Vote for SafeMinds to win $50,000 to Protect Children from Environmental Poison
Autism Should Not Be a Death Sentence: Kim Stagliano on Huffington Post

The Urabe Factor

Mumps can't play By Martin Walker
A downloadable version of the full essay can be found at: Slingshot Publications

It was soon noticeable, following the finding on fact by the GMC Fitness to Practice Hearing against Dr Wakefield, Professor Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, that those who had supported the prosecution, were concerned that the provisionally defeated arguments over the IBD aspect of MMR vaccine damage might now be replaced by a more searching look at the adverse effects of the Urabe strain mumps MMR vaccine. The UK NHS had introduced these two versions of MMR while knowing that they had been taken off the market in Canada after being held responsible for cases of mumps meningitis.

How it happened that hundreds of legal claims for neurological damage based on Urabe strain MMR, got pushed to the back of the legal queue, while the more difficult IBD and regressive autism cases were prioritised to fight a very public battle over autism causation, needs continuing analysis.

To return now to the legal battle over Urabe as some in Britain intend to do, will undoubtedly be an uphill struggle, one which will have to be undertaken without reference to the IBD conflict; a battle that might take place beyond the autism community within the apparently weaker vaccine damage community.

Hopefully the autism community will extend their support and campaigning zeal to these Urabe cases if they reach court, on the understanding that a victory over Urabe would inflict a considerable defeat on the UK government and Big Pharma which would pave the way for renewed MMR claims on the basis of IBD and regressive autism.

Martin Walker's essay the Urabe Farrago, which was written to give voice to those parents who were refused access to the legal process, provides preliminary information and interpretation about the cavalier and cruel approach of both the government and political appointed NHS functionaries, to UK public-health policy. Hopefully the arguments and information in the essay will provide us with tools with which to undermine the UK government's philosophy of vaccine-damage denial.

A downloadable version of the full essay can be found at: Slingshot Publications



Clifford Miller

As a clarification, the UK MMR supply contract indemnity indemnifies the supplier of Pluserix MMR vaccine [SK&F] against liability being passed to it under the UK's Consumer Protection Act. That can happen by any act of Farillon including the lawful act of distibuting the vaccine.

Distributing the vaccine is an "act" [as in "act or omission" in the contract indemnity].

The otherwise lawful act of distributing a product can incur product liability for the ultimate supplier in the EU if one or more examples of the product are defective. The Consumer Protection Act passes liability up the supply chain.

Clifford G Miller

Michael Bliss appears completely out of his depth on legal issues relating to the "any cause" indemnity. This was given by the UK National Health Service to the supplier of the dangerous Pluserix/Trivirix MMR vaccine Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited.

The identical MMR vaccine manufactured in the same Smith Kline factory in Belgium was first licensed under the brand "Trivirix" for the Canadian market in 1986. Canadian distribution was officially withdrawn on 23rd November 1987.

Despite being four times the price of an MMR vaccine officially assessed by the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines as safer and despite knowing it was a dangerous MMR vaccine the UK National Health Service contracted for the supply of 1.4 million doses of Pluserix/Trivirix in August 1988 and launched this known dangerous vaccine in the UK in October 1988.

On 11th September 1992 this known dangerous vaccine was urgently withdrawn worldwide by Smith Kline Beecham acting on legal advice. The UK Department of Health was taken by surprise as reported in the UK press at the time but did not officially withdraw the vaccine or cancel its product licence because "revoking the licence would have caused a worldwide vaccine crisis". So childrens' lives and safety was put a poor second to the commercial interests of the drug industry and the career prospects of UK health officials.

When it comes to indemnities, it is the normal practice for the supplier to indemnify the customer and not vice versa. The only time the supplier is indemnified by a government agency is when the drug company does not want to supply eg. because the product is not particularly safe but the government wants to supply it.

This is a known practice to the insurance industry as they sometimes have to write policies to underwrite the risk.

The contract with Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd contained an "any cause" indemnity given by the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority acting as agent for the UK's NHS Procurement Directorate. This appears to have been done without any government or Ministerial oversight.

