UK: Would You Trust Salisbury With Your Child's Health?

[Guest guest]

READ THE NEWS ON ONE CLICK

<http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk>http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk

1. Would You Trust Salisbury With Your Child's Health?

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2340 & end=2360 & view=yes & id=2868#\

newspost

[]

Would You Trust Salisbury With Your Child's Health?

CryShame Campaign

<http://alan-golding.blogspot.com/>A Time to Revisit Decisions?

An open letter for the attention of Salisbury

(Send email correspondence to:

<mailto:dsalisbury@...>dsalisbury@...)

By Alan Golding, Independent Film Maker

[]

Professor Salisbury -

director of immunisation, UK Department of Health

Amidst the latest attempts by the UK Department of Health to convince

a skeptical population that MMR is completely safe, Professor

Salisbury urges people to look carefully at decisions made 15 years

ago. Around 1993 in fact, and well before the notorious Wakefield et

al Lancet paper brought deep rooted concerns to public attention in 1998.

But why choose 15 years ago? Could it be that in referring to events

around this time Professor Salisbury is asking the UK population to

forgive past mistakes? Is he, possibly, asking for a second chance?

Whatever the reason, perhaps whilst asking others to revisit their

decisions made at that time, Professor Salisbury might also consider

examining some of his own.

I have access to documented evidence from various sources, many

gathered under FOIA, that appear to implicate Salisbury in the

introduction into the UK, of a brand of MMR known, by him, to have

caused damage to children in other countries. On the positive side it

was cheaper than the safer versions. Here is some of the history.

Much more, about this and other similar issues, will be made

available in the next few months. I have no reason to doubt the

evidence, and I believe it is in the public interest to make it known.

In 1986 Trivirix (MMR containing the Mumps Urabe strain AM-9), was

introduced in Canada to replace MMR I. Concerns regarding the

introduction of MMR in the UK are recorded in the minutes of the

Joint Working Party of the British Paediatric Association and the

Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) Liaison Group

on June 26th of that year. Such concerns were soon to prove well

grounded, as reports began to come in of an increased incidence of

aseptic meningitis in vaccinated individuals. Ultimately, all MMR

vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps were withdrawn in

Canada in early 1988. This was before Urabe containing vaccines were

licenced by the Department of Health (DoH) for use in the UK,

followed in June of that year.

-Kline--French (the pharmaceutical company who became

-Kline-Beecham and were involved in UK manufacture at that time)

were concerned about these safety issues and were reluctant to obtain

a UK license for their Urabe-containing vaccines. As a result of

their 'concern' that children might be seriously damaged by one of

their products, they requested that the UK government indemnify them

against possible legal action that might be taken as a result of

'losses' associated with the vaccine, which by then was known to

carry significant risk to health. The UK government, advised by

Professor Salisbury and representatives from the Department of

Health, in it's enthusiasm to get a cheap MMR onto the market, agreed

to this request. Clearly, the DoH and UK government were well aware

of the problems occurring with the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine not

only before the vaccine was given to millions of children in this

country, but even before the vaccine was approved for licence.

Concerns were clearly referred to in the Minutes of the Joint

Sub-Committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation,

(ARVI) March 8th, 1988.

In fact, introduction of MMR was planned for the UK in 1987,

ironically, in the same year that Canada reported its first cases of

MMR induced mumps encephalitis (see Champagne et al. Can Dis Weekly

Rep. 1987;13:155-157). In 1988 distribution of the Urabe containing

MMR was ceased in Canada and the product recalled. In July of the

same year a UK license was granted and a UK deal struck to indemnify

the manufacturers. In other words, despite the fact that a possibly

safer but more expensive MMR vaccine was available Professor

Salisbury opted for a cheaper and potentially more dangerous version

without ever having performed the recommended comparison trials

advocated by the JCVI. Professor Salisbury apparently states on his

CV, presumably with some pride, that he was responsible for the

introduction of this vaccine into the UK.

Soon after the introduction of Urabe-strain MMR, by then recalled in

Canada because it was damaging children, a UK MMR vaccination

campaign, similar to the one being launched today, was supported by

Professor Salisbury. Immediate reports of meningitis followed (see

Gray JA. Lancet 1989;2:98). An additional report (see Murray MW.,

Lancet 1989;2:677) confirmed that the emergent meningitis in UK

children was identical to that which was the basis for withdrawal of

the vaccine in Canada.

In March 1989, MMR (Urabe AM-9) was introduced in Japan. In September

1989 the first Japanese case of aseptic meningitis, post MMR vaccine,

was reported to the Japanese Public Health Council (see

http://www.nih.go.jp/JJID/55/101.pdf.

