Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
YET ANOTHER WHOLLY MISLEADING AND VALUELESS ARTICLE
- Clifford G. Miller (30 April 2004)
-
Tangled web?
- John P Heptonstall (1 May 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist, former examining lecturer law standards ethics Beckenham Kent BR3
Send response to journal:
|
No one was 'cleared' by this House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Report. The report does not say it 'clears' anyone. It clearly states 'The National Audit Office found no evidence of impropriety in the conduct of this procurement exercise', but not that there was no evidence of impropriety, nor that there was none to be found. As Phil Alderson's editorial rightly says 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/476. The report also makes clear that if the Department of Health had known about the political donations earlier 'it might have involved Ministers less in the decision-making process and thought more carefully about the relationship with the supplier.' That, frankly, is not clearing anyone but suggesting that political donations might have an influence on the attitudes of Ministers to the award of government procurement contracts and that on this occasion no one found evidence of impropriety. So, all this says is that a committee of MPs, sitting around a table, not going out looking for evidence, but considering statements brought to it by implicated parties and others, were told no one found evidence of impropriety. Hardly a surprising result, really? There may well have been no impropriety of any kind, but this report does not confirm that for anyone. Accordingly, this is yet another inconclusive and very misleading article. Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir Taxpayers will be pleased to read that Tony Blair's party has been "cleared of any wrongdoing", although like Clifford Miller I fail to see how the party can be 'cleared of any wrongdoing' just because the NAO failed to find evidence of impropriety - semantics I suppose. If I remember correctly this was not the first time £millions were 'almost' wasted on vaccine suppliers by government. During the MR campaign of 1994 John Major's government paid large amounts of taxpayers' monies to a vaccine supplier for vaccine surplus to requirements (I'm not referring to the £20m paid to vaccine suppliers for allegedly 'end of life vaccines' that were eventually injected into 8 million UK children to offset a 'projected measles epidemic' that critics attacked as a false projection of an epidemic that never materialised) but vaccine surplus to those requirements for which Parlt's was later informed (Hansard, 13th Dec. 1995 Column 677) by the DoH that 'all the sum reimbursed has been used against other subsequent vaccine purchases' - the DoH refused to state how much credit was received 'for reasons of commercial confidentiality' which obviously outweighed the taxpaying publics interest... Paying £32.5m for vaccines to the Labour party donor, who had paid the Bavarian Nordic company of Copenhagen only £10m for the product, seems absurd when one considers 1. That the vaccine was the wrong strain - was that returned for credits? and 2. As Tony Blair's people had been offered an excellent alternative by the Dutch Government which had already produced 20m doses for its own taxpayers, and had an excess of production available, and was only too happy to provide UK citizens that same correct strain at a much reduced price. Unfortunately Tony Blair's peoples' preference for no bidding process, despite government representatives having visited the Dutch Ministry of Health to ask about supplies in advance of any decision being taken and subsequent lack of requesting that provision, was to result in the faulty purchase from the Labour party donor. Open government is essential to prevent speculation about wrongdoing. For example the speculation at (1) about a breakfast meeting on 6.12.01 between businessmen, including the donor, and Tony Blair around the time that DoH 'secret vaccine procurement talks' were ongoing, coupled with substantial donations in early/mid 2002 (£50,000 followed by a further £50,000 later) made to Labour by the 'wrong' vaccine supplier only serves to heighten suspicions. Although it is not direct evidence of wrongdoing, but perhaps of naivity (though it is easy to criticse with hindsight) these facts could be construed as circumstantial evidence pointing towards preferential treatment for the donor's company Powderject; at the very least surely there was incompetence at the DoH in securing an excessively expensive and incorrect vaccine supply when a cheap effective and readily available supply was on offer from Holland - did anyone pay for that mistake other than the taxpayer? It's inevitable that politicians and businesspeople will become entwined, not necessarily corruptly, that's the nature of government; and it is incumbent on politicians to act with honesty and integrity and attain as open a posture as possible - to be seen as such - in the taxpayers' interests. It might give comfort to many taxpayers to know that collusions between businesspeople, some of whom become politicians, and politicians can ensure timely preparation for periods of public danger such as are particularly acute since 911. We all felt the anthrax scare; where would US taxpayers have been had George Bush Snr. (and ironically the bin Ladens') choice Carlyle Group not already been focussed on ensuring provision of anthrax vaccine and Cipro antibiotics should such a threat ever materialise? The Carlyle Groups ownership of a major slice of BioPort, the sole producer of anthrax vaccine to the US Department of Defence, ensured speedy availability for US citizens along with Cipro, the antibiotic produced by Bayer, formerly of IG Farben and whose former Chairman was working for the Carlyle Group. Fortunately the anthrax scare fizzled out when it was traced to the CIA, George Bush Snr's old firm, and apparently was not one of the strains the US Government provided Sadham Hussain with. Having now been reminded of the smallpox scare by the BMJ's Kmietowitcz 'news roundup' UK taxpayers can rest assured that many of the same politicians and businesspeople, who thought ahead with anthrax, appear to have done the same with smallpox. In 2002, while the labour party donor was securing Powderject's £35.5m payoff for the wrong vaccine the US CDC recommended the antibiotic Cidofovir to treat smallpox - a product made by Gilead Sciences Inc., whose ex-Chairman was Donald Rumsfeld and of which he was a director from 1988 - so at these troubled times he would have been aware of the value of that product. Along with Donald Rumsfeld's Yale classmate James. A Baker, former US Secretary of State, at the Carlyle Group was John Major, ex UK Prime Minister and Lord Geoffrey Howe former UK Deputy Prime Minister during the smallpox scare - all are well aware of taxpayers interests at times of strife. The Carlyle Group has made great inroads securing links with our Department of Defence, not least through its investments with Qinetiq (which together with PSivida owns over 87% of PsiMedica ensuring strong UK Dod link)(2). Unfortunately it was the UK DoD which let taxpayers down when it recommended the Labour party donor's vaccines to the UK DoH but, if those public servants have learned from their mistakes, hopefully before the next great scare (which according to Kmietowicz's roundup may turn out to be TB) our politicians and public servants may have secured the best products to combat that threat. Regards John H. References 1. www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=News_government&Number...(article 'Saturday March 13'... 'Based on article by Rob Evans in the Guardian UK 07-04-2002). 2. http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ZdMQVuA9aloJ:www.psivida.com.au/investor.. Competing interests: Concerned taxpayer |
|||