Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care
39 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0EU
www.gov.uk/dhsc
Ms Cathy Cliff
By email to:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
31 October 2024
Dear Ms Cliff,
Freedom of Information Request Reference FOI-1541528
Thank you for your request dated 3 October to the Department of Health and Social Care
(DHSC), a copy of which can be found in the accompanying annex.
Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
We have considered your request for information, but we are unable to answer it without
further clarification. Section 1(3) of the FOIA does not oblige us to answer requests where
we require further clarification to identify and locate the information requested.
So that we can provide you with the right information, please can you clarify if you are
requesting correspondence specifically between the Food and Drink Federation and
DHSC officials who worked on the implementation guidance for the Promotions
Restrictions for products high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) between October 2022 and
October 2023, where you refer to DHSC’s use of the term ‘minimally processed’.
It would also be helpful if you could clarify what you mean by ‘third parties.’
On receipt of this information, we will continue to process your request.
Please be aware that we cannot guarantee at this stage that a clarified request will fall
within the FOIA cost limit, or that other exemptions will not apply.
For example, if we were to provide the information as it is currently framed, and in its
broadest sense, it would exceed the appropriate cost limit set out in the FOIA.
Section 12(1) of the FOIA means public authorities are not obliged to comply with a
request for information if they estimate the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate
limit. The appropriate limit for DHSC is set at £600, which represents the cost of one
person spending 24 working hours determining whether we hold the information, and then
locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
We have estimated that the cost of searching electronic systems, interrogating relevant
databases and discussion with relevant policy official to review over 2,300 emails would
exceed the appropriate limit.
For context, a search for
Any emailed or written correspondence between DHSC and
the Food and Drink Federation, or third parties acting on behalf of the Food and
Drink Federation, between October 2022 and October 2023, pertaining to DHSC's
use of the term ‘minimally processed' produced over 1,800 emails.
Similarly, a search for
Any internal meeting minutes or emailed correspondence,
within the same time period, pertaining to the decision to exclude the term
‘minimally processed' from HFSS guidance (‘Restricting promotions of products
high in fat, sugar or salt by location and by volume price') produced over 1,500
emails.
If you are not satisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to appeal by
asking for an internal review. This should be sent to
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or
to the address at the top of this letter and be submitted within two months of the date of
this letter. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communication.
If you are not content with the outcome of your internal review, you may complain directly
to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Generally, the ICO cannot make a
decision unless you have already appealed our original response and received our internal
review decision. You should raise your concerns with the ICO within three months of your
last meaningful contact with us. Guidance on contacting the ICO can be found at
https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us and information about making a complaint can be found
a
t https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint. Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Annex
From: Cathy Cliff <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 2:33 PM
To: FreedomofInformation <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - DHSC use of the term ‘minimally processed'
Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to request the following information:
• Any emailed or written correspondence between DHSC and the Food and Drink
Federation, or third parties acting on behalf of the Food and Drink Federation, between
October 2022 and October 2023, pertaining to DHSC's use of the term ‘minimally
processed'.
• Any internal meeting minutes or emailed correspondence, within the same time
period, pertaining to the decision to exclude the term ‘minimally processed' from HFSS
guidance (‘Restricting promotions of products high in fat, sugar or salt by location and by
volume price').
Yours faithfully,
Cathy Cliff
FOI-1534495
Please ensure this correspondence reaches the office of Professor Dame Jenny Harries,
UKHSA Chair.
I am contacting you regarding the use of Gardasil 9 (Merck & Co) as part of the UK Gov
HPV roll out for children aged 12-13 (School year 8) scheduled for 2025.
Please see attached my letter, including my Freedom of Information Request.
Regards
Emma Hardy
27/09/24
Emma Hardy
FAO: Professor Dame Jenny Harries
Chief Executive
UKHSA
cc: Professor Sir Andrew Pollard
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation Chair
Re: Gardasil 9 - HPV roll out 2025
Dear Professor Dame Jenny Harries
I am contacting you regarding the decision to continue to administer Gardasil 9 (Merck &
Co) as part of the Government HPV roll out in 2025 to UK children aged 12-13 (School
year 8) with letters scheduled to be sent to parents/guardians in early 2025.
