Safety Concerns and Hidden Agenda Behind HPV vaccines: Another Generation of Drug-dependent Society?
On This Day With Autism

Andrew Pollard Named in Le Monde over HPV vaccine Cover up at the European Medicines Agency

By PollardJohn Stone

A report in the leading French newspaper Le Monde (followed by other news outlets) names Prof Andrew Pollard as a controversial figure in the activities of the European Medicines Agency (to the EMA). Echoing reports in AoA during the last year (and evidence presented by Angus Files and myself  to the Scottish Parliament) that Prof Pollard chaired a British government committee which recommended for infant use Bexsero Men B vaccine of which he himself was the lead developer, Le Monde cites a complaint from the Nordic Cochrane Centre which has now been brought forward for further consideration by the European Ombudsman. Stephane Foucart, writes:

The complainants also questioned why the agency dismissed some experts from deliberations due to conflicts of interest, while the chairman of one of the EMA panels, Andrew Pollard from Oxford) has been maintained. The latter has, in particular, conducted four studies financed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) or Sanofi, between 2010 and 2014. Moreover, according to our information, its declaration of interests at the EMA omits to mention certain financial support from manufacturers of some welknown vaccines at his institution. There was no response to the enquiries of Le Monde over these interests.

The complaint  followed: “reports to the Danish health authorities [of] several dozen cases of girls who have been vaccinated against HPV and who, in the following months [developed] disorders, grouped under various names: "chronic fatigue syndrome", "complex regional pain syndrome", "postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome" ...”

A key issue is that EMA failed to conduct its own searches but and simply requested that pharmaceutical companies GSK and Sanofi Pasteur MSD (who market Gardasil in Europe) consult their own databases. Anne Chailleu, president of Formindep, which campaigns in France for the independent training doctors explained to Foucart:  "Pharmaceutical companies are obliged to record in their databases reports of side effects of their medicines…But the same disorder is sometimes indexed in several ways, so how to query a database is important: depending on the keywords searched, the results can be very different. "

Peter Gøtzsche, the lead author of the Nordic Cochrane Centre complaint had obtained a confidential EMA report which contrary to its public line that there was “unanimity among experts” admitted that some experts were “very critical of certain arguments”. Secrecy was also an issue.

Another of Nordic Cochrane Centre’s co-authors Tom Jefferson  - also of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford  - complained that there was no evidence of any independent investigation of the data. Other important issues Jefferson raised were that the vaccines were not trialled against genuine placebos but against other vaccines containing an aluminium adjuvant. He also complained that in conducting their review the EMA had excluded some studies without apparent reason.

The appointment of Prof Pollard to the United Kingdom Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation followed on pressure from the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, to recommend the Bexsero Men B vaccine prior to their meeting in June 2013 but they failed to agree. The recommendation for infants was made at the second meeting chaired by Prof Pollard in February 2014 (a consensus decision in which no one recused themselves and no one voted). Very soon after the recommendation negotiations began for the transfer of Novartis’s vaccine division (which manufactured Bexsero) to GSK, in turn finalised in January 2015 with the vaccine becoming window-dressing for the forthcoming election. Although Prof Pollard’s committee only recommended the vaccine for infant use a campaign for the vaccine was started in the media for older children and young adults which drove up private sales.

Readers of AoA will be aware that patents for the two HPV vaccines are owned by the US government.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.



Jenny Allan

"Ho Ho Ho Freely available data shows the MeNZB vaccine stopped an epidemic of the New Zealand strain of N meningitides (90% reduction in cases)"

I assume Eindeker must have a crystal ball or is psychic since 'epidemics' of diseases are as hard to predict as catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions ----or PERHAPS this fear of 'epidemics' is just a well known marketing ploy for the hugely profitable vaccine industry. It's all too easy to claim a vaccine 'prevented' an epidemic when in most cases there would never have been an epidemic in the first case, with or without a vaccine. The rushed and unsafe H1N1 Flu vaccine caused child deaths and narcolepsy. The 'epidemic' threat was manufactured and hyped for profit.

