WHO looking at reported link between H1N1 vaccine and narcolepsy

ANDRÉ PICARD PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER — From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail – Canada – Tuesday, Feb. 08, 2011

The World Health Organization is investigating reports that the H1N1 vaccine may have triggered a rare sleep disorder in children.

The move comes just days after Finland’s National Institute for Health and Welfare published data showing that children in that country who were vaccinated against H1N1 were nine times more likely to develop narcolepsy than children who did not get the vaccine.

Click here to see full Globe and Mail story from Canada:-

WHO looking at reported link between H1N1 vaccine and narcolepsy

Vaccines-Cause-Autism War Is Over

EDITORIAL

No one has to prove vaccines cause autism anymore.  The war is nearly over.  What is left is to mop up and clear the diehards from their bunkers.

Is this a premature declaration of ‘VCH Day’ – Victory for Child Health?.  It may not be.

But the latest evidence suggests the opposition is in its dying gasps.  What key events are bringing the war to an end?

First, do vaccines cause autistic conditions?  If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this: PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Despite all the lies and deceit by health official worldwide, the question “do vaccines cause autism” was answered after the Hannah  Poling story broke in the USA in February 2008 [see CHS article here].  Hannah developed an autistic condition after 9 vaccines administered the same day.  Under the media spotlight numerous US health officials and agencies conceded on broadcast US nationwide TV news from CBS and CNN. Full details with links to the original sources can be found in this CHS article: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines. [Blue Text added 10 April 2011]

Making Absurd Claims of Fraud

The dying gasps are shown by the British Medical Journal Editor Dr Fiona Godlee and colleague’s efforts in publishing the absurdly false claim of “an elaborate fraud” that Dr Wakefield “altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndromewhen completely impossible for Wakefield or anyone else to have done that.

For more details read our The BIG Liearticle: The BIG Lie – Wakefield Lancet Paper Alleged Fraud – Was Not Possible For Anyone To Commit.

What Are The Key Events?

Why does no one have to prove vaccines cause autism anymore?

The key events are set out here, but there is much more to a story which can be told more fully another time and many more players and many not mentioned here who have sacrificed much for all our children.

First in February 2008, award winning best selling author David Kirby broke the story of the case of Hannah Poling and how the US Department of Health and Human Services secretly conceded [ie. there was no need for a hearing] in a US Federal Court case that Hannah’s symptoms of autism were caused by the nine vaccines [ie. not just MMR] which she received in one day [The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read - David Kirby - Huffington Post - February 26, 2008].

Then there were public statements by the US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) broadcast by Sharyl Attkisson on CBS News in the US.  These were about 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in unpublished settlements:-

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008

[see text of email exchanges between US HRSA and Attkisson - attached]:-

Then it was Dr Sanjay Gupta’s interview with CDC Director Julie Gerberding on CNN in which Gerberding confirmed vaccinations could cause autistic conditions:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30

Next came Dr Bernadine Healy a former Director of the US National Institutes of Health, responsible for US$ 30.5 billion annual budget expenditure on health research.  Healy in a CBS interview with Sharyl Attkisson confirmed it was premature to dismiss the link between vaccinations and autistic conditions:-

I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” Healy said.

“But public health officials have been saying they know, they’ve been implying to the public there’s enough evidence and they know it’s not causal,” Attkisson said.

“I think you can’t say that,” Healy said. “You can’t say that.”

CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008

Dr Healy is is a Harvard and Johns Hopkins educated physician, cardiologist and former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She has been a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, professor and dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at the Ohio State University, and served as president of the American Red Cross.

But before any of that the “its all genetic” weapon was disarmed when it was confirmed the large increases in autistic conditions cannot be being caused by genetics.  This came from Dr Francis Collins the current 16th Director of the US$ 30.5 billion annual budget US National Institutes of Health and a leading medical doctor and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project.  When Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute Collins confirmed in public to the US House of Representatives in May 2006 that recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity and autism must have an environmental [external] cause and cannot be purely genetically [internally] caused conditions:

Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.,
Evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006

They are powerful statements – no one can unsay what has been said any more than they can unpublish what is now published in leading mainstream medical journals.

The 2010 Coup de Grâce [Death Blow]

Why else does no one have to prove vaccines cause autism anymore?

These mainstream journals now confirm what Mr Andrew Wakefield and the Royal Free Team of specialists found in the Lancet paper in 1998, particularly:-

  • the JAMA paper 1 Dec 2010 confirms Gerberding’s claim to CNN that Hannah Poling’s mitochondrial dysfunction was “rare” is not true and that mitochondrial disorders are common in autistic children but not in non autistic: Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Autism JAMA. 2010;304(21):2389-2396. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1706

Hannah Poling’s mitochondrial dysfunction following vaccination led to her autistic condition for which she was awarded a US$20 million lifetime settlement just last year in a case the US Government did not contest but settled out of court: Court Awards Over $20 Million for Vaccine-Caused Autism – PR Newswire (press release) – ‎Sep 15, 2010‎

End of The War

There is nothing more to prove.

It is also more than obvious from our “The BIG Lie” article that the British Medical Journal published fraud claims on 6th January which are unsupportable.  Using the “fraud” word for the British is a last gasp effort.  Wakefield was down but not out.  People were still listening to him.  The Medical Establishment had to do more.

But what happened? Unlike the USA and other countries, the British media are not running stories about these claims.

Following information provided to UK media including BBC and ITN broadcast news during the afternoon of 5th January – BMJ’s story was shut down on 6th. The only exceptions appear to be the Daily Telegraph [after apparently declining the offer of information about risk of contempt of court] and briefly on the morning of 6th January, Sky News.

