this
vaccine (listed in section 6).

Uncommon (these may affect up to 1 in 100 people)
- high fever (≥40°C)
- seizures (including febrile seizures)
- vomiting (after booster)
- dry skin, itchy rash, skin rash
- paleness (rare after booster)
Rare (these may affect up to 1 in 1,000 people)
- Kawasaki disease which may include symptoms such as fever that lasts for more than five days,
associated with a skin rash on the trunk of the body, and sometimes followed by a peeling of the
skin on the hands and fingers, swollen glands in the neck, red eyes, lips, throat and tongue

5. How to store Bexsero
Keep this vaccine out of the sight and reach of children.
***& definitely out of their bloodsream

John Stone

Ronald

This from the US package insert:

"The most common solicited adverse reactions observed in clinical trials were pain at the injection site (≥83%), myalgia (≥48%),erythema (≥45%), fatigue (≥35%), headache (≥33%),induration (≥28%), nausea (≥18%), and arthralgia (≥13%)...

"Serious Adverse Events Overall, in clinical studies, among 3,058 participants 10 through 25 years of age who received at least 1 dose of BEXSERO 66 (2.1%) participants reported serious adverse events at any time during the study. In the 3 controlled studies.. (BEXSERO N=2716, Control N=2078), serious adverse events within 30 days after any dose were reported in 23 (0.8%) BEXSERO recipients and 10(0.5%) control recipients."

Sorry, it should have been link 9: this is a typo.

Ronald Kostoff

John,

"it has serious side effects in up to 1 in 50 cases in persons aged between 10 and 25 [10]."

I clicked on reference [10], and did not see that number you mention. There were numerous links in reference [10]; perhaps the number is in one of those links. You really need to provide the specific reference.

In any case, how was the data obtained to generate the 1 in 50 number? There are a number of steps before a side effect gets recorded and presented to the public. If a side effect occurs, it has to be recognized. It could be a symptom, or it could be a change in one or more biomarkers (using a very broad definition of biomarker). So, the change either has to be reported to the medical practitioner, or found in a targeted analysis. If it not reported, or not sought in a follow-up analysis, it contributes to reducing the numbers of side effects. I suspect many side effects are ignored through this route alone.

What is the time frame over which side effects are measured. My reading of the Bexsero EMA reports/analyses and updates is that (mainly) only very short time frames are examined. So, long-term side effects are completely ignored, and, for all we know, they could be dominant.

Finally, who takes, records, and transmits this data to reporting databases? What are their motivations? Are some of the data ignored, as Thompson alleges was done in the CDC analysis of the MMR vaccine-autism link? Are these results checked independently? Do we have the same level of objective independent side effect monitoring for Bexsero as alleged by William Thompson for the CDC's monitoring of MMR vaccine side effects?

I suspect when we include long-term in-depth monitoring of side effects, including potential transgenerational impacts, the numbers would be much larger. This is all conjecture at present, since those who profit from promulgating as many vaccines as possible as fast as possible to as many people as possible will never allow adequate safety testing to happen.

Linda1

"We continue to move into an era of fantastic scientific discovery where the most significant infectious diseases (those that cause the greatest morbidity and mortality) in the developed world can or in the future will be controlled with the use of vaccines. WHAT WE HAVEN'T YET DISCOVERED IS HOW TO GET DOCTORS TO OFFER THE VACCINES, AND PATIENTS TO ACCEPT THEM."

Gregory A Poland, Director, Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic, USA

IN:

Arch Dis Child. 2007 May; 92(5): 426–433.

Childhood immunisation: what is the future?
Andrew J Pollard
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083746/

Georg Elser

Eindeker - take the test please - ant let me know what you score ? pls - Don't be ashamed about a low score , its really difficult to be honest .

https://www.qzzr.com/c/quiz/158296/test-your-vaccine-knowledge

I'd love to get this test out to the 600,000 signatories of the petition .

