We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are gavin roberts please sign in and let everyone know.

Question surrounding the Unlicensed Adjuvant discussed in MOD document

We're waiting for gavin roberts to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Firstly a Merry Xmas and New Year to foi staff.

2020 will see the end of the questions surrounding the Experimental Multiple Vaccine Programme (EMVP) subjected to our troops in the Gulf War 90/91. We can promise that! 😊

Q1, Has there been any Whistleblowers thus far within MOD/foi depts surrounding the data of EMVP, especially the Anthrax that was developed using the U.S Formula(at the time)

Reading the DECLASSIFIED MOD document Annex A PTA/1090/16/DMD/ /90 of 16 Aug90

It states at 2, that the efficiency can be enhanced by the simultaneous administration of licensed whooping cough or an unlicensed adjuvant subject to the availability of the items!

Q2 What was the unlicensed adjuvant that is stated in document?

Q3, In reference to 5, (d), on the same document, is there any data that any license variations or Crown privilege was achieved or even sought?

Q4, What is MOD/foi Staff policy/protocol if they are to come across data that reveals a COVER UP from previous MOD/Gov administrations?

As always your honest efforts are appreciated,

Kind Regards,

gavin roberts

SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Roberts,
Further to your enquiry below, please see the attached.

Regards,

Joint Medical Group

show quoted sections

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for your reply,

Question 2, I did not request any information surrounding the pertusis vaccine!

My request still is, what was the unlicensed adjuvant that was lined up if available?

Regards

gavin roberts

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

You have had more than enough time to answer question 2 ?

Would it help if we were to tell you what the unlicensed adjuvant was?

Regards,

gavin roberts

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Still no reply in reference to my question? I'm not interested in the pertusis!

I requested what was the unlicensed adjuvant (if available) that was being stated in document?

I request an internal review to release the data surrounding this unlicensed adjuvant.

Regards,

gavin roberts

SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,
Thank you for your email below and subsequent emails of 30 January and 6 February. Please accept our apologies that these have not previously been acknowledged. Please accept this email as such.

Records indicate that the pertussis vaccine, rather than an unknown adjuvant, was the only adjuvant administered with the Anthrax vaccine. Accordingly, the requested information is not held based on the search terms you have provided.

In your email of 30 January you offered to share your views on what the "unknown adjuvant" was, to assist in any search. If you wish to share your views on this matter, in a bid to clarify your request further, please do so.

Regards,

Joint Medical Group

show quoted sections

SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,
Please excuse the typo in the email below. By 'unknown' we are referring to 'unlicensed'.

Regards,

Joint Medical Group

show quoted sections

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for your reply, could you please provide the records/data/LINK, that states it was ONLY pertusis administered with the Anthrax during the Gulf War.

For your records. The unlicensed adjuvant was Squalene.

gavin roberts

Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

You requested an internal review on 6 February 2020 but we note that you have since sought confirmation of advice that was provided in an attempt to resolve informally in the form of a new request for recorded information. This is under our reference FOI2020/01985 and you can expect a response no later than 9 March 2020.

Should you be dissatisfied with the substantive response provided, please contact us again and we will undertake a comprehensive review of the handling and the outcome.

Yours sincerely,

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Thankyou for your contact, yes awaiting the links to the information/docs provided. Hopefully no intervention is required

Regards,

gavin roberts

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Please reply to question, please provide documents or documents or their links that you believe Pertusis was the ONLY adjuvant used within the experimental vaccine regime. Or is it merely a hopeful assumption? Please clarify

Regards,

gavin roberts

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Reading the countermeasures that you linked us to under LICENSING, it states the following

31. A number of the medical countermeasures used during OP Granby were unlicensed in the UK at the time. In each case the decision to use an unlicensed product reflected the need to protect British Troops against a 'specific' threat in the absence of an appropriate UK licensed alternative.

Please list these unlicensed medical countermeasures and the details behind each case in line with the document

Regards,

gavin roberts

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Question surrounding the Unlicensed Adjuvant discussed in MOD document'.

The information requested is not forthcoming as required by LAW!

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/q...