The Press Association’s English operation it seems has [according to a parent who contacted them on the matter a.m. on 6th January] decided they “were not going to develop the story any further for the time being” on legal advice. The BMJ/Deer claims were considered defamatory of all the Royal Free team doctors [in addition to the legal contempt issues].

The legal blackout is confirmed in that yesterday the Sunday Times published a Deer story which said pretty much no more than that the BMJ had published fraud claims but did not go into details.

All of the allegations made in the BMJ had been dealt with in Wakefield’s book, yet Wakefield was not contacted for comment by BMJ nor did the Deer story address the fact that his new claims have already been answered. Deer now also claims in the Sunday Times that he insisted the BMJ check his facts. It is obvious they did not from our The BIG Lie” article, as does further analysis of what they published.

BMJ Editor’s Vision for Tackling the “MMR Scare”

Dr Godlee, born August 4, 1961, was appointed editor of the British Medical Journal in 2005.  This was 5 months following setting out her vision for dealing with the “MMR Scare“. Before her appointment Dr Godlee, when Head of “BMJ Knowledge” gave a presentation to the British National Formulary “The next MMR – could we do better?”

Over five years later, she has failed to deal with the existing “MMR Scare” let alone the “next” one.  Worse still, as the science has unfolded it turns out it is not just the MMR vaccine which causes children to develop autistic conditions.

Godlee’s presentation concluded with what she said was needed:

  • Better data on adverse effects
  • Balance between benefits and harms
  • Surveillance and follow up by an independent body
  • High standards of editorial judgement and accountability
  • Awareness of competing interest at all levels
  • More distance between journals
  • Greater public understanding of risk
  • Two way conversation as part of healthy democracy

How much of her plan has been achieved?  None of it.

What would have happened if it had been implemented 5 years ago?  Hundreds of thousands of children around the world would not today be autistic and there are still more to become so, before the bunkers are cleared of the zealots who would vaccinate anything they could get their hands on regardless of harm caused.

More Fraud From Drug Giant GlaxoSmithKline Companies – Court Documents Show

How can our governments and health officials allow crooked companies like this to provide drugs and vaccines to our children?

To ghostwrite an entire textbook is a new level of chutzpah. I’ve never heard of that before. It takes your breath away.” said Dr. David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, speaking to the New York Times after reviewing the documents:

“Drug Maker Wrote Book Under 2 Doctors’ Names, Documents Say” By Duff Wilson THE NEW YORK TIMES – November 29, 2010.

We republish here a 30 November 2010 edited article from Vera Hassner Sharav of the New York charity Alliance For Human Research Protection – reporting on the story from The New York Times about GSK’s drug pushing psychiatry book.

But first some important related history we can safely and legally describe as what a number of money grabbing drug pushing crooks were also caught doing in the then named SmithKline Beecham corporation. GSK was prosecuted in a fraud case by New York USA Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in June 2004 over its “deceptive, fraudulent and unlawful practices” in drug pushing to children its “anti-depressant” drug Paxil [called Seroxat in the UK]: NY Supreme Court Complaint by NY AG Elliott Spitzer.pdf – 2 June 2004 .

WATCH THE VIDEO AND/OR READ THE STORY BELOW

If the video does not play click here to watch on YouTube: SEROXAT PAXIL SCANDAL 1/2 www.crookreport.co.uk

GSK withheld five of six scientific studies showing that Paxil/seroxat was ineffective in use in children and it also increased the risk of suicide, self-harm and homicidal tendencies by three times. GSK published only the favourable study and actively suppressed the information of harm to children whilst pushing the drug for use in adolescents.

GlaxoSmithKline Misled Doctors About the Safety of Drug Used to Treat Depression in Children

Press Release from NY Attorney General – 2 June 2004

This class of drugs [SSRI's or selective serotonin uptake inhibitors] now carry warnings that they cause “anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility (aggressiveness), impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania” and have been associated with a number of murders by previously non violent individuals.  [Infamous cases include Tobin v SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals:

With a prior history of a poor response to an SSRI, Don Schell was put on Paxil. Forty-eight hours later he put three bullets from two different guns through his wife, Rita’s, head, as well as through his daughter, Deborah’s, head and through his granddaughter, Alyssa’s, head before shooting himself through the head."

From chapter 10 of "Let Them Eat Prozac" By Professor David Healy, North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine, Pub: James Lorimer for the Canadian Association of University Teachers, ISBN no 1-55028-783-4]

But the GlaxoSmithKline company was not deterred from suppressing the risk information  to children and withholding it from doctors to make sales whilst literally putting childrens’ lives and the lives of those around them at risk.

Should we trust those “awfully nice” British Glaxo people?

The UK’s Independent reported in July 2004:-

“A new warning that the controversial antidepressant Seroxat may increase the risk of suicide in young adults up to the age of 30 is to be issued throughout Europe.

Seroxat controversy deepens with Europe-wide warning on suicide Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor Monday, 26 July 2004

Paxil/Seroxat is also addictive and after a long campaign by  UK charity Social Audit the UK drug safety authorities slowly reluctantly but eventually required a warning with the packaging of the drug.

___________________________________

Psychiatry Texbook Penned by Two Academic Leaders — GSK Ghosted

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

A letter of complaint, by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) was sent to the director of the National Institutes of Health (below), documenting $66.8 million in NIH grants that were awarded to a handful of psychiatrists who penned their name to ghostwritten scientific publications [see full text of letter and references below].

The instances identified in the letter involve ghostwriting by only one company–Scientific Therapeutics Information–and only one drug–GlaxoSmithKline’s antidepressant, Paxil (peroxetine).

