A paper published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics reveals that the European Medicines Agency [EMA] published what seems clearly to be falsified data about the numbers of children who died after receiving Glaxo Smith Kline’s Infanrix Hexa vaccine. A link to the full journal paper is at the end of this article.
The total numbers of children dying were higher in a prior GSK Periodic Safety Report [PSUR16] than in a later one submitted to the EMA some years later [PSUR19]. This was accepted and published by the EMA clearly without exercising the oversight and scrutiny a supposed drug safety regulator should. But as you will see, the EMA does not perform the duties of a safety regulator at all.
Like the EMA other Governments agencies also have a record of behaviour like this as reported in formal journal published research. This applies to the US FDA as this paper shows by authors from Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics Vol. 14, No. 3 (2013): Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs
The authors state:
It is our thesis that institutional corruption has occurred at three levels. First, through large-scale lobbying and political contributions, the pharmaceutical industry has influenced Congress to pass legislation that has compromised the mission of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Second, largely as a result of industry pressure, Congress has underfunded FDA enforcement capacities since 1906, and turning to industry-paid “user fees” since 1992 has biased funding to limit the FDA’s ability to protect the public from serious adverse reactions to drugs that have few offsetting advantages. Finally, industry has commercialized the role of physicians and undermined their position as independent, trusted advisers to patients.
And it is not the first time the MHRA have done something like that. They did exactly the same with GSK’s Pandemrix vaccine – their published safety analysis was manipulated to hide serious health problems caused by the Pandemrix vaccine just as they did with HPV vaccines. With Pandemrix large numbers of children developed narcolepsy and cataplexy which are life-changing conditions.
No one has been prosecuted. No one in the MHRA ever is.
The authors of the journal paper confirm the deception practised by the EMA over Infanrix Hexa deaths in permitting the deletion of records of the sudden deaths of infants to make it look like there is no causal connection with GSK’s Infanrix Hexa and Sudden Infant Death:
….. deaths acknowledged in the PSUR 16 were deleted from the PSUR 19. The number of observed deaths soon after vaccination among children older than one year was significantly higher than that expected by chance once the deleted deaths were restored and included in the analysis. ….. The Drugs Controller General of India nearly automatically accepts drugs and vaccines approved by the EMA. There is a need to reappraise the reliance on due diligence by the EMA. “
What this also shows is that Europeans are not safe taking medicines authorised by the EMA. It confirms what many insiders have known for a long time. Organisations like the EMA and the EMA are not drug safety regulators but republishers of whatever information drug companies supply regarding the safety of the drug companies’ pharmaceutical products.
In essence the EMA does not regulate safety and check but just acts as a republishing channel for the drug industry.
It would be interesting to know what the legal liability of individuals in the EMA is for failing to exercise due diligence and oversight to prevent dangerous drug products being given to children. If any reader knows of a journal published or other reliable source explaining the position either post a comment or email CHS@childhealthsafety.com.
Whatever the law is, if it is not already, it should be presumed that such individuals are engaged in corrupt practices unless they prove without doubt they are not.
There have been too many drug scandals resulting in serious injury and death. Some recent well-known examples: Vioxx = deaths, Pandemrix = narcolepsy and cataplexy in large numbers of children.
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening: Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and other vaccine aware people can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
[Another World Exclusive Below Purple [ 22/Jan/2009]
[World Exclusive – 17 Janred below – New revelations – 15 Jan blue]
[Later Updates in Green including January 2010]
This is the story the UK media have steadfastly not been publishing and of the contrasting unprecedented new developments in the US politically and in the US Federal Court.
The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper reported [13/Jan/09] the British government was refusing the public release under the UK’s Freedom Of Information laws of confidential files on a proven dangerous MMR [measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine. A recent legal case has forced the files open: [Confidential MMR vaccine files should be opened in the public interest, watchdog rules – The Daily Mail – Jenny Hope – 13th January 2009]
The British government has prevented its child citizens being compensated and treated. Money and politics override child health safety. 20 years on children continue to be injured. Starting in 1986 Canada, to 1988 Japan and the UK to the present this previously unpublished account is definitive carefully researched and accessible.
Despite all the lies and deceit by health officials worldwide, the question “do vaccines cause autism” was answered when the Hannah Poling story broke in the USA [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]
In the US Federal Court children have been compensated after findings they developed autism and other injuries. If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this: PDF Download – Text of 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 Attkission
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.”