In other words, the contract appears to have been laundered by the back door to avoid any scrutiny.

The "Nominated Distributor" is a red herring. This was Farillon. The only reason that qualification is in the indemnity is so the NHS did not indemnify Glaxo for MMR vaccine products not distributed by Farillon.

Anything supplied outside the NHS supply chain - eg. by Glaxo itself or any third party was not covered. The NHS would not have to pay out for that.

Yes, damage caused by Farillon was covered but also damage caused by the vaccine itself was too - any damage - for any cause.

Additionally, this clause was inserted in 1988 - the year after the UK's Consumer Protection Act 1987 was passed which introduced "no-fault" liability on suppliers/manufacturers for death and injury caused by a defective product.

So SK&F would have wanted that clause in. No doubt they had already covered themselves in negligence by disclosing to the DoH everything that had happened in Canada with Trivirix/Pluserix.

In fact it is highly unlikely they could have negotiated this clause into the contract without having disclosed the defective nature of the product thereby justifying not supplying unless they had an indemnity.

And of course the government was not going to pay out unless there was proven loss. Michael Bliss wants them to pay out against fake loss?

Bliss is also wrong when he says:-

"The distributor mishandles the vaccine so it is contaminated and a child dies from the contamination. The parents sue SK&F. Provided SK&F tells the NHS immediately, the NHS agrees that it will pay the legal fees and damages awarded against SK&F."

If the distributor was at fault then SK&F has no liability - it would be Farillon at fault and liable on behalf of the UK's NHS.

Clifford G Miller is a British attorney and trained scientist [BSc & ARCS Hons Physics]

Michael Bliss

Martin Walker, in his essay, The Urabe factor incorrectly interprets a clause in their MMR supply contract as an indemnification for the manufacturer for the qualify of the vaccine or damage caused by the vaccine. Rather it means that if SK&F can prove they've lost money, perhaps by a lawsuit, because of actions or omissions of the vaccine distributor then the NHS will indemnify SK&F.

That makes sense. Assume SK&F deliver vaccine in pertect condition to the distributor, who is acting upon behalf of the NHS. The distributor mishandles the vaccine so it is contaminated and a child dies from the contamination. The parents sue SK&F. Provided SK&F tells the NHS immediately, the NHS agrees that it will pay the legal fees and damages awarded against SK&F.

In his essay downloadable at, Mr. Walker, at page 54, has this quote from a vaccine supply contract:

"NHS shall indemnify SK&F against any proven loss which SK&F shall suffer as a result of any act or omission of the Nominated Distributor in connection with the performance or non performance of this Agreement where such act or omission appears to be within the scope of the Nominated Distributor's authority as agent of NHS provided that SK&F shall immediately notify NHS of any claim under the provisions of this clause."

Martin Walker continues:
"This indemnity is an 'all cause' indemnity. Clearly the JCVI and the UK government understood at least one of the MMR manufacturers to be indemnified when marketing their MMR product. This is confirmed in the unambiguous JCVI minutes of May 7th 1993: ‘SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without liability."

That's wrong. The indemnity is not an 'all cause' indemnity. It provides reasonable protection when the vaccine maker is sued because of problems that the distributor,not the vaccine maker, caused.

As added evidence, a google search for the key words nhs "nominated distributor" It returns 48 results. They deal with delivering goods from the seller to a distribution company. For example, the tendering requirements for supplying HPV vaccine to the UK states:
"Offerors should include a proposed delivery schedule detailing how they would deliver the consignments necessary to complete the delivery of the first 820,000 doses to the Authority’s nominated distributor...."


May those that were involved in this evil, pay with their carreers, and respect. Not really enough but at least it is something.

John Stone

Thank you Martin - lots to digest, and not the stuff for quick reactions, but important.



Thank you, Martin. With the Horne-Roberts taking the Urabe case to the Haig on the grounds of crimes against humanity, I'd think our community would consider the struggle to be part and parcel, as with Gardasil victims. If a population were attacked with guns, grenades and tanks, the victims wouldn't branch off according to type of injury-- with brain injuries here and lost limbs there, or shrapnel wounds separating their cause from bullet wounds.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)