[back] MMR Urabe

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

Posted on January 13, 2009 by childhealthsafety


The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper reports today that the British government was desperately trying to prevent secret files on the proven dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine from being released publicly under the UK’s Freedom Of Information laws. In a recent case they have been forced to open the files up to scrutiny:-

Confidential MMR vaccine files should be opened in the public interest, watchdog rules - The Daily Mail - By Jenny Hope - 13th January 2009

And here is some of what will be discovered.

British Government’s Reckless Disregard for Child Health Safety

The UK’s Department of Health and others appear to have been reckless as to the safety of British children over the manner in which Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd’s Pluserix MMR was introduced and used on British Children in 1988

• the problems with Pluserix MMR were known to the supplier, Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd from the experience of its introduction to Canada, in 1986, where Pluserix was marketed under the name “Trivirix”

• Trivirix (Pluserix) was withdrawn from use in Canada in 1988 because it was dangerous, causing high levels of adverse reactions in children

• the high levels of British adverse reactions to the vaccine were apparent and known about at British Ministerial level in 1990, as shown by ministerial correspondence

• Pluserix/Trivirx are the identical vaccine manufactured in the identical Smith Kline factory in Belgium and with the exact same component parts and constituents

• despite the Canadian position and contemporaneously with the final withdrawal of Pluserix/Trivirix in Canada the UK signed the contract to purchase Pluserix MMR from Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited in July 1988, even though it was known by then to be too dangerous for use on our children

• SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate

• the contract was signed up by the backdoor through the North East Thames Regional Health Authority as agent for the NHS Procurement Directorate rather than being a contract directly entered into with the NHS Procurement Directorate which negotiated the contract or the NHS Executive of the time

• there was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this and it seems to have been effected in a manner Ministerially deniable

• similar problems were experienced in Japan with the Japanese MMR vaccine which, in common with Pluserxi/Trivirix, contained the Urabe strain of mumps virus

• the Japanese MMR was also withdrawn by 1992 on safety grounds having caused high levels of adverse reactions

• the British government continued the licence for Pluserix MMR after 1992, which enabled it to be supplied overseas

• even today, because it is cheaper than safer alternatives, organisations like UNICEF continue supplying urabe strain containing MMR vaccine to the more adverse reaction vulnerable and less well nourished third world children

• since 1998, statistical paper after paper has been published in a blaze of publicity, claiming no evidence of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, but when all the noise has died down, on subsequent careful examination, each one has been found to be flawed

• other than the Royal Free’s paper, no clinical studies of the MMR child litigants were undertaken or published

• after being put under financial pressure by the British Government, in 2005 the Oxford based Cochrane Collaboration published a systematic review of all prior papers and its authors claimed to conclude the MMR vaccine was safe:-

British Government & Establishment’s Efforts to Deny Compensation to MMR Vaccine Child Victims

Legal Aid funded claims by children started as early as 1991 and well before Dr Andrew Wakefield warned the British public about the vaccine. His efforts were met with the full force of the British establishment to discredit him and proceedings before the General Medical Council resumed only yesterday, which have been going on for three years.

The main false accusation levied was that Wakefield made his disclosures in a paper published in The Lancet medical journal because he wanted to make money being an expert witness in Court. But few people know the following [and there is naturally full documentation on this].

The CEO of the owners of Richard Horton’s “The Lancet”, Crispin Davis, was appointed to the MMR litigation Defendants’ parent company GlaxoSmithKline’s board of directors in July 2003.

Brian Deer, a freelance journalist was commissioned by The Sunday Times two months later in September 2003 to write the stories attacking Wakefield.

This was about two weeks before the Legal Services Commission final decision was due on withdrawal of Legal Aid from the MMR children’s UK litigation and which did withdraw legal aid.

The person who commissioned Deer was Paul Nuki, Sunday Times’ sometime Head of Newsroom investigations and “Focus” editor. Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories’ Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval. The CSM approved Pluserix MMR but it caused very high levels of adverse reactions and was withdrawn by the manufacturers on very little notice in late 1992 leaving the Department of Health in an embarrassing position.

Large numbers of British children were injured and legal aid claims had already started from as early as 1990, six years before Wakefield became involved and contrary to The Sunday Times’ false claims that this was all a scam set up by Wakefield and solicitor Richard Barr.

Sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull. Professor Sir Roy Meadow is now notorious for his evidence falsely condemning mothers around the world for killing their children. This includes the Sally Clark case where vaccines are directly implicated in the cause of death, as revealed by Neville Hodgkinson in The Spectator, (What killed Sally Clark’s child? | The Spectator 16 May 2007 ) but which were specifically discounted by Professor Meadow in his evidence, despite sitting on the joint CSM/JCVI vaccine safety sub-committee with Professor David Salisbury and others to approve the MMR vaccine.