Duff Wilson of The New York Times reports that previously sealed GlaxoSmithKline documents show that a psychiatry textbook, whose listed authors are psychiatrists, Charles Nemeroff, MD and Alan Schatzberg, MD, was actually ghostwritten by Sally Laden of STI. GSK paid the ghostwriter and the “authors” who penned their names to the book.

But then, psychiatry and its leadership has the notorious distinction of lacking a minimal scientific foundation to support just about any of its clinical practice guidelines–as the entire field is driven not by honest research, but by the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry and their paid “partners” in academia.

Drs. Nemeroff and Schatzberg are two of psychiatry’s influential academics who have received tens of million dollars in taxpayer grants, who have chaired departments of psychiatry at Emory University, the University of Miami (CN) and Stanford University (AS).

The POGO letter of complaint is accompanied by a “smoking gun”–a 1997 letter written by the book ghostwriter:

“A draft of the textbook states that it was sponsored by GSK and written by Diane M. Coniglio and Sally K. Laden of STI. (Attachment D ) In a letter addressed to Dr. Nemeroff, Ms. Laden provided an updated status of the textbook. Her timeline states that she wrote the first draft, which was then sent to Drs. Nemeroff and Schatzberg, the publisher, and GlaxoSmithKline. The timeline also notes that GSK was given all three drafts, and was sent page proofs for final approval. (Attachment E)”

Drs. Nemeroff and Schatzberg insist that the the company’s grant was “unrestricted” and, therefore, they claim to have done “most of the work.”

Duff Wilson reports that Dr. Nemeroff defends the book, stating it “was written to fill an unmet need in educating family doctors and primary care physicians on how to provide adequate treatment for people with mental illness.”

Ghostwritten articles and ghostwritten texbooks paid for and controlled by self-serving drug companies have undermined the integrity of science and pose a threat to public health!!

Pity the people whose doctors’ clinical practice is guided by fraud.

Below, we post a copy of the POGO letter to the director of NIH–in which a handful of researchers who used ghostwriters for scientific publications are identified. These prominent academic psychiatrists received $66.8 million in NIH grants over the last five years.

Shouldn’t anyone who engages in professional misconduct such as fraud, which corrupts the integrity and practice of medicine, be disqualified from having academic standing?

Posted by Vera Hassner Sharav

POGO Letter to NIH on Ghostwriting Academics

November 29, 2010

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director
National Institutes of Health
One Center Drive
Bethesda, Maryland 20892

Via email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Dear Dr. Collins:

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO’s investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government. We take a keen interest in strengthening the integrity of federally funded science, and have particular concerns involving the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which receives around $30 billion a year in federal taxpayer dollars to fund biomedical research.[1]

We are writing to urge that NIH curb the practice of ghostwriting in academia. As the Director of the world’s largest and most prestigious funding source for biomedical research, you must set policies that require NIH-funded academic centers to ban ghostwriting to strengthen scientific integrity.

You obviously recognize how corrosive ghostwriting is to science. In an interview last year on C-SPAN, you said:

I was shocked by that revelation—that people would allow their names to be used on articles they did not write, that were written for them, particularly by companies that have something to gain by the way the data is presented….If we want to have the integrity of science preserved, that’s not the way to do it.[2]

We couldn’t agree more, and would think NIH policies would prevent such practices. However, based on documents in our possession, we have discovered that the NIH gave $66.8 million in grants over the last five years to a handful of researchers who used ghostwriters for scientific publications. These documents were made public during litigation[3] about Paxil (paroxetine), an anti-depressant sold by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Although these documents discuss actions that happened in the past, this behavior doesn’t usually come to light until years after it occurred when the evidence is discovered during litigation, and therefore the practice is likely continuing today.

According to the documents, GSK began to push sales of Paxil in the early 1990s with an extensive ghostwriting program run by the marketing firm Scientific Therapeutics Information (STI). For instance, STI wrote a proposal to organize GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil Advisory Board Meeting in 1993 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida. STI chose Dr. Charles Nemeroff of Emory University as their speaker to lay out the meeting’s agenda and objectives. Dr. Nemeroff apparently led discussions on how to “evaluate clinical research/promotional programs” and “generate information for use in promotion/education.” (Attachment A)

STI’s ghostwriting included editorials, journal articles, and even a textbook that was widely used by primary care physicians to treat psychiatric disorders. Below are further details of these incidents and the NIH funding of these researchers.

Drs. Dwight Evans and Dennis Charney
NIH funding since FY 2006: $30.6 million
NIH funding FY 2010: $10,929,790

According to the documents, Sally Laden of STI wrote an editorial for Biological Psychiatry in 2003 for Drs. Dwight Evans, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and Dennis Charney, then an employee at the NIH and now Dean of Research at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine at New York University.[4]

In an email to a GSK employee, Ms. Laden wrote, “Is there a problem with my invoice for writing Dwight Evans’ editorial for the [Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance]’s comorbidity issue to Biological Psychiatry?” (Attachment B) Yet, when published, the “authors” Evans and Charney only stated, “We acknowledge Sally K. Laden for editorial support.” (Attachment C)

According to the NIH Reporter database of grants, Dr. Evans is the primary investigator on two NIH grants. The funding for these grants in 2010 is $940,450. Dr. Charney is the primary investigator on one NIH grant, whose funding in 2010 is $9,989,340. Over the last five years, the NIH has given both researchers $30.6 million in grants.[5]

Drs. Alan Schatzberg and Charles Nemeroff
NIH funding since FY 2006: $23.3 million
NIH funding FY 2010: $2,374,242

STI also ghostwrote a physician textbook, Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders, for Drs. Alan Schatzberg of Stanford Medical Center and Charles Nemeroff, formerly with Emory University School of Medicine and now at University of Miami School of Medicine.