I'm very pleased the Australians refused to include Bexsero in their child vaccination schedule, although the vaccine manufacturers GSK and their paid lobbyists will keep up the pressure on the Australian Government. Meningitis B is a frightful disease, but is thankfully very rare and can be treated successfully with antibiotics if diagnosed quickly. Parents and doctors should be educated to recognise the signs. Bexsero can have life changing side effects in a few cases. There's no justification in mass vaccinations which can potentially cause more problems than the diseases.

GSK made much of the huge profits to be made from vaccines, including Bexsero , at its recent annual shareholder's meeting. Vaccines have become a a necessary 'bottom line' for the pharmaceutical industry. This is scary.

Ho Ho Ho It's Christmas Eindeker NOT April Fool's day. I agree with John. Go back to your pharma paymasters and take your insinuations and false 'evidence' with you.

John Stone


What you see above is a factual report. I do not see any insinuations, so perhaps - unless you wish to corrects errors in the reporting which is done in good faith - you would do well to retract your insinuations. There are other reasons, for example, for having clear rules on conflict than the specific issue of someone's honesty. If an architect was allowed to chair a planning committee examining his own building project he might honestly believe it was a good and appropriate design but he would still be the wrong person to chair the committee, and it would still be an honourable and reasonable thing to point this out. I remain at a loss to know how it was possible for such a situation to arise, and for many people to turn a blind eye. But I am not insinuating anything at all, I am simply reporting.

Unless you would like to make some comment clearing the air on this issue perhaps you ought to consider your time posting on Age of Autism (I believe after six years) at an end.


Old news from 2007 but 100 fully-vaccinated NZ children contracted meningococcal disease:

"Unpublicised research published by the Ministry of Health also shows that the MeNZB vaccine actually increases the risk of babies getting the epidemic strain of meningococcal disease and does not protect babies as promised... why has the MOH failed to disclose that fact to the public despite knowing for the best part of 12 months?"

But you wouldn't have seen this in the MSM, nor would you have read about children damaged by MeNZB.


I suppose it might be a matter of interpretation Ho Ho Ho Freely available data shows the MeNZB vaccine stopped an epidemic of the New Zealand strain of N meningitides (90% reduction in cases) There was no increase in other strains as shown in the link I provided yet you commented
> which was abandoned after a rise in other types &
> be more efficient at covering it up.

Misinterpretation or not checking the facts might be a more precise description, do you now accept that, in fact, the vaccine did what it was intended to and there was no "cover up"

Re Prof Pollard I have no reason to doubt the man's honesty, do you have any facts rather than insinuations you would care to present?

John Stone


I suppose it might be a matter of interpretation. While we are about it can you confirm that you are stiill pleased and comfortable with Prof Pollard's complex of competing interests and affiliations?


Dear John

That is not correct on several counts, the MeNZB vaccine was actually very successful in stopping the epidemic of the New Zealand specific B strain The MeNZB™ vaccine was introduced as a short-term measure to reduce risk during an epidemic, as it was not expected to provide life-long protection.....The number of people developing meningococcal disease due to the epidemic strain of meningococcal B has significantly decreased - from over 300 cases in 2001 to less than 30 cases in 2010
It did not lead to an increase in other serotypes, although of course the proportion of other cases went up with the decline in the epidemic strain see Table 24. It was withdrawn because the epidemic had declined and the vaccine offered only relatively short term immunity

John Stone

Hi Elizabeth

Yes, in fact, there is an account of an earlier attempt to introduce Men B vaccine in New Zealand in Hilary Butler's "Just A Little Prick" which was abandoned after a rise in other types. Not sure why it would be any different this time except they would be more efficient at covering it up.

Elizabeth Hart

And GSK's campaign for Bexsero meningococcal B vaccination in Australia continues...

See: "SA Health, University of Adelaide roll out meningococcal B vaccine trial"

Apparently South Australian teenagers will be given 'free' vaccines for meningococcal B as part of a 'nation-leading' trial. "Up to 60,000 students in years 10, 11 and 12 will be offered the vaccine by the University of Adelaide and SA Health in 2017. The organisations are examining the impact of immunising large community groups against the disease."

