Which Anthrax was used in 2005/2006 Gulf War vaccine comparison study

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Defence should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Which anthrax vaccine was used in the ' Titled' Vaccine Interaction Research which was supposed to be a comparison vaccination study? 2005 - 2006. Where it states ' Independently Endorsed by Prof Donald Davies.

For some reason carried out not in 91,92 or 93 but 15 years after the Gulf War?

Remembering medical documents were lost during and post Gulf War. Then there was the lessons learned not to lose medical data. Then more medical data was lost in the years up to 97. In which year did MOD learn to stop losing the medical data surrounding our Gulf War troops?

As this data is from 2005/2006. Did MOD manage to not lose these? So finally we can have a question answered?


gavin roberts

People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Roberts,


Thank you for your email requesting information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.


Please see the attached response.


Kind regards,


Defence People Secretariat FOI

Dear MOD ,

You state I quoted ' Which have not been supplied' .
I cannot see where i have stated that. Anyway it is irrelevant.

You are simply avoiding answering basic questions.

I will clarify the questions we require answering.

I put it to MOD, it was impossible to compare the same batches of vaccines specifically developed for the Gulf War in 90/91 15 years later in 2005/2006. Due to the shelf life 3 years) and/or the destruction of returned vaccines. I'm simply requesting the data that proves otherwise! Does any original Porton Down data exist at all? Not forgetting this is still LIVE ,Veterans are still sick ! MOD 'Duty of Care' is out of the window on this matter. MOD have admitted vaccines are linked ( but only part linked). We believe fully responsible for the epidemic levels (1in3+). Nothing has been put in front of us that proves otherwise. We can dismiss all other exposures with available evidence that we have. MOD's attitude has been no short of disgraceful and dishonourable on this matter.

It is our strong belief .The so called vaccine study was a waste of time and purely another smokescreen. The data backs this opinion up. Unless you can convince us otherwise? If you cannot convince us, then you will have really no hope of convincing a Judge in the Court Arena!

How is it possible to reproduce the exact same vaccines 15 years later. Not forgetting you have informed us you have no information who was involved in the original vaccine production ! The so called vaccine study was flawed and corrupt.

We're asking for data to prove otherwise. It seems you do not have any, but cannot say. We want the original data ( Not an interpretation or a brief over view! Have you got it on file from 2005/2006 or not? Also the data explaining the reason a study that should have been carried out independently within 3 years following '91' was delayed for 15 years and MOD still had control over it! Any data explaining the reason/s behind this delay?

Please instruct an internal review on yourselves. I do not wish to waste any more time on these simple questions that has been clarified so much a 6 year old could reply to it. Thankyou

gavin roberts

Dear People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

A confirmation of receipt and confirmation of an internal review ?


gavin roberts

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

Dear Mr Roberts,

We acknowledge receipt of your email of 26 June 2020 requesting an internal review of a response provided by the Defence People Secretariat under FOIA on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, dated 17 June, (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 28 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

Yours sincerely,

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

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

1 Attachment

Previously uploaded to the email chain relating to FOI2020/04566.


Dear Sandra,

Thankyou for your reply, just to clarify, they are required to respond with 'data' to my original question in this foi by 16th July? In reference to which Anthrax was used in 2005/2006, If MOD managed to learn to not lose or destroy the data?

Obviously the 16th has passed and I have not received a reply, when should I expect one by?

Also could added requests made in the Annex. Could they be treated as new requests please.

Thankyou for your continued help in this matter.

Kind Regards,

gavin roberts
on behalf of


I have not received a reply to which Anthrax was used in the 2005/2006 titled Vaccine Interaction Research. My complaint was upheld by the internal review. Which stated must now be supplied by the 16th July. Please provide the data requested as required by Law.

Yours sincerely,

gavin roberts

People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Roberts,

With apologies for the delay in responding to you, please find attached
response to some of your recent FOI requests to the Ministry of Defence.




Defence People Secretariat