The Public Need Questions Answered

by Christina England

March 09, 2009

The Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation meet regularly in the UK and supposedly discuss the safety of our vaccines. The JCVI is made up from a group of medical professionals from various walks of life and all are volunteers. On The Department of Health website this is what is said about the JCVI

"Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is an independent expert advisory committee first set up in 1963. Its Terms of Reference are:

"To advise the Secretaries of State for Health, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on matters relating to communicable diseases, preventable and potentially preventable through immunisation."

In addition to their work on the Committee, members may be called upon by the Secretariat to give advice when matters arise on which the members' particular expertise may be of assistance to the public service. Members may also from time to time be requested to attend and contribute to the deliberations of one or other of the Panels of the JCVI.

The Chair and members of the Committee will play a critical role in ensuring the Committee's continued standing as an internationally recognised leading body in the field of immunisation. Members of JCVI will:

be committed to the continued development and improvement of this important area of public health;

bring relevant experience to the Committee;

contribute to the provision of high quality and considered advice to UK ministers of health;

be expected to make a full and considered contribution to the work of the Committee and to contribute fully to the debate and to, the decision making processes of the Committee;

provide expert guidance when an issue which falls within their particular area of expertise is under discussion;

contribute to the debate in the capacity of a well-informed health professional where the issue does not fall within their expertise;

take into account the need for and impact of vaccines, the quality of vaccines and their safety and the strategies to ensure that the greatest benefit can be obtained from the most appropriate use of vaccines;

recommend the best public health advice to Ministers;

be prepared, as requested by the Secretariat, to occasionally provide expert advice on relevant issues outside of committee meetings;

be prepared, as requested by the Secretariat, to occasionally attend and contribute to the deliberations of one or more of the Panels of the JCVI which report to the main committee;"

Note this sentence in particular

"The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is an independent expert advisory committee first set up in 1963."

Well according to a British newspaper The Daily Express our JCVI it seems are not as 'Independent' as they would like us to believe. In fact it has been revealed that several members are linked to the very drug companies that make the vaccines they are discussing. Conflicts of Interest or what? How can the public be expected to trust these so called experts when they apparently hide the side effects of vaccines such as the MMR to protect their own interests?

Not only are side effects seemingly hidden and swept under the carpet but in April of this year, rules will come into force that will mean the Health Secretary, who currently is in charge of vaccine policy, will be legally bound to accept the recommendations of the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation, effectively making what they say gospel. Is it any wonder that Professor David Salisbury from the Department of Health who is a member of the JCVI is getting a little hot under the collar and demanding that revealing documents are removed from the UK News website One Click who give the latest information and news about the adverse reactions to vaccines. He is threatening to sue One Click unless they remove two documents from their website and apologise. In true British form One Click are staying firm and have an army of supporters from around the world supporting and backing them. I looked to see what all the fuss was about. It turns out that one of the documents is part of a formal complaint about Professor David Salisbury to the General Medical Council for Fitness to Practice and Professional Conduct Matters.The other document is a paper written by Martin Walker about a child who died 10 days after an MMR. To read both documents go to the above link.

Lucy Johnston writes this is the Daily Express

"According to a secret dossier, five cases of potentially deadly brain inflammation were reported following the use of MMR in Canada before it became part of standard childhood vaccinations in Britain.

Documents from the JCVI, gained through freedom of information requests, also reveal reports that –another brand of MMR had caused "neurological complications" from the measles component of the vaccine in the US.

Despite this, the brands were administered routinely from 1988 without any warning of serious risk until they were withdrawn because of health fears four years later."

Four years is a long time for these vaccines to be in circulation before they were removed, especially when adverse reactions were known about all along.

Of course warnings about the questionable behaviour of the JCVI were not heeded. Lisa Blakemore-Brown had tried speaking out on several occasions about certain members and their possible conflicts of interest but these warnings were ignored.She also asked questions which were also ignored.

Lisa Blakemore-Brown revealed this on a comment toTimes Online

"Professor Sir Roy Meadow also works in the area of vaccine research in which cot death is one of the adverse reactions.

On 6th July 1988 in Room 1611/12 Market Towers, he sat with others including Professor Elizabeth Miller, epidemiologist for the vaccine programme and Dr David Salisbury, with a similar remit at the Depart ment of Health in the Joint Sub Committee on Adverse Reactions to vaccines and immunisation.

During these meetings held over many years, deaths of babies were routinely discussed.

Leading medics have written to other medics about three and four children dying in one family within one area where the rate of cot death was much higher than in other parts of the country. At least two families reported how the deaths followed vaccines.

So why is a vaccine reaction, clearly well known to the inner medical circle, NEVER mentioned as part of the differential diagnosis?

Even now Hey and Bacon fail to even mention it.

Its time the public knew about all this

Lisa Blakemore-Brown, London, UK"

21st June 2008 she had this to say

Lisa Blakemore-Brown speaks out again on One Click News Group

"Professor Elizabeth Miller, Head of the Immunization Department

in the UK who worked closely with Bob Chen at the CDC when the first Thimerosal studies were being "managed", sat in the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation/Adverse

Reactions Sub Committee, with Dr David Salisbury and none other than Professor Roy Meadow, of MBSP fame,when the MMR was being introduced."

On the 22nd June 2008

Lisa says this in the Independent Comments

"There are so many profoundly serious issues connected to the vaccine programme which have yet to be written about in the British Press that its difficult to know where to start.

Here is one issue:

Professor Elizabeth Miller, Head of the Immunization Department in the UK who worked closely with Bob Chen at the CDC when the first Thimerosal studies were being "managed", sat in the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation/Adverse Reactions Sub Committee, with Dr David Salisbury and none other that Professor Roy Meadow, of MBSP fame, when the MMR was being introduced.

In the Sally Clark case, Professor Meadow accused her of killing two children who had just been vaccinated, one just 5 hours earlier. To my certain knowledge, as a Psychologist specialising in Autism since 1993, and working as a generic Psychologist since 1984, many parents whose children reacted to a vaccine have been wrongly accused of MSBP. Known side effects have been morphed into child abuse. Workers have been taught to view them this way and act accordingly. Some have had their children taken from them, some were sent to prison and Sally Clark lost her children and her life.

Gerberding in the US in the last two days has cast serious doubt on the validity and reliability of the epidemiology of which Professor Miller was a part.

What has been going on behind the dark curtain of international pharmaceutical/political commercial interests?

Why would Professor Meadow accuse people of harming their children when he knew vaccine reaction had to be part of the differential diagnosis? Why would Professor Miller allow herself to be involved in flawed epidemiology?

Why would Professor Salisbury, as a Government medical representative allow all of it to happen?"

So it seems for years now the Government have been taking advice from professionals who have links to the drugs companies that make the vaccines. These same professionals are the ones who sit on the JCVI and discuss the appalling side effects of these vaccines and choose for what ever reason best known to themselves to keep the adverse reactions quiet!

I say if you are who you say you are and you have nothing to hide, answer Lisa's questions because I for one would love to hear your answers as would many parents with children believed to be damaged by these vaccines some of whom have severe Autism.

Questions need to be answered and the public need to hear the truth, how can we trust that our vaccines are safe and therefore our children are safe if the sources we rely on are not as independent as we are led to believe?