A draft of the textbook states that it was sponsored by GSK and written by Diane M. Coniglio and Sally K. Laden of STI. (Attachment D) In a letter addressed to Dr. Nemeroff, Ms. Laden provided an updated status of the textbook. Her timeline states that she wrote the first draft, which was then sent to Drs. Nemeroff and Schatzberg, the publisher, and GlaxoSmithKline. The timeline also notes that GSK was given all three drafts, and was sent page proofs for final approval. (Attachment E)

However, in the textbook’s published preface, Dr. Nemeroff and Schatzberg only thank STI for “editorial assistance” and GSK for “providing an unrestricted educational grant.” (Attachment F)

The fact that STI wrote the first draft undermines Drs. Nemeroff and Schatzberg’s assertion that STI provided mere “editorial assistance.” Also, GSK’s involvement in every draft, to include sign-off of page proofs, undermines the assertion that the company’s grant was “unrestricted.”

According to the NIH Reporter database of grants, Dr. Schatzberg is the primary investigator on four NIH grants. The funding for these grants in 2010 is $2,374,242. Over the last five years, the NIH has given both researchers $23.3 million in grants.[6]

Dr. Kimberly Yonkers
NIH funding since FY 2006: $6.4 million
NIH funding FY 2010: $1,241,257

In 2002, a GSK employee emailed Dr. Yonkers of Yale School of Medicine, writing, “Attached please find the poster to be presented at the US Psych Congress. Please provide feedback.” (Attachment G)

Other documents make it clear that Dr. Yonkers was provided at least one ghostwritten study. For instance, the cover page for a study on Paxil to be published in Psychopharmacology Bulletin notes that “Draft I” was prepared by Sally Laden and another STI employee. The top line of the draft even reminds Dr. Yonkers to remove evidence of STI’s involvement, stating, “STI Cover Page—To be removed before submission.” (Attachment H)

When the study was later published, it notes that it was funded by an “unrestricted educational grant” from GSK, but makes no mention of STI’s involvement in the paper. (Attachment I)

According to the NIH Reporter database of grants, Dr. Yonkers is the primary investigator on three NIH grants. The funding for these grants in 2010 is $1,241,257. Over the last five years, the NIH has given Dr. Yonkers $6.4 million in grants.[7]

Dr. Martin Keller
NIH funding since FY 2006: $7.0 million
NIH funding FY 2010: $1,341,493

Finally, we would like to turn your attention to Dr. Martin Keller of Brown University Medical School. In July 2001, Dr. Keller and several colleagues published a widely read study, called Study 329, on the efficacy of Paxil (paroxetine) to treat adolescent major depression.[8] Study 329 concluded, “The findings of this study provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of the SSRI, paroxetine, in the treatment of adolescent major depression.”[9]

Study 329, however, was clearly flawed—a mere two years later, the United Kingdom government warned British physicians to not prescribe Paxil for children due to fears of potential suicide.[10] In May 2004, our own FDA issued a similar warning.[11]

In early 2007, the BBC’s investigative program Panorama released a documentary on Paxil and Study 329.[12] The documentary publicized hundreds of secret emails from GSK, which were uncovered during litigation, that showed GSK knew years before the publication of Study 329 that Paxil did not provide efficacy in treating adolescents for depression.

With regards to Study 329 specifically, the BBC reported online about emails written by a company hired by GSK to provide PR for Study 329.[13] One email read, “Originally we had planned to do extensive media relations surrounding this study until we actually viewed the results.”[14] Another email read, “Essentially the study did not really show [Paxil] was effective in treating adolescent depression, which is not something we want to publicize.”[15] (Attachment J)

The documentary also noted that Dr. Keller published Study 329 with the help of ghostwriter Sally Laden. In an email to Ms. Laden about Study 329, Dr. Keller wrote, “You did a superb job with this. Thank you very much. It is excellent. Enclosed are some rather minor changes from me…”[16] But before the final draft was released to Dr. Keller, Ms. Laden sent it to GSK for final approval so that the manuscript “can be released to Martin Keller, MD to submit for publication….” (Attachment K)

In June 2008, former Boston Globe reporter Alison Bass published Side Effects, a book that documents multiple problems with Dr. Keller’s research used in Study 329. Passages of the book discuss internal documents from Brown University regarding Dr. Keller’s research on Paxil. The documents were provided to Ms. Bass by Donna Howard, the former assistant administrator in Brown’s department of psychiatry. Ms. Howard said that data in Study 329 was changed to satisfy the study’s sponsor, GSK. According to Howard, “Everybody knew we had to keep [GlaxoSmithKline] happy and give them the results they wanted.”[17]

Even Brown University’s student newspaper, The Brown Daily Herald, published an exposé on Dr. Keller’s research and Study 329.[18] Dr. Keller refused to respond to questions from the paper. An editorial that accompanied this story stated, “We do believe that [Dr. Keller’s] actions directly affect the integrity of the University.”[19] Yet, despite the multiple public revelations, Brown University has done nothing.

POGO searched the NIH Reporter database of grants and was surprised to find that, despite all the repetitive controversy, Dr. Keller is still receiving NIH grants. Currently, he is the primary investigator on two NIH grants, with funding in 2010 of $1,341,493. Over the last five years, the NIH has given Dr. Keller $7 million in grants.[20]

Conclusion

The instances in this letter involve ghostwriting by only one company and involve only one drug. Yet the evidence is that this practice is widespread and pervasive in academia. A study published in PLoS Medicine in February of this year found that only ten of the top fifty medical schools explicitly prohibit ghostwriting.[21] The study’s authors concluded that “medical ghostwriting is a threat to public health….”[22]

NIH must take a firm stance against ghostwriting, both to protect public health and the integrity of NIH funding. We ask that you implement new policies that will require institutions to ban ghostwriting, and to make NIH funding contingent upon periodic certification from institutions that ghostwriting is strictly prohibited and that enforcement mechanisms such as disciplinary action and dismissal are in place. Setting this example will improve the integrity of federally funded science. Additionally we ask that you fund seminars and research on ghostwriting to educate physicians about this practice and ensure that it disappears from biomedical research altogether.