Danchi

Meningitis B vaccine Bexsero has been getting a lot of media attention in the US. Currently the MSM and the pro-vaccine devotees have been running this story-photos and all to sway public opinion in regards to compel parents to demand Bexero be mandatory for entrance into colleges and public schools:

Toddler meningitis pictures released to push Government vaccinations-http://truthkings.com/family-releases-dying-images-of-daughter/#.

It is absolutely repugnant to use the death of a child and prey on the emotions of the family to push a dangerous agenda. Th incidences of Meningitis is extremely low in the US and deaths from this disease are also very low. The death of a child is horrible, the damage done by any disease is horrible but you don't use the incidents to potential damage more people-especially children. The MSM never asks the hard questions: there are many Serogroup Bs bacterias, which one did this child have? parents have been scared into compliance by day-care, schools etc-is it know if this child contracted the bacteria from another child who had recently been vaccinated or an adult? did the child have any other health issues because Meningitis B is know to be treatable if treatment begins immediately and is successful but if the child is immuno-compromised-that would lead to problems. Some will yell and scream it is terrible to ask questions at a time like this but if they are promoting vaccinating a population with a drug that the ACIP doesn't recommend and the promotion of the drug is to protect others-than these questions should be asked in a timely manner by the medical professional. Or, were these questions already asked and answered, but not made public.

There are only 7 studies on Bexsero and Trumenba. ClinicalTrials.gov-https://clinicaltrials(dot)gov/ct2/results?term=Bexsero&Search=Search.

Bexsero was just approved in January after the -Disney False Flag hoax-2015. There are 7 studies-3 completed. One study was complete in 2007 which means it was on the back burner waiting for an opportunity and the other two were completed, 1- in March and the other in April of 2015. Surprise!!!!

For those who aren’t following:
Bexsero was approved for distribution in JANUARY 2015
The study on Bexsero wasn't completed until, MARCH of 2015 and the other in APRIL 2015.

Something is clearly wrong with this.

Bexsero Meningococcal Group B
Recombinant Neisseria meningitidis group B NHBA/NadA/fHbp proteins
Outer membrane vesicles (OMV) from Neisseria meningitidis group B strain NZ98/254
Aluminium hydroxide
Sodium chloride Histidine Sucrose Water for injections

Trumenba has not been approved.

Experimental Vaccines has some good information on meningitis vaccines: http://experimentalvaccines (dot) org/2013/12/19/princeton-university-experiments-on-5000-students/.

June 24, 2015: The Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met on June 24 and voted against universal recommendations for MenB vaccines. These vaccines were recently approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for use in adolescents and young adults.

Considerations used by the ACIP when making universal (Category A) recommendations for vaccines include disease incidence, and benefit for large numbers of children and adults. If the vaccine under consideration doesn’t benefit large numbers of people, it may not be universally recommended.1

Data presented during the meeting showed that a universal recommendation was not justified or cost effective. ACIP instead voted for a Category B recommendation, which means that the vaccine is available for use by doctors and upon patient request. The committee’s decision eliminates financial inequities and access via provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Vaccines for Children (VFC) programs.

In addition to the cost this was cited:
Safety Concerns Expressed by ACIP Members:
During the discussion of MenB vaccines, committee members Kemp and Belongi expressed concern relating to reports of adverse events related to rheumatoid arthritis, thyroiditis and anaphylaxis. Other committee members expressed similar concerns and Chairman Temte noted that safety had been ruled on by the FDA in their licensure of the vaccine. It is unclear if additional data will be provided in response to these concerns.

Prof Pollard sounds like the UK's version of Paul Proffit--not good.

John Stone

Hi Ed,

In principle I don't think the rules are less stringent at the JCVI. What I have found slightly infuriating is all this technical stuff about "personal", "pecuniary" and "special". This is just confusing and as we have seen Prof Pollard has made franker disclosures elsewhere. I also think that whatever ethical convictions he may have had about his own activities that he was not someone to oversee a government committee.

But probably there is huge confusion in our ever more commercialised health service about roles. Everybody seems to be in bed with everyone else.