The UK’s Department of Health and others appear to have been reckless as to the safety of British children over the manner in which Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd’s Pluserix MMR vaccine was introduced and used on British Children in 1988
the problems with Pluserix MMR were known to the supplier, Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd from the experience of its introduction to Canada, in 1986, where Pluserix was marketed under the name “Trivirix”
Trivirix (Pluserix) was withdrawn from use in Canada in 1988 because it was dangerous, causing high levels of adverse reactions in children
the high levels of British adverse reactions to the vaccine were apparent and known about at British Ministerial level in 1990, as shown by ministerial correspondence
Pluserix/Trivirx are the identical vaccine manufactured in the identical Smith Kline factory in Belgium and with the exact same component parts and constituents
despite the Canadian position and contemporaneously with the final withdrawal of Pluserix/Trivirix in Canada the UK signed the contract to purchase Pluserix MMR from Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited in July 1988, even though it was known by then to be too dangerous for use on our children
SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate
the contract was signed up by the backdoor through the North East Thames Regional Health Authority as agent for the NHS Procurement Directorate rather than being a contract directly entered into with the NHS Procurement Directorate which negotiated the contract or the NHS Executive of the time
there was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this and it seems to have been effected in a manner Ministerially deniable
similar problems were experienced in Japan with the Japanese MMR vaccine which, in common with Pluserxi/Trivirix, contained the Urabe strain of mumps virus
the Japanese MMR was also withdrawn by 1992 on safety grounds having caused high levels of adverse reactions
the British government continued the licence for Pluserix MMR after 1992, which enabled it to be supplied overseas
even today, because it is cheaper than safer alternatives, organisations like UNICEF continue supplying urabe strain containing MMR vaccine to the more adverse reaction vulnerable and less well nourished third world children
since 1998, statistical papers claiming no evidence of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism have been published in a blaze of publicity, but when all the noise has died down, on subsequent careful examination, each one has been found to be flawed. These are the same kinds of statistical studies [epidemiology] used by the tobacco industry in the 1940’s and 50’s to claim smoking did not cause lung cancer
other than the Royal Free’s paper, no clinical studies of the MMR child litigants were undertaken or published
after being put under financial pressure by the British Government, in 2005 the Oxford based Cochrane Collaboration published a systematic review of all prior papers and its authors claimed to conclude the MMR vaccine was safe:-
it was shown the authors had violated the standards of evidence-based medicine [ref] and
their conclusions were not supported by the body of the review [ref]
and it later was discovered that the British Department of Health had increased the funding for Cochrane’s Oxford administration by £1 million per annum and extended the contracts of its British groups
Legal Aid funded claims by children started as early as 1991 and well before Dr Andrew Wakefield warned the British public about the vaccine. His efforts were met with the full force of the British establishment to discredit him and proceedings before the General Medical Council resumed only yesterday, which have been going on for three years.
The main false accusation levelled in February 2004 was that Wakefield made his disclosures in a medical paper published in The Lancet medical journal because he wanted to make money being an expert witness in Court. But few people know the following [and there is naturally full documentation on this].
Crispin Davis, the Chief Executive of Reed-Elsevier, the owners of “The Lancet”, had a few months earlier in the July [2003] been brought onto the Board of Directors of MMR litigation Defendants’ parent company GlaxoSmithKline.
[Global publishing giant Reed-Elsevier owns 2,460 scientific journals, including the magazine New Scientist and earns substantial funds from the drug industry in advertising revenue. Corruption in medical publishing is rife. Elsevier was paid by drug giant Merck to publish a fake medical journal with articles favourable to Merck’s drugs: [Merck published fake journal – Bob Grant – The Scientist – 30th April 2009]. Drug maker Wyeth flooded medical journals with some 40 ghostwritten articles penned by prominent physicians who sold their name for cash, in an all-out effort to offset the scientific evidence linking its female hormone replacement drug, Prempro, to breast cancer: [Judge orders Wyeth papers unsealed– Associated Press – July 25, 2009]. Reed-Elsevier’s former chairman, Jan Hommen, attended the secretive annual Bilderberg conference in 2007 and 2010. Bilderberg was described to senior British politician Lord Ashdown as ‘fifty people who run the world and twenty hangers on’: The Ashdown Diaries – Volume One 1988-1997; Penguin – 2000 – ISBN 0 14 029775 8 – pp.42-44] [Blue text added 29 May 2011]].
Brian Deer, a freelance journalist was commissioned by The Sunday Times two months later in September 2003 to write the stories attacking Wakefield.