We appreciate your review of this letter and your time, and look forward to working with you on the issue of ghostwriting in academia. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Thacker at (202) 347-1122 or This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian
Executive Director

Paul Thacker
Investigator

Attachments A-K

______________________

[1] The White House, Office of Management and Budget, “Department of Health and Human Services,” Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011. (Downloaded November 19, 2010)
[2] “Newsmakers with Dr. Francis Collins,” C-SPAN, December 21, 2009. (Downloaded November 19, 2010)
[3] Cunningham v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Case No. 2:07-CV-174 (2006). http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/138/cases/1249/1772/glaxosmithkline-cunningham_complaint.pdf ; Smith v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., Superior Court of California, Orange County, Case No. 04CC00590 (2004); Bratt v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:06-cv-1063 (2006); Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 07-CV-612 (2007); Steinberg v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-04-CV-029096 (2004).
[4] Mount Sinai School of Medicine, “Dennis S. Charney.” (Downloaded November 22, 2010)
[5] Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, “NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results.” (Downloaded November 22, 2010) (hereinafter “NIH RePORTER”)
[6] NIH RePORTER.
[7] NIH RePORTER.
[8] M.B. Keller et al., “Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial,” Journal of the Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 40, Issue 7, July 2001, pp. 762-772. (Downloaded November 19, 2010) (hereinafter Study 329)
[9] Study 329, pp. 762-772.
[10] Vicki Brower, “Analyse this: Many psychiatrists claim that children are undertreated for depression and ADHD, but critics argue abuse,” EMBO Reports, Vol. 4, Issue 11, 2003, pp. 1022-1024. (Downloaded November 19, 2010)
[11] Food and Drug Administration, “Dear Healthcare Professional,” May 2004. (Downloaded November 19, 2010)
[12] “Secrets of the Drug Trials: Transcript,” BBC One: Panorama, January 29, 2007. (Downloaded November 19, 2010) (hereinafter “Secrets of the Drug Trials: Transcript”)
[13] “Secrets of the Drug Trials,” BBC One: Panorama, January 29, 2007. (Downloaded November 19, 2010) (hereinafter “Secrets of the Drug Trials”)
[14] “Secrets of the Drug Trials.”
[15] “Secrets of the Drug Trials.”
[16] “Secrets of the Drug Trials: Transcript.”
[17] Alison Bass, Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2008.
[18] Chaz Firestone and Chaz Kelsh, “Keller’s findings on Paxil disputed by doctors, FDA: Controversial study may have hid suicide links,” The Brown Daily Herald, September 24, 2008. (Downloaded November 19, 2010)
[19] “Accountable Academics,” The Brown Daily Herald, September 24, 2008. (Downloaded November 19, 2010)
[20] NIH RePORTER.
[21] Jeffrey R. Lacasse and Jonathan Leo, “Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States,” PLoS Medicine, Vol. 7, Issue 2, February 2010. (Downloaded November 19, 2010) (hereinafter “Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States”)
[22] “Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States.”

New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

A new study confirms yet again what many prior studies have shown [see list at end], that ‘flu vaccination is largely ineffective [despite what Government "health" officials want you to believe - but where of course will they be looking for their next job when they retire at 50 on generous government pensions]:  Jefferson T, et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269.

Read also here on CHS how Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & StillbirthsUsing the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including updates through July 11, 2010 as a second ascertainment source, capture-recapture statistical methods were used to estimate the true number of miscarriages and stillbirths following A-H1N1 flu vaccination in the U.S.

Julie Gerberding head of the US Centres for Disease Control – budget US$11 billion – the US agency charged with promoting vaccines [CDC] following her removal by President Obama went directly to become vaccine maker Merck’s Director of Vaccines Division in December 2009: Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck Vaccines21 Dec 2009 – Merck & Co., Inc.

Here’s a plain language summary of the Oxford based Cochrane Collaboration recent study in the authors’ own words:

Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season.

Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.

The authors warn that industry-funded studies are more likely to be unreliable but be published in prestigious journals and cited more frequently than more reliable independent studies. Here’s what they say:

WARNING:
This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

And here are some earlier studies:-

__________________

And here is a more extensive list:-

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269. Review.PMID: 20614424 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

Jefferson TO, Rivetti D, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Demicheli V.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD001269. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;7:CD001269. PMID: 17443504 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Deeks JJ, Jefferson TO.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001269. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001269. PMID: 15266445 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Deeks JJ, Jefferson TO.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD001269. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001269. PMID: 11687102 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Thorning S, Thomas RE.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;(2):CD004876. Review.PMID: 20166072 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Smith S, Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C, Harnden AR, Jefferson T, Matheson NJ, Rivetti A.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD004879. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD004879. PMID: 16437500 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Harnden A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD004879. Review.PMID: 18425905 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Rivetti D, Jefferson T, Thomas R, Rudin M, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3:CD004876. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;2:CD004876. PMID: 16856068 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Deeks JJ, Jefferson TO.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD001269. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD001269. PMID: 10796628 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Gerstoft J.

Ugeskr Laeger. 2001 May 7;163(19):2615-7. Danish. PMID: 11360353 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Rivetti D.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3:CD005187. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;2:CD005187. PMID: 16856082 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Poole PJ, Chacko E, Wood-Baker RW, Cates CJ.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD002733. Review.PMID: 16437444 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Marshall M, Crowther R, Almaraz-Serrano A, Creed F, Sledge W, Kluiter H, Roberts C, Hill E, Wiersma D, Bond GR, Huxley P, Tyrer P.

Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(21):1-75. Review.PMID: 11532238 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Free ArticleRelated citations

Dear K, Holden J, Andrews R, Tatham D.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD000422. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):CD000422. PMID: 14583920 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;(2):CD005187. Review.PMID: 20166073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Cates CJ, Jefferson TO, Rowe BH.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD000364. Review.PMID: 18425863 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Deeks J.

Vaccine. 2000 Jan 6;18(11-12):957-1030. Review.PMID: 10590322 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Dharmaraj P, Smyth RL.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;(4):CD001753. Review.PMID: 19821281 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Cates CJ, Jefferson TO, Bara AI, Rowe BH.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD000364. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD000364. PMID: 11034684 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Moberley SA, Holden J, Tatham DP, Andrews RM.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD000422. Review.PMID: 18253977 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Related citations

Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication

Our governments and their security advisors base their strategies for dealing with claimed threats of smallpox bio-terrorism on flawed theories and “science” when effective proven strategies are ignored. The national and international security implications are profound.

Smallpox is claimed to have been eradicated by “ring vaccination” but the theory of ring vaccination is flawed. It is confounded by three factors: ["confounding": definition]. All these factors are known and one of which was proven in Leicester England between 1882 and 1908 by abandoning vaccination. Ring vaccination relies on isolation of cases to prevent spread of the disease.

Smallpox was eradicated in reality by three mechanisms, none of which depended on vaccination for their efficacy: isolation, attenuation and improved living conditions, particularly nutrition and sanitation.The effect cannot be attributable to the smallpox vaccine – any vaccine which takes over 100 years to work ipso facto proves itself not to have.

“Ring vaccination” depended on isolation.  It is the use of isolation and the experience of Leicester, England which confound the claims that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination.  The vaccine had not “worked” in over a century of use.

Leicester proved in a dramatic and successful experiment that isolation is effective, less expensive and that the smallpox vaccine programme did not work. Leicester reduced smallpox mortality dramatically using isolation of cases.  In the rest of England and other countries,  deaths continued to mount despite mass vaccination campaigns [see more below].  Full details can be read in “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P. [Download Entire Book as .pdf 43 Mb  - Or Read Online].  Extracts from the book appear below.

The theory and data upon which ring vaccination is based has been questioned by academics from Yale and Stanford universities: Smallpox Eradication in West and Central Africa: Surveillance-Containment or Herd Immunity? Edward H. Kaplan, PhD* and Lawrence M. Wein, PhD†.  Kaplan and Wein come to a flawed conclusion regarding the more appropriate mechanisms but their analysis shows the ring vaccination theory is at the least questionable.  Their work was discussed in Science journal: New Look at Old Data Irks Smallpox-Eradication Experts–MARTIN ENSERINK – SCIENCE VOL 299 10 JANUARY 2003.

Smallpox naturally attenuated to a strain called “Alastrim” or “variola minor” which was first recognised in Florida and South America in the late 19th century: Alastrim Smallpox Variola Minor Virus Genome DNA Sequences Virology Volume 266, Issue 2, 20 January 2000, Pages 361-386.

Attenuation is the natural process by which many diseases over time have become less severe until they either vanish or become of minimal concern. The dramatic effect of attenuation for various diseases combined with a third factor, steadily improving living conditions, can be seen in the data collected here: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics.

In the zeal to claim vaccines are so important to human health, with all the economic benefits to the medical professions from the procedure, vaccinology became and has remained a “science-free zone” where smallpox vaccine and theories of eradication of smallpox are concerned.

In 1967, the World Health Organization launched the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Program. Events in Nigeria stimulated adoption of ring vaccination when an outbreak developed among a religious sect. Faced with limited resources, staff isolated infected individuals and vaccinated others. This was the method of surveillance and containment which became known as “ring vaccination” and was adopted as a worldwide standard: 1) Henderson DA, Inglesby TV, Bartlett JG, Ascher MS, Eitzen E, Jahrling PB, et al. Smallpox as a Biological Weapon. In: Henderson DA, Inglesby TV, O’Toole T, ed. Bioterrorism: Guidelines for Medical and Public Health Management. 2002: Chicago, IL: AMA Press. 2002.99-120. 2) Hopkins JW. The eradication of smallpox: organizational learning and innovation in international health administration. J Dev Areas.1988;22(3):321-32.

Clearly, as was proven in the City of Leicester, it can only have been the isolation and not the vaccination which was responsible for ultimately eradicating smallpox as it was known, together with attenuation and improved living conditions.  Whether smallpox was eradicated or whether it remains in different manifestations  like  human “monkey pox” has been a matter of debate: HUMAN MONKEYPOX AND OTHER POXVIRUS INFECTIONS OF MAN: Chapter 29 SMALLPOX AND ITS ERADICATION;  Clinical manifestations of human monkeypox influenced by route of infection The Journal of infectious diseases2006, vol. 194, no6, pp. 773-780: Levine RS, Peterson A, Yorita KL, Carroll D, Damon IK, et al. 2007 Ecological Niche and Geographic Distribution of Human Monkeypox in Africa. PLoS ONE 2(1): e176. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000176.

The following are some extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P. [Download Entire Book as .pdf 43 Mb  - Or Read Online].

[Click here to continue reading more from the above passage.]

[Click here to continue reading more from the above passage.]

TABLE 21

SMALLPOX FATALITY RATES, cases in vaccinated and re-vaccinated populations compared with “unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.