Ed Yazbak

Just for Information

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
Application for Membership
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/downloads/nominations.pdf
Page 6-
"Conflicts of Interest You should note particularly the requirement to declare any potential conflicts of interest that arise in the course of ACIP tenure and the need to declare any relevant business interests, positions of authority or other connections with organizations relevant to the work of the ACIP. Upon appointment each voting member is required to file an Office of Government Ethics 450 form (OGE450 http://www.oge.gov/Forms-Library/OGE-Form-450--Confidential-Financial-Disclosure-Report/ ), a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, which is reviewed by the ACIP Secretariat, the Federal Advisory Committee Management Branch and the Office of General Counsel at CDC. Confidential Financial Disclosure must be updated annually during a member’s term. At every ACIP meeting the Chair calls for conflict of interest disclosure from each voting member, at the opening of the meeting and prior to any vote taken by the ACIP. Any actual or perceived conflict of interests will be explored fully by the Secretariat, CDC’s Federal Advisory Committee Management Branch, and CDC legal counsel if necessary. Members with declared interests will be asked to recuse themselves from participating in the discussion and decision-making of the issues relating to that interest. A member who has any doubt as to whether he/she has an interest that should be declared, or whether he/she should take part in the proceedings, should ask the Secretariat for guidance."

John Stone

Jenny

They are certainly onto a winner in the UK. Not only Bexsero recently, and DPT for pregnant women, but Rotarix as well. They put out a statement somewhere recently saying they had total faith in JCVI and its no surprise.

Jenny Allan

Who says vaccines aren't very profitable?
The following is extracted from a statement made by GSK CEO:- (sorry I could not reproduce the graphs on his powerpoint here)

Sir Andrew Witty, CEO
JP Morgan Conference
12 January 2016

"Vaccines 2015: broad portfolio driving growth, realising benefits from integration and ongoing investments

New meningitis portfolio 9M global sales +63%*

Menveo
Bexsero

Financials
Restructuring on track, including material savings in 2016
•Significant opportunity to create value through expansion of Consumer and Vaccines margins
•Special dividend planned to return ~£1bn (20p per share) with Q4 2015 dividend "

It's obvious GSK is relying on vaccines to increase profitability following a disastrous year when GSK were fined in China for fraud and bribery and accused of same in several European countries. For the first time in the UK, previously 'teflon coated' GSK got fined nearly £50million for defrauding the NHS, by bribing cheaper manufacturers of out of patent medicines and other products NOT to sell their products cheaply to the NHS.

Angus Files

The big red herring, is the "herd Immunity" as we all know on here a lie at best, but as you can see from my previous post below ,without this uptake 90-95% the patent would then lapse and the makers and shakers offit,would not make anymore dosh,so the douchbag`s promoting health by vaccine have so convinently forgot about the wealth and happiness it brings to the bank managers,and themselves causing misery and destruction to the babies of the planet world wide.

MMR RIP.

Georg Elser

This is mandatory vaccination UK Style .

Jenocide Committee for Vaccination & Immunisation

Angus Files

Thanks John much needed letter needed to them.I think it is safe to say that Pollard et-all will never ever stop getting paid from the vaccines different for drugs regarding patents...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/10/merck-lying-about-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx


While vaccine makers often claim there's not a lot of profit to be had in vaccines, you have to remember that vaccine patents do not expire like drugs do. Vaccines continue to make profits as long as they're in use, so risk of future losses due to competition is virtually nonexistent. So of course there's profit in vaccines—especially once it's placed on the childhood vaccination schedule because that guarantees the vaccine will have a stable, guaranteed annual market as a new cohort of babies are born every year. And of course vaccine makers will protect those huge profits—even, apparently, when it means putting children's health at risk.


MMR RIP

Jenny Allan

@Eindeker
I think Professor Pollard's role in developing and promoting Bexsero is clear and in the public domain, whether or not Prof Pollard participated in the (quote)" meetings of the meningococcal subcommittee, chaired by Dr Andrew Riordan. The decision made to recommend the use of the vaccine in 2014 stemmed from an independent academic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine."

From "The lengthy reply from Mr Earnshaw" it would seem the Committee concentrated solely on the cost-effectiveness of the Bexsero vaccine. Did they discuss any safety issues? or was the 'endorsement' of Prof Pollard enough to sway the Committee in favour of implementation, given the price was affordable to the NHS?

