The House of Lords & ……
01.05.11

Below, for your information, is a copy of the letter written to Professor Roy Anderson, following the meeting convened at the House of Lords.   With regard to the letter from Colin Fink (reprinted at the end), a question by Baroness Mallelieu is being asked in their Lordship's Chamber, today, for a written answer. 

A***** E****

Professor Roy Anderson			Thursday 10th May 2001
Dept of Infectious Disease
			 Epidemiology
ICSM at St Mary’s
Norfolk Place
London W2 1PG

Dear Roy
 
Ref: Meeting held in the House of Lords on Tuesday 24 April 2001 at 4.0 pm convened by Alicia Eykyn at the invitation of the Countess of Mar, to follow the press conference in Westminster Central Hall. 
Present: Members of the government’s science group for foot and mouth and others. 
Purpose:  To hear the opinions and advice on the subject of the foot and mouth crisis in this country, from the acknowledged world expert , Professor Fred Brown OBE, FRS, Visiting Scientist to Plum Island – the US equivalent to Pirbright – and former Dept Director at Pirbright.  Professor Brown’s views on the eradication of the disease had not previously been sought by the British Government. Dr Simon Barteling from Holland, formally head of the European Community Coordinating Institute for Foot and Mouth Vaccines, with particular knowledge of this virus, also in attendance, supporting Professor Brown.
 At the time, I was very grateful that you took the trouble to seek me out in the corridors of the House of Lords, to apologise for  your ill mannered behaviour. As you were well aware the reason you drove me from the room, (not to mention in tears), was because of my shock at your breathtaking arrogance and unwillingness to listen and learn from the unique knowledge and experience of Professor Brown and Dr Barteling.  I am now very disappointed to note, that, despite the promises you made to me then, not one positive action has been forthcoming.  Not one!
 You assured me then, that as you already knew Professor Brown so very well, you would following up his suggestions and communicate with him, from then on, for advice. It did seem to me at the time, that with this fount of knowledge having  remained untapped, and the complete shambles with which the whole foot and mouth crisis had been handled, such non-action, could only be judged as an act of deliberate vandalism.  Add to that, no communication with Dr Barteling who not only has a depth knowledge of the EU procedures and so recently,  successfully, conquered an outbreak of a similar strain of the  virus type in South Africa, further confirmed my fears. 

Colin Fink of Warwick Science Park, whose offer of help  was encouraged  by all of you at the meeting, is now experiencing actual obstruction from MAFF, in obtaining the co-operation necessary for his further participation[1].

The availability of the real time PCR testing device from the States has been turned down again by Pirbright, I hear, due to lack of the will to seek its validation for use at the farm gate.  A relatively simple procedure given the state of this virus at the present time.

Any public mention of vaccination has been successfully suppressed on the grounds that the virus spread is now ‘practically over’.  As we all know, this is plainly not true. But the Machiavellian means of this government of culling every animal - particularly sheep – thus leaving no path for the virus, may well, ultimately, produce the end of the outbreak.  This extraordinarily unscientific and unethical approach  was vociferously condemned by both Professor Brown and Dr Simon Barteling, at the meeting. It also leaves the MAFF legal department with considerable difficulties, in both England, and the EU, in finding a legal basis for such a culling policy. 

Some would think that it is nothing short of criminal to be in the vanguard  of further mass slaughter of unifected animals and all the mayhem that that barbaric procedure brings with it.  Now, with the General Election to eclipse the real world,  you continue to oversee these atrocities with no-one in power to stop you.  The situation is a downright disgrace.
 The outcome of this meeting is to me, of course, a great disappointment.  I would have liked to have thought that the members of the science group were honourable men looking for the truth and the correct way to carry out their responsibilities.  Be that as it may, it is a fact that it is an extremely serious matter, that the British people are being so dramatically and easily mislead.  I enclose with this letter a summary of events leading me to the conclusions I state above.  I await your comments with interest.

Yours sincerely

A***** E****
.
 Summary of points and conclusions of meeting  of meeting in the House of Lords 24th April 2001:
 
