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

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.

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.

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

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

Ed

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

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/

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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,

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?

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).

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.

"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/

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.

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."

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.

This is mandatory vaccination UK Style .

Jenocide Committee for Vaccination & Immunisation

@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???

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 ?

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