Regards,

gavin roberts

SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Roberts,
Further to your enquiry below, please see the attached.

Regards,

Joint Medical Group

show quoted sections

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for your reply,
We have used the links provided, thankyou, but the problem seems to be that the experimental vaccines regime started on 4th January 1991. We concur. MOD claim Pertusis was used as an adjuvant for Anthrax. (They have not named the unlicenced adjuvant that is mentioned in documents). Slight problem being according to MOD documents within the links. The 1st delivery of Pertusis was on the 16th Jan 1991.
The delivery was not even to the Gulf , it was to Andover England.

So if someone would like to explain to veterans what was put in them in place of the Pertusis?

Veterans do not require thanking for their service, they require some open, transparent service in return, which are MOD are good at talking about, not so good when it comes to actions and honouring the words spoken.

Thankyou for your help in this matter and look forward to MOD actions on this.

Regards,

gavin roberts

SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Roberts,

                            Please see the attached.

 

Regards,

 

Joint Medical Group

 

show quoted sections

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Unfortunately you have not answered the required question.

I will repeat it and request an internal review!

The 1st delivery of pertusis received by MOD at Andover 16th Jan 1991.

The 1st experimental vaccines including Anthrax 4th-6th Jan.

This is all from MOD's limited documentation that are published in the links provided.

Not including the many documents that we have only just recently discovered MOD have reclassified for a further 36-75 years by stealth?

What was the unlicenced adjuvant mentioned in the declassified documents that could be used if available?

What was used in place of the pertusis is in the 1st lot of vaccines?

Regards,

gavin roberts

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

My question has not been answered here , none of the other internal reviews covers this question either!

Regards,

gavin roberts

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Question surrounding the Unlicensed Adjuvant discussed in MOD document'.

It is self explanatory. The name of the unlicensed adjuvant discussed along side pertusis in MOD data. The reason being is that receipts show the 1st shipment to arrive if pertusis was 16th January 1991 to Andover.

The 1st anthrax/adjuvant combinations to troops was 4th-6th of Jan 1991.

What was put in us? Who was the manufacturer? What date was it received?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/q...

Yours faithfully,

gavin roberts

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

 

We acknowledge receipt of your email of 6 June 2020 requesting that we
undertake an internal review of a response provided by the Joint Medical
Group Secretariat under FOIA on behalf of the Ministry of Defence
(reference above). 

 

The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days
from date of receipt and we therefore aim to complete the review and
respond to you by 6 July 2020. While we are working hard to achieve this,
in the interests of providing you with a realistic indication of when you
should expect a response, the majority are currently taking between 20 and
40 working days to complete.

 

We should also advise that the measures implemented by the Department to
prevent the spread of Coronavirus may impact upon our ability to complete
the review within the above timescale but we will aim to provide you with
an update, if necessary

 

The review will involve a full, independent reconsideration of the
handling of the case as well as the final decision.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

 

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou,

Regards,

gavin roberts

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20200706 Rev Mr Roberts unlicensed medical countermeasures Rev response.pdf

    66K Download View as HTML

PSA

 

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

 

Dear Sandra,

Thankyou for your internal review.

They may have claimed that a licenced pertusis was used. Their problem being , the data in the Background of Countermeasures shows the earliest receipt at Andover of pertusis was 16th Jan 1991. The immunisation programme ( Multiple combinations of experimental vaccines)had already started on the 4th Jan 91 thousands of miles away in the Middle East. However this is the least of veterans concerns.

We disagree with MOD that it was extensively investigated.
We would agree that it was extensively covered up. The vaccines should have been extensively openly investigated within the first 2 or 3 years. There are 2 reasons why this did not happen. No1 They already knew and No2 they didn't want everybody to know. Very simple. You do not carry out a comparison vaccine study out 15 years later. When thousands of veterans are complaining within months and the first year or two. You use the same vaccines that returned from the Gulf with the same personnel that developed the experimental formula's and combinations at the same intervals on HUMANS. Non of this happened 15 years later in what can only be described as a FRAUD and an insult to veterans intelligence.

