British Government Denies Vaccine Damage Payment Against Own Rules
By John Stone
The British government has made a legal challenge to a boy awarded compensation for narcolepsy following vaccination against swine flu on the grounds that the condition is not serious enough, though the link between the vaccine Pandemrix manufactured by GSK and the condition is not disputed. The award would have been the first vaccine damage payment in the United Kingdom since 2010, even though (unlike the United States) awards are limited to a maximum of £120,000 ($190,000). The grounds for appeal border appparently on the nonsensical but would also be against the government’s own long-standing guidelines.
According to the report in ‘World 24 Monitor’ the British government are attempting to argue to the Appeal Court that it should only have to compensate on the “immediate rather than future impact of the vaccine related injury”. This is despite the fact that it has repeatedly been stated that it is the purpose of the vaccine damage scheme “to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from severe vaccine damage” (government statement 19 June 2007), “to ease the present and future burdens of the vaccine damaged person and their families" Department of Health “Green Book” 10 June 2014 (chapter 10, p.7 ), “to ease the present and future burdens of the person affected by the vaccinations, and their family” (National Health Service Pamphlet p. 30, September 2015)).
Lawyer Peter Todd of Hodge, Jones and Allen told ‘World 24 Monitor’:
It is causing tremendous delay in getting compensation to those in dire need of help and who are entirely innocent and blameless people…They were responsible enough to get vaccinated and unfortunately have suffered a severe brain injury due to a defect with the vaccine, which was not detected as it was not tested at all on children before it was given out.
The 2009 swine flu scare quickly descended into farce and fraud as the government hyped the dangers and spread of the disease while distributing dangerous and ill-tested medical products:
A Lethal Mix: Can We Trust Baxter GSK and WHO
Calling Big Pharma's Bluff: Swine Flu
In one of the trials of Pandemrix there were seven deaths which were never explained.
Whether it is actually responsible to vaccinate your children when the government treats its citizens like this is an interesting question. The UK’s National Health Service issues tens of millions of vaccines a year: even on accepted rates of vaccine damage there would have to be hundreds of cases a year which are never compensated, and just fall into a bureaucratic hole. According to the report:
The boy, who remains anonymous, has become disruptive at school because he is so tired and finds it almost impossible to socialise. He needs to take several naps in the school day and cannot shower unattended or take a bus alone. He may never be able to drive as an adult.
However, the government may be even more worried in this instance that they indemnified the manufacturers against legal suit (as was secretly the case with GSK’s MMR vaccine Pluserix in 1988), as ‘World 24 Monitor’ reports:
A separate claim against GSK for full compensatory damages is being discussed with the Department of Health, as the pharmaceutical company had an indemnity in their contract to provide Pandemrix to the government.
Addendum (October 20, 2015) Since the publication of this article I have been shown a copy of the order from 2009 (2516) adding the swine flu vaccine to the Vaccine Damage Payment Act (2009). Clause 7.1 under the heading "What is being done and why" states:
The Vaccine Damage Pament Act 1979 provides lump sum payments to ease the present and future burdens of those who have been severely disabled by vaccinations against specified diseases...
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
Thanks Adriana
I think in the UK there are various long term dynamics in this - one is politicians not wishing to be told by their officials that there is anything wrong. Another is the attempt to dump the sick and disabled as scroungers (which they can turn into a popular campaign). A third is that when the chips are down they are unwilling to concede anything financially even where the failures were blatant and the damage gross. In the latter instance you get such cases as contaminated blood for haemophiliacs and the Camelford water disaster (the latter event exactly synchronous with the introduction of MMR) where in terms of public accountability they managed to dribble the ball up the field for more than a quarter of century until everyone but the victims' relatives had forgotten about them (but with MMR and other vaccines - although no better - they were much more successful in muddying the waters). Forty years ago about some other matter - which shamefully I can no longer recall - a relative remarked to me: "It's typical civil service isn't it, they concede as little as possible as late as possible" (as if he was quoting their professional rubric), and mostly they are very good at it.
The British way (I believe the author of this letter is also the dedicatee of Sylvia Plath's 'The Bell Jar')?
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/handling-camelford-incident-department-health
Handling of the Camelford incident by the Department of Health
I am writing to support the letter published in the BMJ written by Dr
Chris Exley and signed by 58 international aluminium specialists.
Professor Woods is the chairman of the Lowermoor Sub-group, a
subgroup of COT, which is itself an Advisory Body of the Department of
Health (DoH). I would like to draw attention to some of the actions of the
DoH in relation to the Lowermoor incident.