In other words, another experiment is under way with this vaccine that the PBAC (which has knocked back the vaccine for taxpayer funding three times) says has "multiple uncertainties in relation to the clinical effectiveness of the vaccine..."

The vaccine trial is being funded by GlaxoSmithKline.

In the article, Associate Professor Helen Marshall, another member of the powerful 'vaccination clique' in Australia, said parents should consider purchasing the 'effective' vaccine if their children are not part of the trial - "Certainly we'd encourage children in those at-risk groups - infants, young children and adolescents - to be vaccinated."

And yet, as I mentioned in my previous comment, NCIRS director Peter McIntyre says meningococcal B disease is declining. How can a mass vaccination campaign be justified for a disease that is in decline?

There is also scope for 'unintended consequences', e.g. serogroup replacement due to vaccination.

A recent article[1] published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases says "Meningococcal epidemiology is unpredictable and incompletely understood, and the incidence of invasive meningococcal disease is highly variable worldwide. Incidence is low (0.5-5 cases per 100,000 population per year) in non-epidemic areas such as Europe and USA, but incidence of up to 1000 cases per 100,000 population per year have been recorded in the epidemic region of sub-Saharan Africa, the so-called African meningitis belt."

It’s interesting why the incidence is higher in sub-Saharan Africa…

This LID article notes a vaccination campaign against meningococcal serogroup A has been successful in sub-Saharan Africa, but also says "Nevertheless, with the subsequent decline in meningitis caused by NmA, an increase in the proportion of cases caused by other serogroups, predominantly N meningitidis serogroup W (NmW), has been reported."

The article also refers to "the emergence and distribution of the novel ST-10127 serogroup C in Niger, saying "Very little is known about this novel outbreak strain..." In regards to novel strains, the article says "Whether this regional spread is the result of a new virulent meningococcal lineage spreading to susceptible naive host populations, or whether it is evidence of an ongoing serogroup replacement to fill the ecological niche left after the MACV [meningococcal serogroup A conjugate vaccine)-induced reduction in NmA carriage and disease in this region, is still unknown."

In other words it is still unknown if vaccination facilitates the evolution of new serogroups.

This raises questions about the point of vaccinating if new serogroups simply pop up to fill the void. Is this the most effective way of tackling this disease? This is very important to consider, particularly in countries such as Australia where the risk of disease is very low.

We must be allowed to ask these questions. Unfortunately, vaccination committees and groups appear to be dominated by academics associated with industry (e.g. JCVI and ATAGI), and lucrative vaccination is enthusiastically promoted, regardless of the possibility of new serogroups evolving. I suggest this is very questionable and potentially dangerous policy.

1. Despite successful vaccines Neisseria meningitides strikes again. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Vol. 16. November 2016. (You can access this article for free if you log in.)

John Stone

Dear Elizabeth

Many thanks for all your incredible work and for documenting it here. Unfortunately, it is no surprise to see the conflicted officials in Australia - it seems almost like a miracle that an Australian committee rejected the product in the first place!


Elizabeth Hart

John, despite the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) rejecting the GSK Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine for the taxpayer funded schedule three times, lobbying for this vaccine product persists.

For example, see this ABC News article published on 4 November 2016, in which Eliza Ault-Connell, the director of Meningococcal Australia, says "Bexsero should be subsidised", i.e. funded by the taxpayer: "Subsidising meningococcal B vaccine deemed too costly for the federal budget":'too-costly-to-subsidise'/7995726

In the same article, Professor Peter McIntyre, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research, said while meningococcal B was the most common form of meningococcal disease, it was declining. He said: "It's good news to say that for whatever combination of reasons, possibly related to how well Australia's doing reducing smoking rates which is a factor in meningococcal disease, we're seeing about half as much meningococcal disease, including B, as we were seeing 10 years ago".