This is why sometimes our attitude steps out of line and tongue slips. I apologise on the few times, this has happened out of sheer frustration of people not seeing what is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the vaccines caused our epidemic autoimmune conditions.

The 2 year Italian Study backs this up, but more importantly. MOD still stand behind out of date past MOD opinion blindly.

I have just pointed out clearly why the comparison vaccine study 15 years later was a fraud. Past MOD claim this is overwhelming evidence. It is clearly not.

Another past MOD out of date overwhelming claim is against a SYNDROME. Which is true , there is not a syndrome. As I said above, these are autoimmune conditions caused by over stimulation of the immune system. Not a syndrome.

MOD claim the multiple vaccines (5 or more in a sitting )were safe. With no evidence whatsoever ?

Not only that, the Dept of Health Green Book which MOD have stated in foi they must adhere to (Chapter 11 Immumisations)
States SHOULD NOT administer 5 or more vaccines (In essence 4 and under is relatively safe)and allow 4 weeks between vaccines not administered at the same time. None of this happened in the Gulf.

Then I can go on to another BLATANT LIE that is documented and has been uncovered recently through these foi's again in the 'background to countermeasures' . Post Gulf War 91 the reason past MOD gave for troops not receiving any information surrounding the immunisation programme basically until it was going in their arms, was that they wanted to keep it 'TOP SECRET' and out of the hands of the enemy (Iraq/Saddam). This is all stated in Background to Countermeasures.

Unfortunately when they were digging holes, they forgot to keep covering their tracks. As the data shows that JHQ informed BBC WORLDWIDE SERVICE 2 days before (2nd Jan) the troops had the vaccines dropped on them unannounced.

In simple terms everyone in the world including our enemies knew about the immunisation programme that was to take place and our troops knew nothing! Past MOD clearly lied again, but this time it is CLEARLY documented. Which of course changes everything.

What is the protocol for you within foi Sandra, when you come across Corruption?

This is not just veterans wanting justice , this is families wanting justice for lost fathers, brothers and sisters.

These veterans are sick with not much fight left, but still fighting as that is what they know well.

Are we really living in open and transparent times? Which is what freedom of information was brought into promote?

Sick veterans should not have been put through this we have done our time. We should not have to come home from battle to have a lifelong battle with MOD . We should be resting.

I hope you agree Sandra and also current MOD now see that past MOD were ''At Fault' then help see these remaining sick veterans see justice by simply being honest and not become complicit to this past corrupt/cover up!

Thankyou for your assistance throughout,

Kind Regards

Gavin Roberts
J4V

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

 

Thank you for your reply.  I am pleased to read that you appreciate the
assistance that my team and I provided in this and other reviews.

 

I have read through your email and do not believe that there are any
elements that were intended to be processed under the Act as a new request
for recorded information.  If this is not correct, please inform me
exactly which part of your email was intended as a request and I will
arrange for it to be logged accordingly.

 

I note that you have asked me what protocol I would follow if I discovered
evidence of corruption while I was conducting a review of an FOI request.

 

Where my team or I discover any failure to meet the legal obligations or
best practice expected in processing FOI requests we take action to
correct these errors and take action to try and prevent recurrence. If,
however, we were to discover evidence of, or suspect, cases of fraud,
wrongdoing or malpractice we would take action in accordance with the
MOD’s Whistleblowing and Raising a Concern Policy and submit a report
using the MOD’s confidential hotline.

 

Joint Medical Group, in their response to you on 28 January 2020
(FOI2019/13740) which can be found further up this thread, provided you
with a link to a previous FOI request response which placed this policy
into the public domain. For ease of reference, you can find this previous
response (FOI2019/02126) and policy online at
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
 

 

Further information on the confidential hotline is also available online
at [2]https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mod-confiden...

 

As a civil servant, I am also obliged to carry out my duties in accordance
with the Civil Service Code with its core values of integrity, honesty,
objectivity and impartiality. You can read more about the Code here:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
.