It would be very nice to be able to file away this issue as 'a dead horse' with no concerns about Bexsero vaccine safety or side-effects, let alone long term efficacy, but we are already dealing with tiny babies. The high levels of adverse effects on older children and adults are recorded, and should at least have been considered by the meningococcal subcommittee.
Were they???

John Stone

Good Morning Eindeker

I don't really enjoy flogging dead horses anymore than shooting at dead aviators. But if it was really all as simple as that it would have been easy for the JCVI and Prof Pollard to avoid him sitting on the decision to recommend the vaccine for which he was lead developer. Since when was that OK?

As to the patents, I have not the faintest idea what the true position is. Mr Earnshaw says one thing and the Oxford REF 2014 submission appears to say another, and it could certainly do with further explication.

But what's your interest?

Georg Elser

Was there a "hear This well" petition , does anyone know ?

Eindeker
"Do you really enjoy flogging dead horses John?"

Presumably the horse had just been vaccinated ?

Georg Elser

regarding this Petition . I'm suspicious of it , and would like to verify some authentic names , because the Daily Telegraph was writing nonsense misinformation articles in advance of this petition .

Moreover , I plan to start a counter petition about Gardakil vaccine injuries globally . For poor souls like Zeda Pingel . and all the injured girls in the US , NZ\Aus, France , Ireland , Columbia , and we'll see if the BBC\Daily Telegraph runs that story .

Eindeker

Do you really enjoy flogging dead horses John? The lengthy reply that you quote from Mr Earnshaw is a more than adequate rebuttal of the various accusations that you and Angus raised in your presentation to the Scottish parliament, including the correction of several inaccuracies in that rambling discourse, including:

"11.Professor Pollard does not hold any patents for the meningococcal vaccine “Bexsero” and has never done so. Oxford University filed patents on meningococcal vaccines independently developed in Oxford, on which Professor Pollard was named. A decision was made in 2013 that these patents should be allowed to lapse.

&

"The deliberations of JCVI were made in relation to several meetings of the meningococcal subcommittee, chaired by Dr Andrew Riordan. The decision made to recommend the use of the vaccine in 2014 stemmed from an independent academic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine.

&

"The final analysis, again provided by an independent academic modelling group, considered by JCVI indicated that use of the vaccine could be cost-effective if the vaccine was purchased at a price significantly lower than the vaccine ‘list-price’. The analyses considered by JCVI were peer reviewed independently from the JCVI and were also scrutinised by analysts from the Department of Health. It was this final analysis that led to JCVI recommending use of the vaccine in the UK, with the caveat that the vaccine would need to be purchased at a price substantially lower than the list price.

John you are straying into vexatious questioning pursuing this following the more than adequate response you got from him, I await with interest seeing the response of Mr Earnshaw. Where is your evidence that Prof Pollard has acted inappropriately in his role as committee chair?

This decision to recommend Bexsero was based on health economic analysis, but then in the last 2 paragraphs you switch to questioning safety and efficacy, which as I have pointed out was more than adequately reviewed by EMA

Jenny Allan

This is scary.
A vaccine which is known to have "serious side effects in up to 1 in 50 cases in persons aged between 10 and 25 [10]." has been passed and implemented for all UK babies up to a year old. Thanks to the publicity generated by a single case of Meningitis B, (the recently publicised other cases were different strains), the UK public is clamouring for a 'blanket' Men B vaccine programme for all UK children under 11. This 'emotional' blackmail will be very hard for our Governments to resist.

As for "the technical issue of whether conflicts are “personal”, “pecuniary” or “special” ", all three apply. GSK, recently merged with Novartis, stands to make a fortune from Bexsero, and will make even more if the vaccine schedule is enlarged to take in older children. Whether or not Prof Pollard personally receives any money from Bexsero, his participation in vaccine manufacturers' marketing presentations, plainly personally endorsing Bexsero, a vaccine he had a hand in developing, undoubtedly results in 'special' and 'personal' conflicts of interest.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)