So that's interesting news, don't you think? Certainly it doesn't appear there is any justification for mass vaccination of children with GSK's Bexsero vaccine product.

In regards to Meningococcal Australia, I have endeavoured to find out if this organisation has any sponsors. I also asked if Meningococcal Australia's Medical Advisor, Professor Robert Booy, has any associations with the vaccine industry. In this regard, see some of my correspondence with Ms Ault-Connell, below:

Email forwarded to Eliza Ault-Connell, Director of Meningococcal Australia on 17 November 2016:

Thanks for your response Eliza.

You say you "rely on donations from business, corporations as well as the public".

As your organisation is campaigning for Bexsero to be subsidised, i.e. funded by the taxpayer on Australia's national vaccination schedule, I suggest it is incumbent upon you to be transparent about your funding sources.

In this regard can you please provide me with information re your donors, i.e. who are they and do they have any conflicts of interest? For example, do you receive any support from GlaxoSmithKline, directly or indirectly? Does Professor Robert Booy have any relationship with GlaxoSmithKline?

I understand meningococcal B is a dreadful affliction, but it is also very rare. The Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine product has been rejected three times by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, it appears there are "multiple uncertainties in relation to the clinical effectiveness of the vaccine..." (See PBAC document attached, pp 3-4.) I do not believe mass vaccination with this vaccine is justified.

By way of background to my interest in this matter I am interested in vaccination policy, particularly the Australian No Jab, No Pay law which makes vaccination compulsory with vaccine products on the schedule up to the age of five years to access family benefits.

I'm concerned about the increasing number of vaccinations and revaccinations being imposed on children, including aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines, of which Bexsero is one. It is my argument that children are being over-vaccinated with a plethora of vaccine products and revaccinations and it is time for a review of the national vaccination schedule.

I suggest the way the Bexsero vaccine product is being promoted to the public is very questionable, particularly as the disease is rare and there are "multiple uncertainties in relation to the clinical effectiveness of the vaccine..."

The implementation of this vaccine in the UK is also questionable, with a person involved with the development of the vaccine, Professor Andrew Pollard, also being the Chair of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation which recommended the Bexsero vaccine for the UK vaccination schedule.

Prior to Professor Pollard's chairmanship, the JCVI had rejected this vaccine. See this article for more background: GSK Document Appears to Show Vaccine Committee Chair Used Position to Favour Own Product: I have left a number of comments on this article which refer to Bexsero in an Australian context, including reference to Robert Booy.

I suggest there is more to be discovered about the relationships of academics and the vaccine industry, and the influence of these academics on vaccination policy, resulting in coercive vaccination of children which is in direct conflict with the obligation for informed consent before vaccination.

Again Eliza I would appreciate it if you would provide me with information regarding sponsorship of Meningococcal Australia, and also information regarding Professor Booy's associations with the vaccine industry.

Elizabeth Hart

As of yet, I have received no response to my email. I've followed up again recently.

John Stone


It is a very interesting episode in the history of political repression: it really tests the system of assertion and denial involved in the wider vaccine program. You wonder whether they were really kicking it up a notch to see what would happen and whether they could get away with it? It was always nonsense. It would have taken a trial of 40 years to find out about effectiveness (if you could control it properly) but what they knew they had to do was relentlessly deny the harms on the way, while a phoney debate about liberal vs conservative moral values was launched as a marketing exercise. What worries me is that the full lesson will not be learnt, which is ultimately not about the individual products but about the entire deceitful culture. In terms of mediclal benefit it was always ethically completely unjustifiable, and the same agencies are responsible for all the other scheduled vaccines.

James Grundvig

The biggest problem with the Vaccines are "safe" narrative and messaging is the Gardasil and other HPV vaccines at the onset of puberty are pretty much standalone jabs (excluding seasonal flu shots). So if healthy girls, who had survived MMR, aluminum, thimerosal and other toxic chems in the first waves of baby-infant-toddler vaccines, with no regressive form of autism, the adverse side-effects at 9, 10, 11 years old can no longer be sold as "you are born with it" messaging. No one buys it. Lawsuits on behalf of 60+ HPV-injured vaccines in Japan and the bottom falling out in Scandinavia, with much smaller populations, makes the cover up or brushing off of side-effects a near impossible task. At least with HPV-Gardasil time bombs this forced, harmful vaccine--for all its good intent--is at the tipping point.