Probably the most surprising thing to come out of the meeting was the disclosure that it had previously been unanimously agreed by the science group that the vaccination route should have been adopted by the government.  Why was it that , none of you had the guts to stick to you guns, either collectively or individually, and stand up for what you clearly thought was right, on a point of conscience if nothing else?
 This route of vaccination was overruled  by of all people the Chief Vetinary Officer, MAFF and  NFU leaders.  Lord Plumb who was also present at the meeting, went out of his way to point out  he did NOT represent the NFU now, (he was a past President), but he did not think the NFU’s decision had been swayed on economic grounds.  What were the grounds then?
 No other farmers (and this includes rank and file NFU subscription paying members),  farming bodies, tourist organisations, or animal welfare groups have been given any proper information, other than the myths spread, both by MAFF and their Veterinary representatives and the board of the NFU.  (Even the ‘help’ line set up by MAFF, has, I see today in the paper, been exposed  as a downright fraud, being manned by uninformed job seekers with a mandate to say whatever comes into their heads.  This could explain the information I was given on ringing Reading, when I asked about buying-in hay.… that I could give it to the animals, provided I had sprayed it with disinfectant first.)
 Professor Brown and Dr Barteling questioned much of the government policy and asked, for example, why had Pirbright  turned down the possible use of the PCR devise?   Why was it taking such an interminable time to come up with results of  blood tests?  Paul Kitchen said that they were basically overwhelmed at Pirbright and could not cope – to which there was no dissent in the room.  Colin Fink of Warwick Science Park reminded them that he had offered the services of his laboratory and had been ignored.[2]  (Since then I have heard of other establishments offering their assistance and they, too, have been ignored.)
 In order to put the matter right with Colin Fink, it was agreed there and then at the meeting to make arrangements  to avail him of the fixed virus necessary for him to start to help.  Also, that day at an earlier meeting, Lindsay Harris – a policy advisor to MAFF – had agreed to do the same.  That meeting, hosted by the CLA was attended by a broad spectrum of  interested parties ranging from tourism to agriculture. 
 Both Professor Brown and Dr Simon Barteling were united in their dismay and disgust at the ruthless attitude adopted by the government to this outbreak; they considered the blanket culling policy ‘the unnecessary slaughter of innocent animals.’  No one could describe these men as the ‘cuddly bunny brigade of animal defenders’.  They are highly respected scientists with an intimate knowledge of this devastating virus and the first to say that infected animals must be culled.  Where they disagree wholeheartedly with the current UK policy is over the contiguous farm and all that follows from there.  They recommend swab testing, blood testing and of course vaccination.  In these matters they are quite specific. 
 A lot of time was spent by others around the table excusing the slaughter policy on the grounds of the apparent inability of vets and farmers, to handle the farm animals in their care, efficiently enough to carry out swab or blood sampling and/or vaccination. This perceived skill deficiency renders the testing process ‘uneconomic’, making culling cheaper and easier!  If this ‘skill deficiency' charge were proved to be true, it would be an appalling indictment of the suitability and professionalism of our veterinary practitioners and farmers. Such testing and vaccination schemes are successfully carried out in other countries, where animals range over vast uncultivated areas - including those of the third world with whom we compare our farming abilities as so infinitely superior. 
 Earlier at the CLA meeting Professor Brown pointed out that 80% vaccination of the national flock would be more than adequate for the curbing of the virus.  Given that at least  50% of our national flock are already handled for many reasons such as vaccinating against other diseases, the effort required to sort out another 30% is trivial compared with the appalling devastation of the present  situation.
 You may recall your own comment, to the effect that when methods for tackling the crisis were first considered, vaccination was precluded on the basis that there was, apparently, insufficient vaccine available.  Dr Barteling pointed out that he was in charge of the European body that put together the European vaccine bank.  He confirmed in the meeting that not only was there more than enough vaccine available but that these vaccines were if high potency/standard. Professor Brown confirmed that there were also plenty of vaccine commercially available in the USA.
 Disease free status was inevitably mentioned. The value of the export market pales into insignificance alongside the cost of the current disaster. (Some time ago the cost to the country was estimated in the order of 20 billion – what must it be by now?)  Indeed some economists are talking of the mishandling of the FMD outbreak as potentially tipping the country into recession.
 On the positive side:
 Were Professor Brown and Dr Barteling’s suggestions to be adopted, the problem of slaughter and the long term environmental impact of the disposal of millions of uninfected animals would be avoided.  Perhaps even at this stage you, in discussion with Professor Brown, could let us have an epidemic curve using vaccination rather than slaughter.
 With their strategy the extremely valuable industry, tourism,    would have hardly been affected – and even now could recover very quickly were such sensible measures adopted.
 Last, but surely not least, with proper testing and vaccination, this government would have avoided going down in history, as unnecessarily causing the worst peace time misery and suffering to a great raft of its people directly and indirectly involved in this crisis.
 
The Law:

Certainly, politically, something has to be done about the compensation package.  Offering a carrot of massive over valuation for culling the animals of already frighteningly cash strapped farmers, is a singularly questionable ruse.  With no income and no money for tending the animals in an humane manner, add to that the restriction of movement policy, and a further questionable ‘welfare’ payment, for destruction on ‘humane grounds’, one has to ask what is the agenda?

