"Critics have long argued that patient information suffers because of a
conflict between the MCA public health role and its role in promoting the
UK pharmaceutical industry (it is totally funded by the industry)."

Private Eye (NO URL)
7 February - 20 February 2003

VACCINE SAFETY

Campaigners for drug and vaccine safety have long complained that the
yellow-card system - by which doctors fill in a card recording adverse
reactions and return it to the Medicines Control Agency - catches only a
small fraction of adverse events.

Research by the government's own public health laboratory service (PHLS)
eight years ago comparing hospital admissions with vaccination records
picked up five times as many reactions to vaccines than reported by the
yellow card system.

In the Eye's special report MMR: The story so far, we suggested that yellow
cards completely failed to alert health chiefs to the meningitis outbreaks
being triggered by an early form of MMR vaccine which was subsequently
withdrawn. But despite official knowledge of the system's shortcomings,
nothing was done to change it. Until now.

The national audit office (NAO) has found that three-quarters of adverse
drug reactions go unreported, often because GPs and hospital doctors are
too busy, do not understand the thresholds for what constitutes a ''serious
reaction'' or consider the system too complicated. It criticises the MCA,
which regulates the safety, quality and effectiveness of medicines for not
routinely monitoring its safety warnings based on these adverse reports.

Critics have long argued that patient information suffers because of a
conflict between the MCA public health role and its role in promoting the
UK pharmaceutical industry (it is totally funded by the industry). It
remains to be seen if plans to create a new medicines and healthcare
products regulatory agency will, as the NAO recommends, minimise the
potential for such a conflict of interest and whether some element of
government funding will be needed.