§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government: Who was responsible for advising, and when and in what ways they advised, troops deploying to the first Gulf conflict of their rights in regard to accepting or rejecting vaccines used under the multiple immunisation programme adopted by the Ministry of Defence; when troops were advised that the pertussis vaccines were not licensed for administration to adults or for use as an adjuvant; and when they were told that the widely used Merieux pertussis vaccine was not licensed for use at all in the United Kingdom.[HL41]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)The Ministry of Defence's intention was that immunisations were to be voluntary. However, when instructions were cascaded down the command chain, in some cases the voluntary nature of immunisations was not adequately communicated by medical staff prior to immunisation which may have led to a perception that immunisation was mandatory. It appears that the voluntary nature of the anti-biological warfare immunisation programme, which included the use of pertussis vaccine, was clearly understood and implemented in some units, but not in others. A combination of leadership by example, peer pressure and lack of clear instructions left some personnel with either no conception that they could refuse the immunisations, or a definite understanding that they were not expected to do so. Where detailed documentary evidence exists it clearly shows a proportion of personnel refusing immunisations, implying proper application of the voluntary policy in at least these cases. Information on whether personnel were advised in 1991 of the pertussis vaccine licensing position is not available.
§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government: Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 9 October (WA 67), whether the hepatitis A vaccine was administered to troops involved in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict at the same time as that for polio or yellow fever; if so, in how many cases it was administered; and how many of those deployed were given a cholera vaccine with yellow fever or tetanus. [HL77]
§ Lord BachAt the time of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict, a specific immunisation against Hepatitis A was unavailable. I refer my noble friend to paragraph 25 of Annex E to the MoD paper,Implementation of the Immunisation Programme Against Biological Warfare 43WA Agents for UK Forces during the Gulf Conflict 1990/ 1991, dated 20 January 2000. A copy of this paper has been placed in the Library of the House. It is available on the Internet at: www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/ medical/bwa.htm and in hard copy as set out in my Answer of 20 November 2003 (Official Report, Col. 341 WA).
§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government: Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 9 October (WA 67), whether at any time since the 1990–91 Gulf conflict a research study of veterans with medically unexplained illnesses has been suggested for grant applications to help in identifying markers of immune system deficits and aberrations; and whether any such study has been funded. [HL78]
§ Lord BachThe independent Medical Research Council (MRC) has received two applications for immunological research relating to Gulf veterans' illnesses. One was approved by the MRC. The resulting study was carried out by researchers at Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine & Institute of Psychiatry, London, into Th 1 and Th 2 cytokines. The results are expected to be published in 2004.
§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government: Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 9 October (WA 67), whether they will now publish the findings of research already completed by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control relating to their studies of vaccine combinations, in particular anthrax with pertussis, administered to troops involved in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. [HL79]
§ Lord BachThe National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), as the UK's Official Medicines Control Laboratory for biological medicines, does not publish routinely results of tests on medical products as these are commercially confidential. In 1990, preliminary findings of NIBSC's work on anthrax vaccine and pertussis were made available to the user, MoD, as set out in the MoD paper,Background to the Use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces during the Gulf War, dated October 1997, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This paper is also available on the Internet at: http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/ info/medical/mcm.htm and in hard copy as set out in my Answer of 20 November 2003 (Official Report, col. 341). An outline of the findings from the first phase of the anthrax vaccine and pertussis vaccine work undertaken by NIBSC as part of the Vaccines Interactions Research Programme is available on the Internet at: http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/research/ anthrax_pertussis.htm.
All of the work carried out by NIBSC as part of this research progamme is complete. The findings are being prepared by NIBSC in a format suitable for publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 44WA To preserve independence, maintain scientific credibility and in common with normal scientific and medical practice, responsibility for publishing research findings lies with researchers.
§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government: Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 9 October (WA 67), what, at any one time in the marmoset study at Porton Down, was the maximum number of vaccines administered to a single animal from among those used for immunising troops involved in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict.[HL80]
§ Lord BachIn all, 48 marmosets were monitored for 18 months during the vaccines interactions research programme undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down. Of the 48 marmosets, 24 received vaccinations. The maximum number of vaccinations administered to each of these 24 animals at any one time was four on the first day of a 51 -day vaccination schedule. Another three vaccines were administered three days later and each animal subsequently received a further seven vaccinations, making 14 vaccinations of 10 different vaccines in total. Of the 24 marmosets who received these vaccinations, 12 animals also received pyridostigmine bromide for 28 days during the 51-day schedule.