In late July 1988 I made contact with a senior toxicologist at the
DoH, Dr G K Matthew. We spoke many times: he told me that he had attended
committee meetings about the Lowermoor acid water incident and had urged
the department to send an expert team to North Cornwall to gather samples
of the water and other relevant data, and to make clinical assessments of
the health of the people. His words to me were: “I am constantly being
overruled”. He asked me to write a critique of the actions of the DoH in
relation to this incident. His words were: “State what we did that we
should not have done, what we have not done that we should have done, and
name names.”
I was also at that time in contact with Dr Virginia Murray of the
Poisons Unit at Guys Hospital London. She told me that they had a team
ready to go down to North Cornwall but that the DoH told her that there
was no need as the DoH was carrying out an investigation itself. As we now
know, neither the DoH nor the Poisons unit carried out any investigation
of the event.
On the 24 August 1988 Dr C R Grainger, Specialist in Community
Medicine for the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority, received a
letter from Michael Waring, Senior Medical Officer at the DoH. In this
letter Mr Waring said: “I have not of course undertaken clinical or
laboratory examination of any of those who may have suffered ill effects,
and have not been in a position to verify any of the clinical reports or
water quality data independently. You will wish to show this letter and
the attached document to interested parties locally.” Under the heading
‘Long-term effects’ he said: “There is no reason to expect long-term or
delayed harm following on the evident effect of these substances on the
gastrointestinal tract. Long-term effects on other organs would not be
expected for several reasons as follows: a) the amount of the substances
absorbed and retained at the time of the incident would have been very
small; b) the period of exposure was relatively short; c) no long-term
effects are reported in the scientific literature for most of these
substances.”
We know that Dr Grainger circulated this letter and attachment to
medical practitioners at all levels in the West Country, so it therefore
had a profound effect on the understanding of the possible effects of this
incident and therefore the treatment of patients.
In the autumn of 1988 I spoke to Christopher Beazley, then MEP for
Plymouth and Cornwall. He told me that he had discovered that the then
Department of the Environment (DoE) had never informed the European
Commission (EC) of this major contamination of drinking water, which,
under EC directive 80/778 Article 10, they are obliged to do. When I spoke
to Paul Douglas at the DoE he said: “We didn’t notify the EC because Mr
Waring at the DoH told us that aluminium is non-toxic.”
We now note with concern that Professor Woods and his committee
appear to be repeating these findings. In para 1.22 (page 16) of the draft
report the executive summary states: “On the basis of the available data,
it is not anticipated that the combination of metals which occurred as a
result of the pollution incident would have caused or would be expected to
cause delayed or persistent additive or synergistic effects.”
On inquiring of the secretariat of the Woods committee whether or not
they had seen the medical records of people claiming to be suffering long-
term effects from consuming the water, or whether or not they were going
to undertake clinical or medical testing or assessments of the health of
these people, I was told that they were not taking either of those
courses. This appears to me to be a most extraordinary decision, as it is
merely reiterating the statements made by Mr Waring and Barbara Clayton.
Many patients lost fingernails and toenails in the months following
the event: one patient presented Professor Woods with a sample bottle of
nails, which Professor Woods acknowledged with a nod but with no
suggestion of conducting a metabolic investigation (para 1.27: “…further
metabolic investigation of the patients’ nails was not required.”)
Professor Woods and his team are highly qualified people, albeit without
the presence on the committee of an expert in aluminium toxicity, it is
therefore even more surprising that thoroughgoing and convincing clinical
investigations have not been undertaken.
Elizabeth Sigmund
Hon D Sc
Posted by: John Stone | October 15, 2015 at 05:17 AM
Thank you for covering this, John. It really boils down to various (mostly English speaking) governments' assurance that they can break the rules all they want because the public is cowed into immobility.
Posted by: Adriana | October 14, 2015 at 08:39 PM
The British government has made a legal challenge to a boy awarded compensation for narcolepsy following vaccination against swine flu on the grounds that the condition is not serious enough, though the link between the vaccine Pandemrix manufactured by GSK and the condition is not disputed.
*************
John,
With all due respect, reporting this to us is kind of a waste of time.
We already know how depraved the pharmaceutical industry is, since we as parents live with the consequence of their deep rooted sociopathy on a daily basis. And I doubt that anyone here is surprised to learn that the two legged scum which refers to itself as 'politicians', are in bed with these sociopaths.
The biggest question that I was left with after reading this … is who??? Who exactly are the politicians resposnible for driving this insanity?
