Prime Ministers Wife May lead Battle Against MMR. Scientists Want Insurance!!

[Guest guest]

Date: Mon Feb 12, 2001 8:46am

Subject: Prime Ministers Wifw may lead battle

Against MMR Vaccine.Insurance/Scientists!

Prime Ministers Wife May lead Battle Against MMR

Vaccine...

Monday, 12-Feb-01 03:28:26

62.31.32.130 writes:

FEAT DAILY NEWSLETTER Sacramento, California

http://www.feat.org

" Healing Autism: No Finer a Cause on the

Planet "

______________________________________________________

February 11, 2001 Search

www.feat.org/search/news.asp

Also: * Prime Minister's Wife May Lead Battle

Against MMR

Vaccine

* Scientists Optimistic on Finding Autism Gene

Markers

Science Advisers Call For Legal Insurance

[by Cracknell in The Sunday Telegraph,

UK.].

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=004330831933551&rtmo=VDMqJ8wK&atmo=rr

rrrrrq

&pg=/et/01/2/11/nsci11.html <-- address ends

here.

Scientists who advise ministers on the safety

of the Measles,

Mumps,

Rubella (MMR) vaccine - and other matters of

public concern -

are calling

for the Government to give them insurance

cover in case they

are sued.

Members of Whitehall's numerous " scientific

advisory

committees " fear

that they will be drawn into

multi-million-pound court cases

brought by

families who believe that their children have

been damaged by

drugs endorsed

by the Government. Writs have already been

launched against the

company that

manufactures the MMR vaccine by parents who

claim that their

children have

contracted autism or bowel disease after being

injected with

it.

The Government maintains that there is no

evidence of a link

with the

triple vaccine, but scientists fear that the

courts may well

overrule them

because they have lower standards of " proving "

causal links.

The call for

protection against legal action, which may

result in huge

damages being

awarded against them, will further undermine

public confidence

in the

Government's £3 million campaign to convince

parents that the

MMR vaccine is

safe.

The Royal Society, the medical body that

represents leading

scientists, has sent a submission to ministers

calling on them

to indemnify

the scientific advisory committees against

legal action. The

society's paper

states: " The Office of Science and Technology

may wish to take

advice on the

liabilities of members who give advice and

take decisions in

good faith. "

A spokesman for the organisation said: " There

is a feeling that

we are

going more and more the way of America, where

lawyers have a

field day. We

believe it is unfortunate that we are facing a

litigation

culture like the

States. Unless there is protection, you won't

get anyone to sit

on any of

these scientific advisory committees if it

means that their

homes and

families' welfare is in jeopardy.

" No one is asking for an indemnity for doing

something in bad

faith;

it is not for people who do sloppy work. But

what has happened

in the States

is that the courts have sometimes decided

that, even though

there is no

statistical evidence of a link between a

vaccine and various

diseases, they

will nevertheless decide that there is a

causal link according

to legal

standards of proof. "

Jackie Fletcher, the founder of Jabs, a

support group for

children believed

to have been damaged by vaccinations, said:

" It looks like the

scientists

want to have it both ways. They want taxpayers

to believe what

they are

saying and yet at the same time, if there is a

chance of them

being sued,

they want the taxpayer to foot the bill. "

The Royal Society's submission on legal

indemnity comes at a

time when

the Government is drawing up a new code of

practice for the

scores of

scientific advisory committees that advise

ministers, including

the Joint

Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and

the Committee on

the Safety

of Medicines.

* * *

The Balk

(a short story)

The wives of two British government ministers

are nervously

waiting in

the clinic queue to have their same-aged

toddlers vaccinated

for the first

time. The clinic nurse turns to both and asks

" whom would you

like to have

their child go next? "

The first mother demurs politely to the other,

" after you... "

" Oh no, after you... " is the equally polite

response.

" Please, dear, you may go ahead "

" No no no, don't be silly, you go "

" I must insist, after you "

" No, After you "

" But After you "

" Please, After you. . . "

-ls

Prime Minister's Wife May Lead Battle Against

MMR Vaccine

[sunday Express, UK.]

http://www.express.co.uk/

The Prime Minister's wife may be hired to sue

the Government on

behalf

of parents who claim they are being denied a

choice of how to

vaccinate

their children.

Following a hard-hitting Sunday Express

campaign, which has

produced

an unprecedented response from readers, Cherie

Booth, QC, has

expressed

interest in the issue.

The action could be a major embarrassment for

the Prime

Minister,

whose health advisers have stubbornly refused

to offer an

alternative to the

triple measles, mumps and rubella jab, despite

its links to

autism and

stomach disorders.

Two families are poised to launch a test case

under human

rights laws

claiming their children are being

discriminated against because

they cannot

get access to the safer alternative available

in other parts of

Europe. If

successful, the case will pave the way for

hundreds of simliar

claims.

Lawyers instructed in the case want Cherie

Booth, who practises

under

her maiden name, to represent the families

after she expressed

a personal

interest in the issue in a letter to a mother

who had written

to her about

her fears over the jab.

Ms Booth - who will soon have to decide how to

inoculate her

baby son

Leo - has said she does not want to make it a

" political

issue " . But a

spokeswoman said: " Ms Booth would consider

taking up this case.

Her

professional life is totally separate from her

public life. "

Solicitor Liam

Carlen, who is acting for the families, said:

" There is an

element of doubt

over the safety of the triple MMR jab. If

there is an element

of doubt there

should be a choice. The single vaccine is

available in other

countries in

Europe. Under the Human Rights Act it is

discriminatory for it

not to be

available here. " He added: " This Government is

taking

discretion away from

doctors, many of whom have their own concerns

about MMR. The

Government is

claiming it is safe but it did the same with

BSE and

thalidomide. "

The legal challenge was initiated by

McCormick, an

architect from

Chester, said: " If Oliver were French, German,

Italian or

Spanish he'd have

a choice. Why should his human rights be

restricted? Is a

caring Government

going to force an 18-month-old child into

court to gain

protection from

potentially lethal diseases? "

Diane Egerton, 48, of Manchester, is also on

the brink of legal

action. She has not vaccinated her

five-year-old grandson,

Marcus, who was

due for his MMR jab nine months ago. She has

stopped him

starting nursery

school in case he contracts one of the

diseases from other

children.

She said: " We've been misled on GM foods and

BSE. We don't

trust what

the Government tells us any more. "

>> DO SOMETHING ABOUT AUTISM NOW <<

Subscribe, Read, then Forward the FEAT Daily

Newsletter.

To Subscribe go to www.feat.org/FEATnews No

Cost!

Feat news