Hall, Andrew JCVI Tomljenovic
Arise, Sir Andrew Hall (For Services to Public Health!!!)
By John Stone
The Chair of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, Prof Andrew Hall of the Gates Foundation funded London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine received a knighthood today in the Queen’s Birthday Honours . Meanwhile, the scandalous history of the JCVI as recounted by Dr Lucija Tomljenovic of British Columbia University in her paper presented to the British Society for Environmental Medicine continues to go unaddressed. Dr Tomljenovic's paper is already widely recognised as one the most damning indictments of science-government cronyism ever assembled.
Beneath are some quotes from Tomljenovic’s paper:
Deliberately concealing information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program….
Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained. As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics)  but also, their own Code of Practice…
The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some
of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that
the JCVI frequently co-operated with
vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”, and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text
(i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions Minutes 1986-1992).
In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:
1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining
existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were
identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b)
skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and
c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the
safety of respective
2) Significantly restricted contraindication to
vaccination criteria in order to increase
vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;
3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine
manufacturers to make specific amendments to
their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;
4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;
5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;
6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new
vaccines of questionable efficacy and
safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the
licenses would eventually be granted;
7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;
8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;
Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice.
Dr Tomljenovic’s full meticulously documented paper ‘The
vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on
Vaccination and Immunisation: are they at odds?’ can be
downloaded from the BSEM website .
A sinister and likely illegal piece of legislation from 2009 places an obligation on the British government follow the advice of the JCVI, placing it virtually outside the law or poltical accountability. The committee, under Sir Andrew's chairmanship, airily dismissed Dr Tomljenovic's evidence without dealing with specific examples of their dereliction at their meeting on 3 October 2012 (p.7&8) merely asserting their infallibility.
Sir Andrew also failed to address any of these issues last year, when challenged in BMJ Rapid Responses.
With further thanks to ChildHealthSafety.org.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
Posted by Age of Autism on June 15, 2013 at 09:00 PM in John Stone | Permalink | Comments (11)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program…."
So what is it that they, the CDC and seemingly every official national vaccination policy board is protecting?
What is worth the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of children and adults, millions world wide?
What wonderful things are the national vaccination programs bringing society?
Herd Immunity is what they are selling.
There is only one problem. "Vaccination" does not confer herd immunity; in fact we have good evidence "vaccination" is destroying natural herd immunity.
“I would like to begin by proposing that we use the terms vaccinated and unvaccinated instead of immunized and unimmunized, since the basis of the vaccination controversy is the belief of many parents that the vaccines do not produce a true immunity', but rather act in some other fashion--or, in my view, that they act immunosuppressively.” Doctor Richard Moskowitz, MD
Posted by: Lou | June 17, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Just to note I have amended the article above to include the JCVI's lazy and superficial dismissal of the Tomljenovic paper last October.
Posted by: John Stone | June 17, 2013 at 05:51 AM
Thank you Autism Grandma - on the basis that this is your own order, and nothing to do with the British Empire I gratefully accept. These days it can be a pretty dubious distinction with the exception of the actors, musicians and sportspeople who unequivocally have brought some joy to people's lives. I wonder what Sir Andrew is going to do about HPV vaccine now?
Sir John Stone (OAG)
Posted by: John Stone | June 17, 2013 at 04:57 AM
I dub thee Sir John Stone for undying loyalty and dedicated services to children throughout the world. (not just Great Britain)
Posted by: AustismGrandma | June 16, 2013 at 07:42 PM
Bill Gates is the main money and influence behind the Common Core corporate/federal takeover of education in America. How long before we lose our state VAX exemptions to a Federal Mandate imposed by Gates' cronies?
Posted by: Georgia Mom | June 16, 2013 at 07:17 PM
Arise Sir Andrew ... for services to Public Health? Shurely shome mishtake? Despite his company attracting a Ł3 billion fine for serial criminal malfeasance, Sir Andrew Witty, CEO GSK, was honoured for services to the economy and to the UK pharmaceutical industry. Shurely, Professor Sir Andrew Hall is shome mishtake cut from the same cloth as Witty.
Posted by: Mark Struthers | June 16, 2013 at 06:10 AM
Professor Sir Andrew has not got a Wikipedia page: how can he possibly merit a knighthood?
Posted by: Mark Struthers | June 16, 2013 at 05:49 AM
What makes all this even more shocking is that Sir Roy
Meadow, that other great Knight, also sat on the JCVI during the late eighties
and early nineties, just as he and David Southall were fooling Courts into
thinking that mothers of vaccine damaged children had Munchausen Syndrome by
Proxy. Those women still await justice, some, including Sally Clark are dead. A
truly shocking period in
Posted by: Lisa Blakemore-Brown | June 16, 2013 at 05:41 AM
We shouldn't be so hard on him and spoil his day after all he is just "just doing his job" Throughout history, countless atrocities and war crimes have been conducted under the excuse of "I'm just doing my job." The Nazis persecuting the Jews, The Japanese raping and pillaging Chinese villages ..
To read it now and receive a Knight hood for it from the highest Monarch in the dis- United Kingdom is a worrisome red flag that we are headed into an era where rational thought is being overrun by fear mongering idiots.
IT SHOULD BE JAIL ...
Posted by: IAngus Files | June 16, 2013 at 05:34 AM
I'd be interested whether the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is breaking any data privacy rules ?
What staff controls and oversights does it have ?
Where does it store information ?
Has the organisation contacted any person when it has stored private information ?
Is this data shared and or any personal information shared with any other organisations ?
Was the programme approved by any ethical body ?
Do the staff or anyone associated with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine actively insert themselves in conversations / posts etc anonymously or without disclosing their links to the organisation ?
Has it disclosed any relationships private or professional with vaccine manufacturers or distributors that could clearly be seen as a conflict of interest ?
Does the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene publicly report yearly on its activities to the general public ?
Posted by: Who watches big brother | June 16, 2013 at 03:45 AM
No matter how much evidence you can produce to show; conflicts of interest, ineffective/inefficient vaccines, studies unable to provide any evidence of safety and even a Supreme Courts' decision that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe."
Our health does not concern the health regulators when MONEY/POWER is the main focus.
Posted by: AussieMum | June 15, 2013 at 11:56 PM