John, keep up the good work at exposing this fraud of money for harm, masked as healthcare.


I wrote to Theresa May regarding vaccine injury on 20th September this year. I received a response dated 19th October saying my letter had been forwarded to the Department of Health. The DoH sent me a patronising letter dated 11th November in which they stated there were 'no plans for further research on MMR' - as well as assuring me that vaccines are proven safe. I responded to that letter on 20th November and am still awaiting a reply. Obviously I am not holding my breath for any truth but, as Angus says, we keep on and on and on.

Thanks, John Stone, for all the useful info you provide us with.

Angus Files uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/539067/ 2905556_HMRA_Annual_Report_ Accessible_v0.2.pdf

Document page 184 onwards

This has now gone beyond ridiculous. Just read the long winded 2015 declaration by Pollard trying to distance himself from the industry. If as stated he does not have any involvement in research funded by vaccine manufacturers, why would he feel the need to declare it under "non personal" interests.(1) The rules would not require him to do so if he strictly adheres to his stance that he has no involvement. Secondly why if it's 'other investigators' who do the pharmaceutical industry funded work is it not only their names which appear on the follow up study papers.

He then states (2) that he only works on trials where they are not funded by pharmaceutical companies but he fails to acknowledge that his "list" includes the products of the pharmaceutical industry ie Bexsero, Fluad, Tybar- CV and a favourable outcome will advance the company's product irrespective of who funds the work.!!

(1)"Other investigators in the same
academic department as me
undertake research funded by
vaccine manufacturers and this
research is listed under nonpersonal interests above for
transparency although I am not
involved in those projects"


(2)"The following are academic trials
or publicly funded research
whichI lead where the research is not
funded by pharmaceutical


Angus Files

See published paper(below bottom of page) dated April 19th 2016. (My emphasis and colouring added). Pollard as listed as having been one of the authors who is credited with "study concept and design" and "study supervision", "Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content" as well as, "obtained funding". Funding is acknowledged from "Crucell holland" to the University of Oxford. A search of "Crucell Holland" produces this (immediately below)................Despite his level of involvement in this publication/trial he states over and over that he doesn't undertake research/trials which are funded by industry and that other researchers in his department do the work!

Company Overview

Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V. is engaged in the research, development, and production of vaccines that prevent and/or treat various infectious diseases. Its product portfolio includes a liquid vaccine for protection against major childhood infectious diseases; TF recombinant vaccine against hepatitis B, and more. Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V. was formerly known as Crucell Holland B.V. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Leiden, the Netherlands. Janssen Vaccines & Prevention B.V. operates as a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. rch/stocks/private/snapshot. asp?privcapId=24915876 s/jama/fullarticle/2514196

Preliminary Communication
April 19, 2016

Safety and Immunogenicity of Novel Adenovirus Type 26– and Modified Vaccinia Ankara–Vectored Ebola VaccinesA Randomized Clinical Trial

Iain D. Milligan, MRCP1; Malick M. Gibani, MRCP1; Richard Sewell, BA1; Elizabeth A. Clutterbuck, PhD1; Danielle Campbell, BScN1; Emma Plested1; Elizabeth Nuthall, BSc1; Merryn Voysey, MBiostat1,2; Laura Silva-Reyes, MSc1; M. Juliana McElrath, MD, PhD3; Stephen C. De Rosa, MD3; Nicole Frahm, PhD3; Kristen W. Cohen, PhD3; Georgi Shukarev, MD4; Nicola Orzabal, BSc4; Wilbert van Duijnhoven, MSc4; Carla Truyers, PhD4; Nora Bachmayer, PhD4; Daniel Splinter, PhD4; Nathaly Samy, MD5; Maria Grazia Pau, PhD4; Hanneke Schuitemaker, PhD4; Kerstin Luhn, PhD4; Benoit Callendret, PhD4; Johan Van Hoof, MD4; Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH4; Katie Ewer, PhD6,7; Brian Angus, MD8; Andrew J. Pollard, FRCPCH, PhD1,7; Matthew D. Snape, FRCPCH, MD1,7

