Grace Green .
As I am only a parent and not a scientist, or a lawyer, or much of anything , I just have to plug away as I do..

Take some heart though ...Scottish petition article below from UOU

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/procedures/inquiries/public-petitions-procedures/6.-professor-derek-birrell---university-of-ulster.pdf

3.3 Outcomes and Influence
The Petitions Committee will produce its final recommendations after taking and considering the evidence. The recommendation may include taking no further action.
The Petitions Committee has carried out major inquiries which have been high profile and led to policy changes following their recommendations. The report on child sexual exploitation was conducted over eight months and made 28 recommendations, was debated in parliament and led to a ministerial statement. Also influential was a petition on NHS cancer treatment and on mandatory sentences for persons found carrying knives, a petition initiated by a father whose son was stabbed to death. The recommended action by the Petitions Committee can be diverse. It may ask a public body to review a decision, recommend a debate in parliament, ask a body to keep a matter under review, often try to incorporate evidence into an ongoing policy process or legislative process. Even if petitioners do not achieve their declared aim they may be satisfied with the publicity and attention given to their cause.

MMR RIP

It’s hard to gauge whether Government Policy is changed given the vagaries of any political system and the less than linear nature of ‘political time’. It is not possible in all cases to determine if a petition or an individual such as Dr Nutt directly led to a particular political outcome. It is possible that a petition or Dr Nutt could have encouraged the bringing forward of a policy. Sometimes the classic ‘chicken or egg’ problem is applicable. The JCVI is different, in that the entrenchment of vaccines as we know left alone things were/are just fine. It’s fair to say ,that Scotland has changed its view point on Cannabis where on the spot fines and warnings are going to be issued from next week .Whether this is due to petitions,Dr Nutt et-al giving advice who knows, but in Scotland some influence is being allowed by its citizens…hard to find elsewhere in the world.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14135085.Cannabis_users_to_be_given_on_the_spot_warnings_to_free_up_police_time/

MMR RIP
.

Regarding the comments of the Chairman, I'm further remembering that a few years ago the pharmacologist Dr. David Nutt, a government science advisor, told the government that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol (or was it horse riding?) and should be declassified. The home secretary at the time, Jackie Smith, chose to ignore his advice, which of course was her prerogative, although it would have been better if she had admitted that her decision was despite expert advice, and was made for purely political reasons. It just shows they can ignore scientists' advice when it suits them, so why not in the case of vaccines?

Angus, you mean the stitched-up "Lockerbie bomber"!

I am in awe of the hard work and research that has gone into the presentation of this petition. Thank you both for calling ‘the powers that’ be to task. It will be interesting to see the eventual outcome. Interesting to note that already it has had impact in that “……..draft JCVI minutes for 7 October were re-posted yesterday with the declarations at the end, however inadequate, added. When the document was viewed on 4 December there were no declarations,….”. So they are watching and listening. A huge thank you to both Angus and John for ‘rattling cages’which needed rattling.

Thank you both for being there, putting yourself out there, and for trying everyday to make a difference. I mean that.

Thanks for the posts Jenny. Smoke and mirrors being used by the Scottish Government that is what has been put in place but they haven’t sought to change it yet.. A bit of me thinks they are willing to change from the JCVI because they did not have to listen John and me and all the documentation supplied by us and others. They gave me the chance of a petition I applaud them, when was this ever done in Westminster or is ever likely to be done in Westminster, I cannot recall, apart from cursory lip service and that covers all the leading Political Parties of the UK as they have all been in power over the past 15 years.

As John has shown what the speech and evidence provide is conflict after conflict of interest and that’s just the chair, the leader, we know the foot soldiers take command from the top. The more you look the more you find about Pollard I wonder what his catch 22,get out of Jail card is? Because if hasn’t one that’s where he should be heading.

MMR RIP
.

From the official account of the Scottish Petitions Commitee proceedings (posted by John Stone below):-

"4. Scotland does not have membership of the JCVI but it does have observer status. There are two Scottish observers (from Health Protection Scotland and the office of the Chief Medical Officer) who attend committee meetings and receive papers. Observers do not have voting rights but can contribute to meetings in order to, for example, clarify points of fact, provide additional information or offer an interpretation of data.

5.Once the JCVI issues a recommendation, the Scottish Government and Health Protection Scotland consider it within a Scottish context and decide whether or not the recommendation should be adopted in Scotland. Decisions are usually issued via a letter from the Chief Medical Officer."