It was Professor Sir David Hull in 1998 who, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, started the attacks on Wakefield’s work. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advises the Department of Health on vaccination issues and the childhood vaccination programme. As Chairman of the JCVI, Professor Sir David Hull could have taken action to deal with the issues over the MMR and protect British children. Despite his attacks on Wakefield’s work, allleging unethical research on children for no clinical benefit, two years later in 2000, it was Professor Sir David Hull who rewrote the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health ethical guidelines to permit research on children where there was no clinical benefit (albeit in The Royal Free’s case all the investigations were clinically justified).

The Sunday Times’ freelancer was assisted in his efforts with free advice and assistance from the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry funded and controlled company Medico Legal Investigations Limited. Medico Legal Investigations Limited speciality was in getting medical doctors on charges before the General Medical Council. So we know that before a single word was published by The Sunday Times, it was already being planned with the involvement of interested parties that Wakefield and colleagues were to be taken before the GMC.
Another free of charge helper to Sunday Times journalist Deer was Glaxo Wellcome funded Fellow and active British Medical Association member, Dr Evan Harris MP. Harris has advised and assisted Deer up to the present, including attending the Wakefield GMC hearings with Deer.

The Sunday Times journalist, Deer, was also assisted by The Royal Free’s Strategic Health Authority which passed Deer confidential documents ‘in the spirit of openness’ and including documents relating to the confidential medical treatment of the MMR child litigants. The SHA at first denied providing documents until it was pointed out the fact was disclosed by Dr Evan Harris MP, in Parliament on 15th March 2004.

On Saturday 21 February 2004, Lancet Editor Richard Horton pre-empted the Sunday Times stories. Horton was reported in The Times claiming he would not have published the MMR part of The Royal Free’s Lancet paper had Wakefield’s paid involvement in the MMR litigation been disclosed. The Sunday Times had waited until Sunday 22 February 2004, 5 days before judgment in the MMR child litigants’ High Court challenge to the withdrawal of legal aid, to publish its stories attacking Wakefield. Prime Minister Blair was reported in the press on the issue as was Health Secretary Reid.

Legal aid was withdrawn on 27th February 2004 in a secret judgment by High Court Judge Nigel Davis. The reasons remain unpublished today. Evidence given in open court at a different hearing included the allegation from a parent that an official admitted to her that legal aid was withdrawn after government pressure.

It was discovered in 2007 that Judge Sir Nigel Davis is the brother of Lancet owner’s CEO and main Glaxo board member Sir Crispin Davis. When challenged a statement was issued on Judge Davis behalf to The Telegraph newspaper’s legal correspondent Joshua Rosenberg and stated “The possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother’s position did not occur to him.“

On 15th March 2004 Dr Evan Harris launched an unprecedented and defamatory Parliamentary attack on Wakefield and his Royal Free colleagues and to which not one of Harris’ Liberal Democrat colleagues contributed. This was based on material in documents Sunday Times freelancer Deer had obtained and passed to Harris. Harris used the opportunity to raise allegations The Sunday Times chose not to publish.

Crispin Davis was awarded a knighthood June 2004.

Sunday Times freelance journalist Brian Deer confirmed it was he who had made the submissions to the GMC which led to the present GMC proceedings against Wakefield. Wakefield’s lawyers had reported in November 2004 that Deer had made a statutory complaint to the GMC and freelancer Deer reported in the Sunday Times in December 2004 that the General Medical Council was investigating the complaints against Wakefield.

Contrary to Lancet Editor Dr Richard Horton’s evidence to the GMC was that he did not know of Wakefield’s paid involvement in the MMR litigation, Horton had detailed correspondence in 1997 disclosing that involvement The correspondence was with Richard Barr, the solicitor who was working on the MMR litigation with Wakefield to help all those seriously injured British children.. This correspondence was considerably in advance of Horton’s February 1998 publication in The Lancet of the Royal Free’s paper containing the interpretation that MMR vaccine is associated with autism cases involving inflammatory bowel disease.

Notwithstanding this, the alleged non disclosure of the legal aid funding to Lancet Editor, Dr Richard Horton and the publication of the 1998 Royal Free paper was the nub of Deer’s The Sunday Times’ February 2004 attacks on Wakefield where it was claimed:-

“The investigation has found that when [Wakefield] warned parents to avoid MMR, and published research claiming a link with autism, he did not disclose he was being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers. “

Now we know from this that Horton’s claims do not stand up and with them, those of The Sunday Times fall as well. But of course, not a word in the UK media.

Horton has not returned to the GMC Wakefield hearing this week to clarify his evidence and face cross-examination. It seems only his statement will be read out.


8 Responses to “Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action”

  1. The truth that vaccine policy is not about science or safety but about money and politics is finally seeing the light of day.

    We have a choice to make about not only holding responsible parties accountable for destroying the lives of untold children around the world, but whether we want to destroy the human genome by the continued injection of dirty vaccine that punches holes in our immune systems.

    The history of vaccine in littered with horrible mistakes and skulduggery - from the SV40 virus given to millions in the polio vaccine to the continued use of mercury and other heavy metals. The fact is even the best MMR vaccine is contaminated with avian retro virus and reverse transcriptase. This is criminal!