 

I hope that you find this helpful.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sandra Gardiner

Head of MOD Information Rights Compliance

 

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mod-confiden...
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

Dear Sandra,

Thankyou for your response, veterans are happy to hear that you are working with impartiality, integrity, objectivity and honesty.We share the same values.
We intend to bring those to account that have not been working with these values and to these standards. 30 years is a long time to wait for justice. We hope MOD see sense and also find these values. Which could save veterans a very small amount of time in comparison, but it would be a start to uniting and levelling. The proof is in the pudding. One thing is for sure is we will get our justice within a few months or latest 15 months if we're forced to lodge in the High Court if MOD decide to carry on the facade. Law firms are queuing up, as all the groundwork has been done for them! We have a preferred law firm. Please let us know if MOD legals would like to sit down with us and avoid the damaging pr and work towards turning this negative into a positive, inline with the new government's initiatives.

Kind Regards
Gavin Roberts
Veterans

Dear Sandra,

I just noticed, the request surrounding the unlicenced adjuvant (Question 2 at the top of this request/thread). It was stated 'if available'in the same sentence along with pertusis. We believe it to be squalene, as the only other adjuvant discussed and researched in global data. For some reason foi team kept on stating pertusis was used. We clarified we're not requesting what MOD claimed was used. We were requesting the unlicenced adjuvant discussed in the same document (In the same sentence as pertusis, but very clear it was a different product).

Just a reminder that 95% of sick U.S/British Gulf War veterans (Deployed or Non Deployed) tested in the late 90's were found to have antibodies against squalene in their blood. With none in the comparison groups. Can you believe that test was then patented and never used on veterans or anyone to our knowledge in the last 20 years.

Also in the civil court arena, we are only required to persuade a judge our case is most likely/most probable 51%. We're confident any judge can be 99.99% positive with the information available today and make his/her decision before they even finish their coffee, this is even before producing documents where MOD's own doctors in the late 90's have documented Vaccines have caused conditions.
We're only trying to help and not only save embarrassment to current administrations by stopping current admin from becoming complicit but also the losses will at least quadruple when MOD lose this case. Due to deceit/ fraud and only becoming aware in 2018 of documents previously withheld the publishing of the Italian Study confirming Multiple vaccines, meaning statute barr timescales is something MOD can no longer rely on . We're also funded to the tune of millions if required. Just in case MOD forget their integrity again. Our legals contacted MOD prior to our own 2 year investigations, twice (They didnt have the courtesy to even reply) We're prepared to talk. It is here in the open for the British public to see that the offer is/was on the table. If it ends up costing the taxpayer 4 or 5 times more. We would expect heads to roll. The opportunity is here for all to see. All veterans can gain is a little time saved. Nothing more.

We hope legals decide to share some of your values Sandra,

Kind Regards,

Gavin Roberts
Veterans

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

 

Thank you for your email of 16 July 2020.

 

I note that you specifically asked the MOD if squalene had been used as an
adjuvant in relation to Op Granby in a previous FOI request (submitted on
9 November 2018 via the What Do They Know website and available at
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w... ). The
response, dated 7 February 2019, clearly stated that none of the vaccines
used contained squalene. You did not request an internal review into the
handling of this request.

 

I can also advise that on 5 May 1999, in response to a Parliamentary
Question that specifically asked about the presence of squalene in Gulf
War vaccines, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Doug
Henderson, made the following statement:

 

‘Details of the Ministry of Defence's programme to immunise UK troops
against the potential threat posed by Iraq's biological weapons during the
Gulf conflict were published in October 1997, in the MOD paper "Background
to the Use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces during the
Gulf War (Operation GRANBY)". None of the vaccines used for this programme
contained squalene. In addition, UK Service personnel would have received
other immunisations against diseases which potentially posed a public
health threat. So far as has been ascertained, none of the latter vaccines
contained squalene either.’

 

This statement is available online at
[2]https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansa...
.

 

I cannot comment on the letters from your legal team that went unanswered,
but I hope that the information I provided in paragraphs 18-21 of my
latest review, dated 16 July 2020
([3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g...
) will be of use.

 

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful but as I have also explained recently,
the role of my team is to ensure that the Department meets its legal
obligations and expected best practice standards when processing FOI
requests. We have no wider remit than that.