The Chief Medical Officer is presently Dr Syed Ahmed, who seems to have 'carte blanche' on vaccine policy in Scotland. This is the same man who pointed the finger at Dr Wakefield over the shocking increase in mumps cases in our Scottish colleges and universities; the vast majority had received mumps vaccine, mostly via MMR, in infancy. (My own grandson reported no less than FIVE of his 'mates' at uni contracted mumps; they were all warned about possible sterility). The following is extracted from a letter to Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport,The Scottish Parliament, 6th March 2015:-

".....the mumps prevalence situation in our colleges and universities is UK wide.

Of course, no blame attaches to the recent SNP administration for historical UK vaccine decisions taken many years ago. However, the Scottish Daily Mail’s Health Reporter, Victoria Allen, has quoted Dr Syed Ahmed, Clinical Director at Health Protection Scotland, who stated, “Certainly the MMR scare has contributed to the cases we are seeing.” I’m sure Dr Ahmed is well aware Dr Wakefield is NOT to blame for any MMR mumps vaccine component failure, and the main reason for the increase in mumps cases in Scotland is the admitted waning efficacy of the mumps vaccine component. Dr Ahmed laments the difficulties in persuading ‘teenagers’ to submit to any so called ‘catch up’ MMR vaccinations. I would respectfully suggest Scottish teenagers are perfectly capable of researching their own vaccine choices. They will also know their own vaccination status. They only have to ask their mothers.

The situation with fully vaccinated adult mumps cases, should not be permitted to continue. If the MMR vaccine mumps component is ineffective, then it is surely time to warn parents and young adults about this problem. Sooner or later, large numbers of very angry young men, fully MMR vaccinated as children, will discover mumps in adulthood, has reduced or destroyed their chances of fathering children. The court cases in the US could take years, and Merck has already spent $thousands on legal fees, in failed attempts to have the mumps fraudulent malpractice case against them thrown out. They can well afford the best defence attorneys, who will drag this out, challenge the evidence, and argue all kinds of mitigating circumstances.

Scotland can take a ‘lead’ here. I am not suggesting abandoning the MMR vaccine, but instead give new parents a proper NHS choice of single vaccines for measles and rubella if they so wish,(available privately, but expensive). There is no licensed single mumps vaccine presently available, but parents should be counselled about the desirability of contracting natural mumps in childhood, conferring lifelong immunity. Perhaps employers can be asked for understanding, allowing mothers a few days off work to nurse their children through the disease, which in up to a third of cases is so mild it passes unnoticed. Rubella, is a mild fleeting illness in childhood. There is no need to vaccinate boys at all. Girls, with no acquired immunity pre puberty, can receive rubella vaccine, to protect future unborn children from damage during any future pregnancies.

It takes bravery to innovate, although giving parents in Scotland the NHS choice of an alternative to MMR vaccine, using a ‘tried and tested’ measles and rubella vaccination schedule, previously in UK use for more than 20 years, is hardly innovation. There is no question MMR vaccine manufacturers, their paid medical spokespersons, and their sponsored press and media outlets, will vilify anything which looks like denting their obscene vaccine profits, but corporate interests, however loudly they scream and shout, should never prevail above the health and wellbeing of our Scottish citizens."

It's all too easy for our political leaders to play 'silly buggers', relying on so called 'experts' who are all too often, hopelessly biased and conflicted, but for the sake of our children and future generations, we MUST hold them to account.

Your right Jenny, a convenient half truth, the head scratcher moment is why? If Scotland is serious about independence and separation from the UK Government , divorce is divorce, and you cant say, but we will just keep this part of our break up? divorce is divorce.

Putting all the conflicts aside it would be very fair to say the Scottish Goverment haven't seriously considered the divorce in any depth.

Possibly they are now, time will tell.

As John has posted below plenty of the boys club running the JCVI show at the top ..no prizes for guessing what the reply will be to the petition, from "To write to, Sir David Normington GCB, the Commissioner for Public Appointments "

The Sir bit is the clue...

MMR RIP

@ Angus Files
"This is a matter for the UK Department of Health rather than the Scottish Government, as the JCVI is the Department of Health’s Expert Advisory Committee."

What a cop out!! The UK Department of Health, is a UK Government department and 'the buck stops' with the Government.
Health in Scotland has been devolved for years. I'm afraid, telling you to "take up your concerns with the UK Department of Health", will just send you round in ever decreasing circles. Don't buy it. It's the Scottish Government's responsibility NOT Westminster's.