Shouldn't the whole point of writing an article like this, be to expose the POEPLE who are responsible for this madness ??
If no-one ever holds the individuals accountable… then you can only expect their behaviours to get worse.
Posted by: Barry | October 14, 2015 at 07:23 PM
A great petition, Angus!
I wish the US would adopt this part:
"As the decisions of these vaccination committees result in massive sales of vaccine products for pharmaceutical companies, it is vital that the process of adding vaccine products to national vaccination schedules is open and transparent, and that any potential ‘conflicts of interest’ of the members of these groups are accessible for public perusal. For example, a register detailing the history of any relationships with the vaccine industry, e.g. research grants, consultancies, honorariums, plus any shareholdings in vaccine companies, royalties received, directorships etc, must be publicly accessible. If a member indicates they have no potential conflicts of interest, this must be clearly recorded."
Posted by: Greyone | October 14, 2015 at 06:09 PM
As in the Hana Poling case here in the US-compensating children with serious vaccine injuries or death will open a flood gate of future payments to suffering families. The longer they stall the more protected pharmaceutical companies will be. The concept of the Federal Vaccine Court was to take a few symbolic cases and once the families lost-the court would not have to hear anymore similar cases from said vaccines. The problem is that this idea backfired because Mr. Polling WAS a Neurologist and was better prepared to prove his case. Today in the US, 1 in every 3 children are now chronically ill- ever since the US passed a law that you could NOT sue a vaccine maker in a regular court (1986-1989) thus kids went from 7 vaccines to more than 70 with "0" liability to the pharmaceutical companies.The Aluminum, thimerosal/Mercury, Formaldehyde, cells of pigs, cows (Containing Bovine Leukemia cells too hard to remove), monkeys, chicks, dogs, insects, MSG, Ether, dangerous Peanut Byproducts, and other toxins have created the current situation where 1 in 3 either have Autism, ADHD, serious Asthma or food allergies including anaphylactic shock reactions. Then people wonder why kids are displaying animalistic behaviors after being injected with so many animal cells??
Posted by: Shelley Tzorfas | October 14, 2015 at 05:20 PM
Very true John and the Stalinist Nanny State approach hasn't happened yet which we all know is morally and ethically wrong. It can never be right to vaccinate when the vaccines have never, ever been independently tested outwith Pharma labs.
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | October 14, 2015 at 09:30 AM
Angus
Just to be clear the article about the JCVI is from 2009, so it is not new -though it does represent massive political dereliction, by corrupt and weak politicians who don't want to deal with difficult questions about policy. They did at the time shrink for mandates - which is what we feared - although some doctors and politicians pushed for them.
Posted by: John Stone | October 14, 2015 at 08:18 AM
"but at least so far we don't have mandates."
True John but I would bet my last penny on it ,that it wont be for the lack of trying..
From my draft petition which was butchered out..but scraps still remain comments anyone please on it thanks...
https://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/JCVI
Contrary to assurances given by the UK Government to leading politicians, fears earlier this year that the Government is moving to make the vaccination schedule compulsory for British citizens [including children] without reference to Parliament, and without public debate seem to be being borne out.
New law introduced by the backdoor in January this year obliges the Secretary of State for Health to implement any recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: [Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Vaccination].
Under the new law, the JCVI is now asking [full quote below]:-
* what exactly ‘right’ meant [under the new NHS constitution] with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and
* how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’“
In other words, if a parent does not want a child vaccinated but the JCVI have recommended all children be vaccinated, the JCVI are asking can their recommendation be challenged by the parent. It would seem once they have their answer, they will decide whether or not to make their recommendation. This appears one step from compulsory vaccination for children regardless of parental views or concerns.
If the JCVI decide to make their recommendation, and a legal case ensues this might mean a Guardian is appointed by the State as in Scotland The Scottish Parliament has passed legislation to appoint a ‘Named Person’ for every child in Scotland.
This is now a state official tasked with looking after a child’s “wellbeing”. This state guardian will be put in place regardless of whether or not children or parents wish to have one and regardless of whether there is any need for state intervention. to represent the interests of the child and through the Guardian sue its own parents to insist on the “right” to be vaccinated as mandated by the JCVI. The parents would in effect be forced to defend the case against their own child brought through the Guardian to oppose their own child being vaccinated. Once the first case was decided, the matter would be settled in practical terms for all UK parents.
Thus the UK appears to be on the verge of ‘1984′ style legislation and guidelines in which freedoms are taken away from citizens framed in terms of rights granted. And this has happened without political or public debate, scrutiny or democratic vote.