  2. It reads like the plots of 3 Dickens novels rolled into one.

    A basic question - if the United Kingdom government is engaged in a last ditch struggle to hide what happened in 1988 over MMR, what other secrets might they be hiding about our own time?

    If our safety and that of our children is to be ensured should not all the data be transparent?

  3. Anent Dr Stoller’s comment: The MMR can also be contaminated with Myelin Basic Protein (MBP) from the chick embryo cells that the measles virus component of it is, or at least used to be, cultured on. (Singh, et al.) MBP is what also makes up the myelin sheathing protecting the human cranial nerve systems. Thus the body’s immune system recognises it, in the vaccine, as something to be inflammatory to, and attack - and thus also the body’s own MBP. Result: conditions like MS. Another of the autoimmune diseases/conditions associated with vaccines.

    The MMR also contains a substance called glutamic acid/glutamate, which acts as a stabilizer for the live viral components. Bad move. Glutamate is a neurotoxin; thus exacerbating the danger of the vaccine to the body. There’s more: It also lowers the child’s levels of glutathione, which is the body’s chelator for heavy metals/toxins - like the mercury and aluminium in some vaccines. (Yes, they are also in foodstuffs: but they are here in an inflammatory setting, therefore particularly hazardous to the body.) Thus, especially when the MMR is given at the same time as other vaccines which have either Hg or Al in them - whammo.

    All of which is to say that the extreme pressure by the public health authorities to deny the dangers of the MMR is essentially political. Not scientific. Hopefully, that awareness is beginning to show through the coverup that has been going on, for far too long now. Keep up the good work in this regard.

  4. \what a truely brilliant post child health safety. I have written a chapter in a book called silenced witnesses of my involvment with the MMR/MRGroup Litigation here in Britain.

  5. Sorry the website is openyoureyestoautism.com
    More info on http://www.cryshame.com

  6. Also noteworthy is that the episode was officially investigated from the clinical point of view by the father of Ben Goldacre - [the latter is a psychiatrist and medical journalist who attacks the parents of MMR damaged children in the Guardian newspaper and elsewhere]:


    Ben Goldacre’s own website used to carry the advice:

    “.. personal anecdotes about your MMR tragedy will be deleted for your own safety”

    and he is listed on the staff of the Institute of Psychiatry and is a colleague of Professor Sir Michael Rutter’s at the Maudsley Hospital

    This the abstract of the study;


    ‘Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in UK children.

    Miller E, Goldacre M, Pugh S, Colville A, Farrington P, Flower A, Nash J, MacFarlane L, Tettmar R.

    ‘Cases of aseptic meningitis associated with measles/mumps/rubella vaccine were sought in thirteen UK health districts following a reported cluster in Nottingham which suggested a risk of 1 in 4000 doses, substantially higher than previous estimates based on cases reported by paediatricians (4 per million). Cases were ascertained by obtaining vaccination records of children with aseptic meningitis diagnosed from cerebrospinal fluid samples submitted to Public Health Laboratories or discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of viral meningitis. Both methods identified vaccination 15-35 days before onset as a significant risk factor and therefore indicative of a causal association. With both, half the aseptic meningitis cases identified in children aged 12-24 months were vaccine-associated with onset 15-35 days after vaccine. The study confirmed that the true risk was substantially higher than suggested by case reports from paediatricians, probably about 1 in 11,000 doses. However, the possibility that the aseptic meningitis induced by vaccination was largely asymptomatic and a chance laboratory finding in children investigated for other clinical conditions, particularly febrile convulsions, could not be excluded. Comparison of national reports of virus-positive mumps meningitis cases before and after the introduction of this vaccine indicated that the risk from wild mumps was about 4-fold higher than from vaccine. Altogether, 28 vaccine-associated cases were identified, all in recipients of vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain. The absence of cases in recipients of vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain, despite its 14% market share, suggested a higher risk from Urabe vaccine. A prospective adverse event surveillance system using the study methods is currently being established to assess the risk, if any, from the Jeryl Lynn strain which is now the only mumps vaccine used in the UK.’

    (Note by convention the most important authors listed are the first two and the last.)

  7. A far higher rate of Urabe MMR adverse reactions to that John Stone draws attention to was also identified in other papers:-

    1996 - Paper published reporting rate of mumps vaccine meningitis as high as 1 in 600 in Japan for standard MMR (containeds Urabe AM-9 strain) - [Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1996 Jun;38(3):205-11. - Adverse events associated with MMR vaccines in Japan. Kimura M, Kuno-Sakai H, Yamazaki S, et al]

    March 4th 1995 - Farrignton P et al published showing that their method of active surveillance identified admission to hospital with convulsions 15-35 days after after Urabe MMR of 1 in 2600 doses - Farrington P et al. Lancet. 1995;345:567-9

  8. If this does not hit mainstream media in a big way then I will be disgusted-along with the news of the mumps component of the MMR in U.S. being quadrupled in 1990 and now in 2007 being reduced by almost half. Why?
    My respect to all the truth-seeking reporters with some integrity out there.