The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?
The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?
The_vaccination_policy_and_the_Code_of_Practice_of_the_Joint_Committee
_on_Vaccination_BSEM-2011.pdf
PDF File 523.5 KB
Uploaded by Anonymous Report Spam
The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on
Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?
Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD
Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British
Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8,
lucijat77@gmail.com
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) [2] 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 1989, 10 years prior to the “controversial” Lancet report by Wakefield et al. [3], the JCVI
appeared to have been fully aware of the outcomes of the investigation carried out by the National
Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), which unequivocally established a link
between the mumps component of the MMR vaccine (the Urabe-9 strain) and cases of vaccineinduced
meningitis/encephalitis. In response to this, the JCVI appeared to have actively engaged in
skewing and censoring data available to the public, continued to use the Urabe-9 containing MMR
vaccines and made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities of the safety of
all MMR vaccines.
The
Japanese study found that among 630,157 recipients of the MMR vaccine containing the
Urabe-9 mumps vaccine, there were at least 311 meningitis cases suspected to be vaccinerelated.
In 96 of these 311 cases, mumps virus related to the vaccine was isolated from the
CSF. Sugiura et al. [4] noted that this was an unusually high incidence of vaccine-related
adverse outcomes, which they had attributed in part to “adverse media publicity”.
Nonetheless, the fact that in almost one third of the cases, the vaccine strain had been
isolated from the CSF of children, suggests that safety concerns over the MMR were
warranted. Indeed, in 1993 the Japanese suspended the use of the MMR vaccines containing
the Urabe strain due to it causing a high incidence of aseptic meningitis, and reverted to
the use of monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.
Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?
Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD
Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British
Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8,
lucijat77@gmail.com
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) [2] 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 1989, 10 years prior to the “controversial” Lancet report by Wakefield et al. [3], the JCVI
appeared to have been fully aware of the outcomes of the investigation carried out by the National
Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), which unequivocally established a link
between the mumps component of the MMR vaccine (the Urabe-9 strain) and cases of vaccineinduced
meningitis/encephalitis. In response to this, the JCVI appeared to have actively engaged in
skewing and censoring data available to the public, continued to use the Urabe-9 containing MMR
vaccines and made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities of the safety of
all MMR vaccines.
The
Japanese study found that among 630,157 recipients of the MMR vaccine containing the
Urabe-9 mumps vaccine, there were at least 311 meningitis cases suspected to be vaccinerelated.
In 96 of these 311 cases, mumps virus related to the vaccine was isolated from the
CSF. Sugiura et al. [4] noted that this was an unusually high incidence of vaccine-related
adverse outcomes, which they had attributed in part to “adverse media publicity”.
Nonetheless, the fact that in almost one third of the cases, the vaccine strain had been
isolated from the CSF of children, suggests that safety concerns over the MMR were
warranted. Indeed, in 1993 the Japanese suspended the use of the MMR vaccines containing
the Urabe strain due to it causing a high incidence of aseptic meningitis, and reverted to
the use of monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.
URL:
To embed this file into your forum/blog entry, highlight the URL, right-click and copy it, and then paste it into the body of your forum or your blog message, while in text mode (plain text
editor).
If posting a message by using a HTML editor (FCK or MCE), you will have to use the appropriate buttons (Insert Image) from the editor toolbar. HTML editors have buttons for inserting hyperlinks, images and other HTML objects.
If posting a message by using a HTML editor (FCK or MCE), you will have to use the appropriate buttons (Insert Image) from the editor toolbar. HTML editors have buttons for inserting hyperlinks, images and other HTML objects.
The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?
Uploaded by Anonymous