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA. 2016;315(15):1610-1623. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4218

Author Contributions: Dr Snape and Ms Voysey had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Milligan, Sewell, Nuthall, Shukarev, van Duijnhoven, Samy, Pau, Schuitemaker, Luhn, Callendret, Van Hoof, Douoguih, Angus, Pollard, Snape.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Milligan, Gibani, Sewell, Clutterbuck, Campbell, Plested, Voysey, Silva-Reyes, McElrath, De Rosa, Frahm, Cohen, Shukarev, Orzabal, van Duijnhoven, Truyers, Bachmayer, Splinter, Pau, Schuitemaker, Luhn, Callendret, Van Hoof, Douoguih, Ewer, Angus.

Drafting of the manuscript: Milligan, Gibani, Clutterbuck, Plested, Voysey, Silva-Reyes, Orzabal, Bachmayer, Splinter, Luhn, Douoguih, Snape.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Milligan, Gibani, Sewell, Campbell, Nuthall, McElrath, De Rosa, Frahm, Cohen, Shukarev, van Duijnhoven, Truyers, Samy, Pau, Schuitemaker, Luhn, Callendret, Van Hoof, Douoguih, Ewer, Angus, Pollard, Snape.

Statistical analysis: Voysey, van Duijnhoven, Truyers.

Obtained funding: Pau, Douoguih, Pollard, Snape.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Gibani, Sewell, Clutterbuck, Plested, Nuthall, Silva-Reyes, McElrath, Frahm, Cohen, Splinter, Ewer, Angus, Snape.

Study supervision: Milligan, Frahm, Orzabal, Pau, Schuitemaker, Luhn, Callendret, Van Hoof, Douoguih, Angus, Pollard, Snape.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Milligan, Dr Gibani, Mr Sewell, Dr Clutterbuck, Dr Campbell, Ms Plested, Dr Nuthall, Ms Voysey, Dr Silva-Reyes, Dr Ewer, Dr Angus, Dr Pollard, and Dr Snape are all employed by the University of Oxford, which received a grant from Crucell Holland for the conduct of aspects of this study (14-day interval regimen).

Angus Files

Getting coin ..


John Stone

Hi Ted

I don't really think this style of government is that of Theresa May, our present Prime Minister. By a remarkable coincidence just after her appointment I turned up a letter she had written me in 2002 as a shadow minister: obviously it is easier to write freely when you are not in government but huge thought and care had gone into it, and it was just to an ordinary citizen.

However, she may still be a long way from being able change things. The awful Jeremy Hunt was one of the few people to stay in post over the Brexit debacle, and it may just be that taking on the pharmaceutical industry directly is not presently what she has most on her mind.

PS It can also be said that Hunt is probably most universally disliked and mistrusted man in the country over his running of the Health Service.

Ted Fogarty, MD

Thank you Age of Autism and John Stone for getting this very important news out in the public sphere. As a physician in the United States, I am gravely concerned about the media censorship movement from the "government" - nearly a subsidiary of global corporate cabals. I certainly hope that the U.K. Citizenry with the Brexit and a new prime minister can push back against the Murdoch/pharmafia empire. We sorely need media trust busting not political sellouts to true intellectual liberty....Trump those stumps.

angus files

Thanks to Peter C Gøtzsche Director of the Cochrane Institute and Stéphane Foucart of the newspaper Le Monde for putting the spade work in on this and in a week in which it emerged the only single person not to have a conflict of interests is (drum roll) namely Pollard (eyes watering rub the eyes) . I think AOA`s fair-minded readers, having read some but not ALL there's lots more of Pollards conflicts , would think that appropriate de-selection and we can dream,punishment would be forthcoming but instead we get a disproportionate backing from the EMA of Pollards worthiness.