 

If you are not satisfied with the outcome of my internal review it is open
to you to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner. The details of
how to do this are included in the final paragraph of each my review
letters.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sandra Gardiner

Head of MOD Information Rights Compliance

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...
2. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansa...
3. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g...

Dear Sandra

Thankyou for your reply . Unfortunately MOD cannot back their at best hopeful opinion there was no squalene, as we were informed they have not got the data surrounding the vaccines. Even though they are central to veterans sickness and have admitted this. However they continued to lose data whilst the sickness in our veterans is still a LIVE matter and independant research (Not in UK) allegedly continues. What if they need this data surrounding our vaccines? Treatments will be alot easier with the information than without out it. Of course it is UK's worst kept secret that this matter would have been dealt with along time ago if MOD hadn't conveniently lost data. However we are where we are -

Going back to the question. Let's forget they found antibodies to squalene in 95% of sick veterans that they tested before locking the test up behind a patent for the moment.

The question has never changed . It states ' An unlicenced adjuvant (if available) in the same sentence as possibly using pertusis. So it is not pertusis and if it is not squalene. Simply what was it? Everybody seems to be avoiding the question.
We're not asking what adjuvant MOD believe was used. We're asking what was the adjuvant that is unnamed but titled unlicenced in that declassified document. Thankyou in advance for an honest response.

Kind regards

gavin roberts

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

 

Thank you for your email of 20 July 2020.  I have re-read the entire email
chain
 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/q...
associated with your information requests booked under our references
FOI2020/01370 and FOI2020/02232.   On 25 December 2019, you originally
sought information about the ‘unlicensed adjuvant’ that was not named in a
document, dated 16 August 1990.  However, the response you received from
the Joint Medical Group, dated 28 January 2020, provided an answer about
the adjuvant (pertussis) which was used in the vaccination programme for
OP GRANBY.  There appears to have been a misunderstanding over the
relevant searches that were necessary in relation to the first request. 
While I note that you provided a file reference, it might have assisted us
further if you had included a link to the relevant document.  If I have
understood the content of this thread correctly, the information that you
were seeking was as follows:

 

'Where it states in paragraph 2 of Annex A to PTA/1090/16/DMD dated 16 Aug
90 that “The efficacy of the vaccine can be enhanced by the simultaneous
administration of a licensed Whooping Cough Vaccine or an unlicensed
adjuvant subject to availability of these items”, I would like MOD to
conduct a search of its record holdings and confirm whether they have
information that records the names of the ‘unlicensed adjuvant’ referred
to in the document and, if held, provide this recorded information to me
under the Act.’

 

If you confirm that this describes the information that you are seeking,
and agree with the above wording, I will arrange for it to be logged as a
new request and processed from first principles.

 

Please accept my apologises for this misunderstanding.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sandra Gardiner

Head of MOD Information Rights Compliance

 

 

Dear Sandra,
Thankyou, yes you have understood me correctly! That is the the document and it is the unlicenced vaccine (if avsilable) we are interested in and not the pertusis. Looking at global data (U.S) and also UK. The only other unlicenced adjuvant that has been discussed outside of pertusis is squalene.
You may or may not be aware of the tests of antibodies to squalene carried out in the U.S, found in 95% of sick British as well as U.S troops whether deployed or not!
Also Anthrax that washed up on a Bridport Dorset beach was taken away and tested in a Manchester lab and was found to contain squalene, before MOD claimed it back. Obviously MOD have been telling us ALL the original data does not exist surrounding the development of the vaccines, but this information certainly helps put the final piece in the jigsaw.
Unless there is data to suggest otherwise. A further 20 days if required is not a problem.
Thankyou for your continued honest efforts,

Kind Regards,

gavin roberts

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

Thank you for your email of 30 July.

This clarified request has been booked in under the reference number FOI2020/08839 with the target date of 28 August 2020. Your rights to an appeal have been unaffected by this agreed clarification.

Yours sincerely,

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou

Regards,

gavin roberts
Veterans

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are gavin roberts please sign in and let everyone know.