Name. Period. Small-Pox.  Cases Small-Pox. Deaths. Fatality-rate per cent. of Cases
Japan 1886-1908 288,779 77,415 26.8
British Army (United Kingdom) 1860-1908 1,355 96 7.1
British Army (India) 1860-1908 2,753 307 11.1
British Army (Colonies) 1860-1908 934 82 8.8
Royal Navy 1860-1908 2,909 234 8.0
Grand Totals and case fatality rate per cent, over all 296,730 78,134 26.3
Leicester (since giving up vaccination) 1880-1908 1,206 61 5.1

Biggs saidIn this comparison, I have given the numbers of revaccinated cases, and deaths, and each fatality-rate separately and together, so that they may be compared either way with Leicester. In pro-vaccinist language, may I ask, if the excessive small-pox fatality of Japan, of the British Army, and of the Royal Navy, are not due to vaccination and revaccination, to what are they due? It would afford an interesting psychical study were we able to know to what heights of eloquent glorification Sir George Buchanan would have soared with a corresponding result—but on the opposite side.

TABLE 29.

Small-Pox Epidemics, Cost, and Fatality Rates Compared

Vaccinal Condition Small-Pox Cases Small-Pox Deaths Fatality-rate Per Cent Cost of Epidemic
London 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 9,659 1,594 16.50 £492,000
Glasgow 1900-02 Well Vaccinated 3,417 377 11.03 £ 150,000
Sheffield 1887-88 Well Vaccinated 7,066 688 9.73 £32,257
Leicester 1892-94 Practically Unvaccinated 393 21 5.34 £2,888
Leicester 1902-04 Practically Unvaccinated 731 30 4.10 £1,602
City of Leicester Smallpox Deaths 1880-1908

The following graphs [not from J T Biggs' book - but sources cited] also illustrate how attenuation of smallpox resulted in greatly reduced mortality in England and the USA.

This graph shows the deaths resulting not from smallpox but from the vaccine and its effects:-

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

uk-vacc-deaths-1875-1922

And in this graph we can see how deaths from the vaccine often equalled or exceeded death from smallpox.

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

uk-vacc-deaths-1906-1922

The following graph shows how smallpox mortality was largely unaffected by the vaccine programme.  It continued in epidemics for decades and started to diminish as the effects of the Industrial Revolution in the latter part of the 19th Century provided more money to middle and working classes:-

[Click Graph to Enlarge - Opens In New Window]

uk-smallpox-1838-1890

Autism – Scientist “Daisy May Fatty Pants” Writes

This is a hoot and why you cannot take some people who call themselves scientists seriously.  A fundamental skill in science is observation.  And here we can see why some people in science have selective blindness to basic observations.

“Daisy May Fatty Pants” is a blogger and “biologist” who according to her own account only just made it:

Despite blowing the chemistry curve in Chem II in high school and placing out of freshman biology in college, Emily ended up earning a bachelor’s degree in English from the University of Texas at Austin”

“Daisy May Fatty Pants” [aka Emily Jane Willingham PhD] lays claim to being the author of “The Complete Moron’s Guide to College Biology”.  There is nothing like understanding your audience for being able to write for it.

Here and here you can see “Daisy May Fatty Pants” in action attempting to take down a scientific study of the effects of pediatric vaccines on infant Macaque monkeys.

“Daisy May Fatty Pants” seems to have a problem reading what she claims is her “native language”.  This is despite laying claim to a degree in English.  But she is a fan of the drivel written by drug industry funding beneficiary David Gorski [David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You].

After writing two long scribbles on her blog complaining about too few control cases in the study “Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study” “Daisy May Fatty Pants” seems to have wholly failed to note the magic words “pilot study” in the title and in the author’s conclusions:-

CONCLUSIONS
In this pilot study …… the results of this pilot study warrant additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function. Additional studies are underway in the primate model to investigate the mechanistic basis for this apparent interaction.

The phrase “pilot study” appears 7 times in the paper.  Observation – a fundamental skill in science – which even schoolkids are taught.

And to blow the irony meter “Daisy May Fatty Pants” ends up saying:

Why are people who are so dismissive of almost all scientific findings so anxious to give a shout-out to science when it seems to support their beliefs?

Well “Daisy May Fatty Pants” looks like that applies to you.

["Daisy May Fatty Pants" is science editor and a contributor to another blog, The Thinking Person's Guide to Autism and also has yet another blog, College Biology Blog.]

Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths

Link to this page http://tinyurl.com/3ydy9zh

CDC alleged to have ignored up to 3,587 Miscarriages from H1N1 Vaccine

A shocking report from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) presented data from two different sources demonstrating that the 2009/10 H1N1 vaccines contributed to an estimated 1,588 miscarriages and stillbirths.  A corrected estimate may be as high as 3,587 cases.  NCOW also highlights the disturbing fact that the CDC failed to inform their vaccine providers of the incoming data of the reports of suspected H1N1 vaccine related fetal demise.

Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the H1N1 Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, said at the 3rd conference-the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) that there were absolutely no H1N1 vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women in 2009/10, directly contradicting the publicly available evidence.

This is not the first time McCormick has done this [see  detailed evidence below]. McCormick is hired because, using US tax dollars, she can be relied to do the wrong thing for the American people but the “right thing” for her bosses. McCormick is a tool of those who hire her.

NCOW collected the data from pregnant women (age 17-45 years) that occurred after they were administered a 2009 A-H1N1 flu vaccine. The raw data is available on the website.

Using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including updates through July 11, 2010 as a second ascertainment source, capture-recapture statistical methods* were used to estimate the true number of miscarriages and stillbirths following A-H1N1 flu vaccination in the U.S. Typically, even so-called “complete” studies conducted by the CDC have been shown to miss from 10% to 90% of the actual cases because of under-reporting.