Re the Bexsero Meningococcal B vaccine also see (including rapid responses):

- Introducing a new group B meningococcus vaccine: http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2415

- Do we need a new approach to making vaccine recommendations? Controversy about the evidence, economics, ethics, lobbying, and decision making surrounding a new vaccine for serogroup B meningococcal disease should trigger change in the way we develop recommendations for new vaccines say Natasha Crowcroft and colleagues: http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h308

In regards to the implementation of the Bexsero Meningococcal B vaccine in the UK…

Meningococcal B disease is a rare disease.(1)

The questionable implementation of the Bexsero Meningococcal B vaccine in the UK raises important questions about what level of disease risk justifies mass vaccination, particularly when there are many uncertainties about the effectiveness of the vaccine product.

In Australia the Bexsero Meningococcal B vaccine has been rejected three times by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC).

In relation to GlaxoSmithKline’s resubmission for the Multicomponent Meningococcal Group B Vaccine (4CMENB) (Bexsero) to be added to the Australian national vaccination schedule, the PBAC made the following statements in July 2015(2):

QUOTE:

- The PBAC rejected the re-submission requesting listing of the 4CMenB vaccine on the NIP Schedule for the prevention of meningococcal B disease in infants and adolescents. The basis of the rejection was that the re-submission did not address multiple uncertainties in relation to the clinical effectiveness of the vaccine against the disease when delivered in a vaccination program, that the use of optimistic assumptions about the extent and duration of effect and herd immunity as raised by the PBAC in previous consideration of this vaccine were not addressed, and the unacceptably high and uncertain ICER, presented in the re-submission.

- The PBAC reaffirmed its November 2013 and July 2014 conclusions that the vaccine is effective in inducing antibodies against the component antigens of 4CMenB. However, in the context of a population-based intervention against invasive meningococcal B disease, the Committee considered the clinical claim was highly uncertain because of the likely short persistence of the antibody response in children, uncertainty about the correlation between antibody responses and protection, the unknown effect on carriage of the bacteria, the overall uncertain long-term protective efficacy against infection and disease, and the unknown influence of projected herd immunity effects on overall disease burden. These issues were not addressed in the re-submission, although the PBAC acknowledged the limitations of the evidence base.

- The PBAC noted that the submission had not addressed the previous concerns of the PBAC in regards to the model, namely uncertain and optimistic assumptions about the extent and duration of effect and herd immunity. The PBAC was also concerned with the discounting rate applied in the model that considerably favoured the 4CMenB vaccine. The PBAC considered that none of the proposed program options were cost effective as presented in the submission.

END OF QUOTE

References:

1. “Invasive meningococcal B disease (IMD) is a rare disease caused by the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis.” PBS Public Summary Document – Multicomponent Meningococcal Group B Vaccine, 0.5mL, injection, prefilled syringe, Bexsero® - November 2013: http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2013-11/meningococcal-vaccine
2. Recommendations made by the PBAC July 2015 – Subsequent decisions not to recommend. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/pbac-outcomes/2015-07/web-outcomes-july-2015-subsequent-decision-not-to-recommend.pdf

Well done Angus and John. It amazes me the way Scottish MSPs, most of whom want a measure of devolution, if not complete independence from Westminster, seem quite happy to allow important health decisions, including child vaccination policies, to be dictated by so called 'experts' based in London. You certainly gave the petitions committee members 'food for thought' and your presentations were impeccable. Grateful thanks.

Great job! Love to you both!!!!

Thank you Angus and John. The discussion is about deaths and maiming of children, corruption and conflicts and you're forced down these various tunnels of technicalities. Considering this, your equilibrium is quite amazing to witness.

Thanks Grace Green so sad,but not surprised, that you see clever people, thinking people, sitting on panels that have obviously been brainwashed into thinking, that there is no other option available and we would be dead if it weren't for pharma.

I am sure on here we could put up an alternative to the JCVI,the MRHA, and the VDPU within 24 hrs completely made up of independent people....

come to think offit no vaccines problem solved

MMR RIP

Very well done, Angus and John! The Chairman's contention that it would not be possible to find suitably qualified scientists without connections to the industry to sit on the JCVI ignores the fact that this only arrises because the Pharmaceutical companies have deliberately extended their financial influence into the universities as well as other spheres. My father was Senior Lecturer in Pharmacology at Dundee University from 1955 to the late '70s and had no connections with the industry. Indeed, listening to this debate, I wonder if the explanation for my family's persecution for many decades could be that Big Pharma doesn't like people who have knowledge but are not bribable! Angus's point about such scientists being ostracised fits very much with my memories of how my father was treated after there was a change of head of his department.