Lastly, the EU and the rest of the world will have to re-think the archaic term ‘disease free status’.  The vaccine for foot and mouth should be made as acceptable as the many other vaccines and medications animals currently have administered to them.  This is the only way of eradicating the disease from the world – as with such human diseases as smallpox and polio and – as you may recall from the watery excuse you gave to us for leaving the meeting to go to your dinner – tuberculosis.
 
Dear A*****,  							         Re F& M matters

Thank you for telephoning me and for giving me the update on the events on the farm near Exmoor.
It is a matter of some concern that MAAF have so little understanding of the regulations on which they rely.  I can assure you that they have even less understanding of the virology which is so essential for any sensible policy applied to the present problem. I was quite surprised to hear from  Mr Fred Landeg at Page Street that he clearly did not know the difference between a protein and nucleic acid. As he seems to be the power at MAAF at least coordinating if not making policy for people in the field his unfortunate failure to grasp the basics is not reassuring.

As you know I started to apply some three weeks ago to MAAF for some fixed ( non infectious) virus or some extracted nucleic acid ( RNA) from the F & M virus currently causing the infection, so that we might develop a rapid, specific and highly sensitive viral assay. This has been of concern for a number of reasons:
 1	MAAF and the Vet agency at Pirbright are not routinely using this type of assay (probably not using it at all) to detect infection in the herds. They have not undertaken any survey of the culled animals and so we have no assessment of the extent of the infection nor any understanding of its natural history within an animal measured by this state-of-the-art assay to see viremia in the blood or oro-pharyngeal infection from mouth swabs.  This is a catastrophic loss of opportunity to gain basic knowledge and is entirely consistent with their retained medieval approach to the whole problem. As my colleague Professor Fred Brown said  “it is an unacceptable loss of animals without justification”
 2	We have been approached by many individuals and also several major agencies in the UK who do not trust MAAF and its approach and wish to have access to independent testing of the herds.  
This is because of a fear of residual low level infection and also to have sound virological information available in case of a cull order.
 3	The availability of the exquisitely sensitive assay in independent hands will enable us to undertake some of the field work that MAAF have failed to do and we will latterly be able to supply decent information for epidemiologists to use.  Whilst we may be too late for the UK , in this outbreak, the establishment of a good assay will put the UK ahead (at least in the private sector) to offer this service for Europe as required.   
 At the meeting held at the CLA on April 24th Lindsay Harris a MAAF policy spokesman agreed to arrange contacts for me to ensure a supply of fixed virus. No contact on his instigation has taken place. At the meting on the same day under the Chairmanship of the Countess of Mar at the House of Lords, Dr Paul Kitching  Head of the Exotic disease Ref. Lab at Pirbright agreed to supply fixed material but indicated that clearance from Fred Landeg at Page Street was required.  I have had contact with Fred Landeg who has raised objection under the Specified Animal Pathogen Order 1998. I have made it clear to him that this is not relevant to fixed (uninfectious) nucleic acid or fixed virus to develop our assay. His objection to potential infection of posted specimens also does not stand up because we would supply material to render any sample fixed and also supply safe carriage and packing as we do on a day to day basis for receipt of human pathogenic material. 
 I do hope that this gives you some useful information. You are most welcome to send this letter to any party.
 Best wishes, Yours,
  
Colin G Fink B.Sc.,MB.,Ph.D.,FRCPath   Virological Scientist and Physician for the company 

There is NO CopyRight on this document, which is one of many 1,000s of items freely available on http://www.SilentMajority.co.UK [some 18Mbs.] & 10s of 1,000s of items on The SilentMajority CD [with over 50Mbs.] which contains the entire web site & hosts other web sites also, 1,000s of apposite quotations, Articles, Speeches, Commentaries, ArtWork, & The FULL text of The EU Treaties, Several Related Books, The British Constitution, The American Constitution & Numerous related Items.
SilentMajority nor any associate thereof does NOT vouch for the veracity of the documents hosted on its site or CD nor any foreign language documents thereon & advises you consult your own solicitor on legal details as we do not accept liability for, nor presume to give legal advice ourselves.
For a copy of the CD please mail payment of £20.00 for UK deliver or £25.00 for ALL other Countries payable to:
Greg Lance – Watkins,
Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
GREAT BRITAIN
For delivery of 2 x CDs
one for your own use
+ one for on selling or donation to an individual of influence (media, politician, activist etc.)

IF YOU wish to use the Material Above, which is freely provided
Please have the Courtesy to Print It out in its entirety from start to finish with NO alterations, as displayed.
To This Point
.