On May 4th 1990, the minutes of the JCVI, headed by Professor

Salisbury, contain reference to some concerns. One might expect these

concerns to relate to the vaccine's safety. Not so. The JCVI

expressed concern that details of the vaccines dangers are to be

published in the UK, thereby exposing the problem and causing a scare

(JCVI Minutes 4 May 1990 Article 9.2g.) So, just to run through that

one again, the JCVI members were concerned about the Japanese data

being published and the public being warned, but apparently

unconcerned about the fact they had licensed a vaccine that is

associated with meningitis.

On 17th September 1990, the ARVI minutes refer to reports of emerging

cases of meningitis in Crawley, Cambridge, Kidderminster and

Nottingham, with clusters of cases in the latter three locations. 25

cases were reported spontaneously between February and September 1990.

The draft of a later to be published paper (see Sugira et al. Ped

Infect Dis J. 119;10 (3):204-209, 1991 'A prefecture-wide survey of

mumps meningitis associated with measles, mumps and rubella vaccine',

was discussed at the ARVI meeting on 17th September 1991, again with

no apparent concern for the fact that the same pattern of damage

observed in Japan was now occurring in the UK. According to ARVI

minutes these data had apparently been disclosed previously to the JCVI.

Later in 1990 the license for Urabe-containing MMR was revoked in

Canada, followed by Malaysia, the ines and Singapore. In May

1991 it was secretly withdrawn in Australia, then in September 1991

there was a worldwide withdrawal (but no product recall) of Pluserix,

a Urabe containing vaccine manufactured by -Kline-Beecham.

Whilst vaccine manufacturers had therefore clearly acknowledged the

dangers of Urabe strain vaccines, the JCVI failed to warn the public.

In 1992 a UK company knowingly sold the UK-licensed defective vaccine

to 3rd world countries. Mass immunisation with GSK's Urabe-strain MMR

was introduced in Brazil at around the time MMR vaccination was

halted elsewhere. A mass epidemic of encephalitis followed its introduction.

In the UK, in October 1998, the first two writs issued in the class

action MMR litigation were for Urabe containing products and many

more were to follow.

With respect to the indemnity offered by the DoH to UK manufacturers,

Professor Salisbury has both denied and acknowledged its existence. A

series of emails from Professor Salisbury have been brought to our attention:

On Sept 13th 2006, Professor Salisbury states:

" as has been stated on innumerable occasions, there was no

immunity/indemnity given to MMR manufacturers "

Later on the 23rd of March 2007 he states:

" We have found that North East Thames District Health Authority (that

no longer exists) agreed with at least one MMR vaccine manufacturer

to indemnify them against outcomes that were consequences of failure

by We can find no further evidence of any other indemnification with

regard to MMR vaccine made by North East Thames District Health Authority. "

And then in an email sent on 3rd April 2007 he states:

" In the contract between NHS Procurement Directorate, acting by its

agent NETRHA, and Kline & French (SKF), there is a paragraph on

indemnity to SK & F: "

" NHS shall indemnify SK & F against any proven loss which SK & F shall

suffer as a result of any act or omission of the Nominated

Distributor in connection with the performance or non performance of

this Agreement where such act or omission appears to be within the

scope of the Nominated Distributor's authority as agent of NHS

provided that SK & F shall immediately notify NHS of any claim under

the provisions of this clause "

The indemnity is an " all cause " indemnity. Clearly the JCVI and the

UK government understood at least one of the MMR manufacturers to be

indemnified when marketing their MMR product. This is confirmed in

the unambiguous JCVI minutes of May 7th 1993:

'SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without liability.'

Today Salisbury is appealing to the nation to trust in his

judgment. He is asking parents to revisit decisions made 15 years

ago, at around the time when he appears to have been responsible for

the introduction into the UK of a vaccine known, to him, to have

already damaged substantial numbers of children around the world.

Salisbury seems also to have denied knowledge of a deal with

the UK government, indemnifying the manufacturers of this vaccine

against any potential claims from damaged children in the UK.

Ultimately he appears to have ignored consistent evidence to suggest

that the effects observed in countries where the vaccine had been

withdrawn were beginning to appear, identically, in UK children soon

after the vaccine had been introduced. These devastating adverse

effects were acknowledged long before the public were made aware, and

even longer before the vaccine was withdrawn and distributed to the 3rd World.

Would you trust this man with your child's health?

A C Golding, August 2008

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes Sept 08