As with Dr Wakefield and the many others who have spoken out,I believe, that this will transpire into yet another example of a dictatorial State crushing any individual who dares reveal wrongdoing. Never the less we fight on and on and some more.

In France I believe they can still sue the manufacturers of vaccines unlike almost all the rest of the world..lets have faith this happens successfully.


John Stone

I don't think any politician controls the Department of Health or the British medicines licensing agency, the MHRA, or Public Health England to which the JCVI has been transferred. When I wrote to the DH they refused to answer maintaining that PHE was an independent body. In fact, the the JCVI, Pollard's committee, was transferred to the management of the newly created agency PHE in the summer of 2013. The Cameron government (and Jeremy Hunt) had as far as they were concerned created a perfect politically unaccountable system - this is for practical purposes although it is unlikely that it has any legal footing. It might also be mentioned that when the House of Commons Health Committee held an inquiry into the availability of Bexsero I wrote to them individually and collectively and there was zero response: they were all dead to the concerns that committee under diferent personel raised in its report 'The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry' back in 2005:

One can only say that position was tragically bad then and infinitely worse now - and the new politicians are just pharmaceutical lobbyists to a man and woman.

Obviously, the failure of the Commons Health Committee duplicates the apparent fright of the Scottish Petitions Committee.


Nice work, this one needs nailing to the wall, like the rest.

"The corporations don’t have to lobby government anymore; they are the government." ~ Jim Hightower

and the JCVI is an obvious example

8,000 adverse reactions on HPv and this sociopaths says “We have no evidence of a safety signal with the vaccine.' Since then we have 600 deaths, 350 in Europe!!

''Figures from the government body that monitors vaccine safety, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), show 8,228 adverse drug reaction reports since the HPV jab was introduced, or one in 1,000 vaccinated girls. Seven relate to girls in Redbridge. Of the total reports, 2,587 are classified as “serious” by the nurse or doctor logging it........Prof Andrew Pollard, chairman of the government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said: “We have no evidence of a safety signal with the vaccine.''

Jenny Allan

@Han Litten "The UK is very close to being another Pharma controlled state (maybe is already) ."

We are all hoping new Prime Minister Theresa May will do something about the ridiculous amount of corporate lobbying, including Big Pharma, presently influencing parliamentary decision making in the UK, including devolved Governments, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. Mrs May has publicly expressed concern about this, and a new public register of lobbyists is in the pipeline, which will at least make the process a bit more transparent. Pfiser has just been fined for hugely inflating the cost of cancer drugs to the NHS after an investigation. This is probably just the tip of a very large iceberg, but it's a start.

Previous PM, David Cameron, stomped off in a huff after the Referendum vote to leave the European Union. When the Murdoch hacking scandals were exposed, Mr Cameron was forced to admit he and wife Samantha were a bit too 'cosy' with the Murdochs, accepting all kinds of hospitality and 'freebies' including the use of a horse for Samantha. Following a dinner date with James Murdoch, at the time on the board of GSK, Cameron committed UK taxpayers to paying nearly £billion for cut price GSK vaccines destined for the third world. These same vaccines were already banned in developed countries (mercury?).

John Stone

Hi William

No, for once something is not rotten in the state of Denmark.


Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

Han Litten

Superb article John . Again the WHOLE country owes you and Angus a debt of gratitude for your defence of all the innocent children and the Bexsero promotion.
I bet you two have never thought of yourselves as heroes before . Too funny.
And all the mothers and fathers dont even know it happened , all of them watching the FAKE news BBC , and saturday night variety TV , endless soccer matches (all meaningless) .

The UK is very close to being another Pharma controlled state (maybe is already) .
but Jeremy Hunt ran for the PM job , and Smith (Pfizer Phibber) came close for labour .

Are Pollard & Margaret Stanley personally acquainted ? Probably my favourite moment of 2016 was Margaret Stanley getting a good shoeing in Galway for Gardasil .
I am looking forward to a lot more of that in the future .

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.)