The newly published draft minutes for the JCVI in February disclose that the new status granted it by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo by executive order in January seem designed to tie up with unmentioned provisions in the new National Health Service Constitution.
According to the JCVI minutes the new NHS constitution states:
‘You have the right to receive the vaccinations that the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation recommend that you should receive under an NHS provided national immunisation programme.’
And:
‘You should participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination.’
The minutes state:
‘The JCVI was pleased the recommendations of the committee would have the force of law behind it. The committee asked for clarification on the constitution including what exactly ‘right’ meant with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’
Irrespective of any claimed benefits of a vaccine programme the constitutional implications of this change are concerning.
The JCVI is by law now a law unto itself and flexing its muscles despite a history of disregard for safety issues over the past 20 years and more.
It is unclear what ultimate responsibility the JCVI bears for its actions, or if any sanctions apply to it. The criterion for recommendations by the JCVI is purely on “cost-effectiveness” not safety - a re-statement of the committee’s defective historical remit. JCVI members have financial and professional associations with vaccine manufacturers. No action has been taken to curb this.
Any ordinary concept of legality appears subverted, and power ceded to industry insiders.
This has taken place without democratic reference: compulsory vaccination is not part of any party’s policy and it has never been debated in Parliament.
If this is going to happen at all there should be extensive consultations, safeguards, debate and a vote.
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | October 14, 2015 at 07:43 AM
Hi Jenny, Angus, Bob
I suppose you could say, different nations with different stitch ups. But I did notice that there was a creepy MP before the general election (voted out of office like every other Labour Scot) whose concern about vaccine damage was so great that he wanted to introduce the US system - presumably a pharma lobbyist. I think one can certainly say about the British system that it isn't being operated in good faith (and they are not too fastidious even about how it all looks) but at least so far we don't have mandates.
Posted by: John Stone | October 14, 2015 at 07:09 AM
The UK Government has a shameful record of compensating vaccine injured children. Those damaged by the first MMR vaccine Pluserix, introduced in the UK, in disregard of warnings from Canada, where it was banned soon afterwards, had to wait for 20 years, when Government suppressed Pluserix papers were released into the public domain, even then, damage awards were derisory, like the award to vaccine damage campaigner Jackie Fletcher's severely disabled son Robert, which at least vindicated Jackie's insistence her son was MMR vaccine damaged. The cash was useful and paid for necessary home adapations for a now adult Robert, but provided NO compensation for his ruined life. A young woman left profoundly deaf by Pluserix was refused compensation on the grounds she was 'not disabled enough' It took the UK Government 3 years to ban this dangerous MMR vaccine. Goodness only knows how many children were damaged or killed by Pluserix. We will never know, but £millions of taxpayer's money was subsequently spent 'propping up' public perceptions to protect the second MMR vaccine, including the disgraceful character and professional assassination of Dr Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues, for their discovery of POSSIBLE MMR vaccine links to autism/bowel disorders. Cases of both conditions have escalated during the intervening years, and of course, some of those 12 Lancet children studied are Pluserix victims.
Some very worrying recent attempts in the US to 'push' the vaccine adjuvent Squalene, acknowledged to have caused narcolopsy and other serious neurological conditions, and in California, allow now banned mercury laced vaccines to be administered to children and pregnant mums. If these are allowed in the US, the UK will soon follow.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/why-is-the-fda-fast-tracking-squalene-as-a-flu-vaccine-ingredient-for-seniors/
From above:-
"Although MF59(Squalene) is bioactive and designed to stimulate a strong immune response, FDA does not require that vaccine adjuvants be proven safe in a placebo controlled trial and they are not licensed separately.5 Fluad will be the first influenza vaccine licensed in the U.S. containing squalene, a controversial oil in water adjuvant that has been linked with development of autoimmunity, narcolepsy and other immune and neurological disorders."
Posted by: Jenny Allan | October 14, 2015 at 06:51 AM
That the British government has the audacity to pursue this appeal should scare the living heck out of every parent in the U.K. Consider .....
Webster's defines "tyranny" thus:
"cruel and unjust use of power"
Tyranny is tyranny .. and .. parents/children in the U.K. suffer the results .. whether the tyranny is imposed by a British King .. or .. imposed by the British government.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | October 14, 2015 at 06:46 AM
What a burden for the parents to cope with ,more court work,lawyers,statements,health reports,..and not one thought from the government to the effect this has on the family and harmed person..shame on the Government.
The Law Is An ASS
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | October 14, 2015 at 06:11 AM