asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds of the vaccines interactions research programme at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratories, Porton Down.[HL8032]
I refer my noble friend to the Answer I gave on 22 June 2006 (Official Report, col. WA 99).
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8), for how long possible adverse effects on the health of staff at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratories, Porton Down, reported to have received the combination of vaccines and tablets administered to United Kingdom forces deployed to the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, will be monitored.[HL8033]
The study of sick absence in multi-vaccinated staff at DSTL Porton Down, which examined records covering periods of employment from two to 38 years, was completed in 2001. The study examined vaccinations only. The vaccines administered were those required by the staff in the course of their duties. These included anti-biological warfare and health and hygiene vaccinations which, while not the same regimens as used at the time of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, were considered to provide a comparison that was relevant to our considerationof the possible health effects of the vaccination programme for veterans of that conflict.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Drayson on 9 October (WA 47), whether they have made an assessment of the analysis published in June 2004 of atmospheric plume studies by the Accountability Office of the Government of the United States; and, if so, whether they have revised their conclusions about the number of British troops exposed to the fall-out of the demolition at Khamisiyah.[HL8055]
The Ministry of Defence paper Review of Modelling of the Demolitions at Khamisiyah in March 1991 and implications for UK personnel, published in January 2005, took full account of the United States Government Accountability (formerly General Accounting) Office June 2004 review. This followed an assessment by Ministry of Defence experts. A copy, of the paper is available in the Library of the House and on the Ministry of Defence website at www.mod.uk.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8) on Gulf War illness, for how long the studies referred to lasted; and whether the marmosets were exposed to the same range of vaccines and insults, such as uncontrolled spraying or organophosphate pesticides, DEET, low-level sarin, oil well fire residues and depleted uranium, as service personnel; and [HL8056]
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8) on Gulf War illness, whether they will take steps to ensure that future studies into illnesses of veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War take into account to the fullest extent possible factors or combinations of factors to which service personnel were subject.[HL8057]
The monitoring period of the marmoset study was 18 months. This represents some 11 per cent of the animals’ expected lifespan and was considered an appropriate period in relation to the timescale for the emergence of ill-health among veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict. As my noble friend Lord Bach indicated in a Written Answer on18 November 2003 (Official Report, col. WA 280), the range of vaccines used represented the “worst case” scenario. Environmental and other conditions to which some individuals may have been exposed during the 1990-91 Gulf conflict were not part of the vaccines interactions research programme. The possible adverse health effects of other potential exposures are either already well understood or have been the subject of other research programmes. The wider evidence currently available makes clear that the ill health reported among Gulf veterans also affects individuals who have not experienced such other exposures.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 9 October (WA 67-8) and the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8), whether the Written Answer was drawn to the attention of those who conducted the studies referred to in the Written Statement.[HL8058]
I refer my noble friend to the Answer given to him on 17 November 2003 (Official Report, col. WA 255-6).
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any assessment of the conclusions of studies conducted in France that the whooping cough vaccine, used as an adjuvant to the anthrax vaccine and administered to United Kingdom troops in the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, was not suitable for adults; and of its health effects on the troops involved.[HL8059]
The Ministry of Defence is aware of a paper published in 2002 by Dr J N Tournier and colleagues: Gulf War Syndrome: could it be triggered by biological warfare vaccines using pertussis as an adjuvant?. The paper presents a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated finding and we are aware of no work to prove/disprove the hypothesis. The department's vaccines interaction research using marmosets found no evidence of such an effect.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any government-funded organisation, other than the Medical Research Council, which is currently reviewing findings of international (particularly United States) medical and scientific researchers into Gulf War illnesses.[HL8107]
The Ministry of Defence, as the lead government department on Gulf veterans’ illnesses (GVI), takes independent advice on the programme of GVI research principally from the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MoD has also established the independent Depleted Uranium Oversight Board and Independent Panel on Vaccines Interactions to provide specific advice on depleted uranium and multiple immunisations. These consider wider international findings as appropriate.