I refer to the UKHSA PGD Sept 2023 document and draft minutes from the JCVI May
2022. JCVI Chair, Sir Andrew Pollard has been copied into this correspondence.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/south/wp-
content/uploads/sites/6/2023/08/20230627UKHSAPGDHPV_v6.00_FINAL-002.pdf
https://app.box.com/s/600veu6zr6s3gjvx8mkt/file/993307701211
This correspondence is intended to form a body of evidence to demonstrate that you were
duly informed by a member of the public about serious safeguarding concerns regarding
the health of children in the UK. By taking this action I am removing any hope you, and
others may still have of claiming ignorance at a later date in defence of your
actions/inaction.
As you are well aware, it is incumbent upon you to provide necessary and relevant
information, presented in a clear and easy to understand format in order for
parents/guardians and their children to make an informed decision; 'informed consent' and
a lawful requirement under 'Gillick Competency' legislation.
Please refer to a sample of the correspondence sent by NHS to parents from the 2024 roll
out:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64919b26103ca6000c03a212/HPV_Vaccin
ation_For_All_-_English_Leaflet_from_September_2023.pdf
'Remember to get your HPV vaccination now, to protect yourself against a number of
cancers in the future'. Merck & Co have admitted that Gardasil 9 has not been tested for
impairment of future human fertility, or assessing the potential for carcinogenicity and
genotoxicity. It is objectively cruel to encourage anyone - but
especially egregious to mislead children - into taking a product in order to protect
themselves from some forms of cancer - whilst neglecting to inform them that the same
product could potentially increase their risks of developing other cancers. Obviously, the
consequences of these actions are unlikely to become apparent for many years after the
event.
Since FDA authorisation in 2006, Gardasil have provided a comprehensive list of recorded
post marketing adverse experiences. 'Death' is casually listed under 'general disorder and
administration site condition', sandwiched between 'chills' and 'malaise'. It's plain to see
why Governments and their medical advisors would want to hide this information and their
association with the original 'Gardasil' product:
https://www.fda.gov/media/90064/download
The introduction of a new product and a new adverse reaction 'frequency table' provides
the ideal opportunity to hide any previous association with 'Death'. This has been done
despite Merck & Co insisting: 'The safety profile of GARDASIL 9 and GARDASIL are
similar. The postmarketing safety experience with GARDASIL is relevant to GARDASIL 9
since the vaccines are manufactured similarly and contain the same L1 HPV proteins of
four of the same HPV types.'
In relation to known side effects the Gardasil 9 Patient Information Leaflet ('PIL') simply
states that the data for serious allergic reactions is 'unknown - frequency can not be
estimated from available data'.
https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/7330/pil#about-medicine
Product information included in this link has also removed: 'Death' from the list under
'general disorder...':
https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/7330/smpc/print
Evidently it is being recorded on official Government records that people have reported
'Death' as a result of the Gardasil vaccine - the product with a 'similar' and 'relevant' safety
profile to Gardasil 9. It has been a deliberate decision not to inform the general public
about this.
In just 5 years, there have been 3 seismic changes (that I am aware of) to the UK HPV roll
out: - the intended cohort changed to include boys in 2019 - the product was switched from
Gardasil to Gardasil 9 in 2022 - the dosage was reduced by half in 2023.
Given this 'Houdini-like' deception, it would be accurate to describe the UK HPV vaccine
roll out as a state funded, experimental, medical intervention on children under the guise of
'public health'.
Therefore, I would like to make a
Freedom of Information Request:
Please provide all information (including emails, correspondence, minutes from meetings,
including messages etc) relating to all UK Government Departments, Government
advisors demonstrating a prior knowledge that Gardasil 9 -
has not been evaluated for
the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of human
fertility.'
Please provide all information relating to a risk-benefit analysis or assessment (BRA) prior
to the roll out of Gardasil and Gardasil 9 respectively and all information relating to the
decision to include boys in 2019.
Please provide a full breakdown of the UK Governments investment/contract with Merck
&Co in relation to Gardasil and Gardasil 9.
Please provide a detailed breakdown of all UK injuries and deaths reported in relation to
Gardasil and Gardasil 9.
Please provide information on when the decision to roll our Gardasil 9 will be reviewed and
by whom. Please disclose how members of the public will be invited to be involved in
these discussions. Please list under what circumstances this roll out would be halted.
Perhaps you will listen to an ordinary mother like me and do everything in your power to
prevent unnecessary harm to children, or perhaps you will continue to facilitate the
experimentation of children at the behest of your pay masters at the World Health
Organisation.
If you choose to do the former, may God have mercy on your soul, if you choose to do the
latter, may you face the consequences of that decision forever and ever.
I await your reply.
Emma Hardy