The statistical method employed is an expeditious and cost effective method of attempting to ascertain a complete count of all cases when two or more ascertainment sources (VAERS and NCOW survey) have failed to collect all the existing cases. Overall, this approach shows that approximately only 15% of the occurrences of a miscarriage or stillbirth were actually reported.

The corrected estimate for the total number of 2009-A-H1N1-flu-shot-associated miscarriages and stillbirths during the 2009/10-flu season is 1,588 (95% goodness-of-fit confidence interval, 946 to 3587). That is, the lower and upper range-probability of miscarriage and stillbirths due to the H1N1 vaccine was as low as 946 and as high as 3,587.

Eileen Dannemann, Director of NCOW, presented the findings for the second time to Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, during the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) meeting, Sept 3, 2010. Just prior to Ms. Dannemann’s presentation Dr. McCormick, had pronounced that there were absolutely no H1N1 vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women in 2009/10, directly contradicting the evidence publicly available.

The very next week at the Sept 14th National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) meeting Dr. McCormick, (despite having been informed on two previous occasions of the VAERS data) pronounced, once again, that there were no adverse events in pregnant women. At the conclusion of the NVAC meeting, during public comment, Dannemann submitted the data again.

McCormick has done this before.

If a criminal recklessly discharges a firearm in the street that can be an offense of reckless endangerment.  If a Federal Health official recklessly ignores plain evidence putting women and unborn children at risk and also causing miscarriages and stillbirths what should the penalty be?  Are life sentences or death penalties appropriate for McCormick and her bosses? They should all face stiff penalties.

Consider the following evidence from a Texas legal case and then ask yourself: “What is the difference between hiring Dr Marie McCormick to sit on one of these vaccine safety committees and hiring her to discharge indiscriminately an M240 machine  gun into a baseball stadium crowd of pregnant school moms and kids“.

Law firm Waters & Kraus produced in a Texas Court a closed session transcript of a US Institutes of Medicine Committee chaired by McCormick to investigate the link between vaccines and autism [On file in the US District Court of Texas, Eastern District; Case #5:03-CV-141]:

Dr. McCormick stated, “we are not ever going to come down that it is a true side effect,” before the committee had considered any evidence [page 97].

Dr. McCormick noted the US CDC “wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis.” [page 33].

McCormick’s IoM committee colleague Dr. Stratton stated “the point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is to pull the vaccine, change the schedule. We could say it is time to revisit this but we will never recommend that level. Even recommending research is recommendations for policy.  We wouldn’t say compensate, we wouldn’t say pull the vaccine, we wouldn’t say stop the program.”[page 74]

And do vaccines cause autistic conditions?  If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this: PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Despite all the lies and deceit by health official worldwide, the question “do vaccines cause autism” was answered after the Hannah  Poling story broke in the USA in February 2008 [see CHS article here].  Hannah developed an autistic condition after 9 vaccines administered the same day.  Under the media spotlight numerous US health officials and agencies conceded on broadcast US nationwide TV news from CBS and CNN. Full details with links to the original sources can be found in this CHS article: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines. [Blue Text added 10 April 2011]

Excerpts and adaptation from speech delivered by Eileen Dannemann, Director, National Coalition of Organized Women Friday, September 3, 2010 to the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) meeting.

“Initially, at the beginning of the H1N1 pandemic consequence management drill there were allegedly 30 maternal deaths.  It was these deaths that the CDC used as the basis to initiate a strenuous and aggressive campaign to vaccinate the pregnant population with the untested H1N1 vaccine.  The CDC ascertained that there were eventually a total of 56 maternal deaths (assuming the fetuses died with them).  Dr. Alicia Siston’s JAMA study (CDC) acknowledged that most of these deaths were ‘unconfirmed’ H1N1 virus caused deaths despite the fact that the CDC had tests that could have verified, for certain, that these were H1N1 related deaths.

Vaccine-related fetal demise reports from VAERS increased 2,440%–from 7 cases in 2007/8 to 178 in 2009/10. Seventy deaths reported from another source had 7 overlapping cases with VAERS, yielding 241 unique cases.  Simplistically speaking, it would have been 85 to 192 times safer not to vaccinate from the perspective of the in-utero child.

Considering that the total of 56 maternal deaths in Dr. Alicia’s Siston’s study, allegedly due to the H1N1 virus itself, are unverified and in light of the overwhelming adverse events reported, we emphasize that inoculating pregnant women with another untested vaccine containing a combination of components found in the offending 2009 H1N1 vaccine is insupportable. Thus, it must be argued that the CDC was grossly negligent to fail to inform their vaccine providers of the incoming VAERS data, while providers blindly followed the CDC “standard of care” guidelines to vaccinate every pregnant woman in 2009/10.  Furthermore, in the face of these findings and the purposeful withholding of these findings by CDC’s Dr. Marie McCormick and her vaccine risk assessment group, for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend another iteration of the same vaccine to pregnant women in 2010/11 may be argued as more than gross negligence -but rather- an act of willful misconduct.

We strongly recommend that the CDC withdraws their continued recommendation to pregnant women, instead, strictly adhering to the FDA/manufacturers warning on the insert packages that the flu shot not be given to pregnant women unless clearly needed.  As well, we suggest that the CDC advise all Ob/Gyns, vaccine providers and the public this year, of last season’s VAERS reports on H1N1 vaccine-related fetal deaths” despite the fact that it may be contrary to CDC’s vaccine uptake performance goals”.

*Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D, author of various peer-reviewed medical journal publications, has verified the capture-recapture

(C-R) figures published in the NCOW report.  Dr. Goldman previously worked for 8 years as a Research Analyst for the L.A. County Department of Health Services in an epidemiological study project funded by the CDC.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 950 other followers