This was about two weeks before the Legal Services Commission final decision was due on withdrawal of Legal Aid from the MMR children’s UK litigation and which did withdraw legal aid.
The person who commissioned Deer was Paul Nuki, Sunday Times’ sometime Head of Newsroom investigations and “Focus” editor. Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories’ Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval. The CSM approved Pluserix MMR but it caused very high levels of adverse reactions and was withdrawn by the manufacturers on very little notice in late 1992 leaving the Department of Health in an embarrassing position.
Large numbers of British children were injured and legal aid claims had already started from as early as 1991, five years before Wakefield became involved and contrary to The Sunday Times’claims that this was all a scam set up by Wakefield and solicitor Richard Barr.
Sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull. Professor Sir Roy Meadow is now notorious for his evidence falsely condemning mothers around the world for killing their children. This includes the Sally Clark case where vaccines are directly implicated in the cause of death, as revealed by Neville Hodgkinson in The Spectator, (What killed Sally Clark’s child? | The Spectator 16 May 2007 ) but which were specifically discounted by Professor Meadow in his evidence, despite sitting on the joint CSM/JCVI vaccine safety sub-committee with the UK Department of Health’s Head of Immunisation Professor David Salisbury and others to approve the MMR vaccine.
It was Professor Sir David Hull in 1998 who, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, started the attacks on Wakefield’s work. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advises the Department of Health on vaccination issues and the childhood vaccination programme. As Chairman of the JCVI, Professor Sir David Hull could have taken action to deal with the issues over the MMR and protect British children. Despite his attacks on Wakefield’s work, alleging unethical research on children for no clinical benefit, two years later in 2000, it was Professor Sir David Hull who rewrote the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health ethical guidelines to permit research on children where there was no clinical benefit (albeit in The Royal Free’s case all the investigations were clinically justified).
The Sunday Times’ freelancer was assisted in his efforts with free advice and assistance from the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry funded and controlled company Medico Legal Investigations Limited. Medico Legal Investigations Limited speciality was in getting medical doctors on charges before the General Medical Council. So we know that before a single word was published by The Sunday Times, it was already being planned with the involvement of interested parties that Wakefield and colleagues were to be taken before the GMC.
Another free of charge helper to Sunday Times’ journalist Deer was Glaxo Wellcome funded Fellow and active British Medical Association member, Dr Evan Harris MP.Harris has advised and assisted Deer up to the present, including attending the Wakefield GMC hearings with Deer.
The Sunday Times’ freelance journalist was also assisted by The Royal Free’s Strategic Health Authority which in early 2004 passed Deer confidential documents ‘in the spirit of openness’. These included documents relating to the confidential medical treatment of the MMR child litigants. The SHA at first denied providing documents until it was pointed out the fact was disclosed by Dr Evan Harris MP, in Parliament on 15th March 2004.
In 2003 and later the freelance journalist was also being given illegally unofficial access [by a currently unconfirmed source] to confidential internal Royal Free documents. Deer had also by 2003 been provided illegally [by another currently unconfirmed source] with copies of documents from the British MMR litigation including detailed medical notes and histories and expert reports [text added 24/Jan/2010].
On Saturday 21 February 2004, Lancet Editor Richard Horton pre-empted the Sunday Times’ stories. Horton was reported in The Times claiming he would not have published the MMR part of The Royal Free’s Lancet paper had Wakefield’s paid involvement in the MMR litigation been disclosed. The Sunday Times had waited until Sunday 22 February 2004, 5 days before judgment in the MMR child litigants’ High Court challenge to the withdrawal of legal aid, to publish its stories attacking Wakefield. Prime Minister Blair was reported in the press on the issue as was Health Secretary Reid.
As Dr Horton records in his book [“MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis,“], he was the next day exchanging notes over dinner and liqueurs with a member of the UK’s medical regulatory body, The General Medical Council on possible bases for GMC proceedings against Andrew Wakefield: [“The confusion”: Richard Horton – a remarkably frank passage‘ John Stone BMJ 2 November 2004]. Despite being consulted on the charges to be brought Horton was also later to be called as a witness for the GMC prosecution. [Added 25/1/2010]
After years out of government it was politically important to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s New Labour government to have become and to remain electable to demonstrate it’s new credentials as friendly to UK business and commercial interests and “pro science”. The British drug company and vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline was also significant economically achieving annual worldwide drug sales by 2005 of £18.5 billion. Over one third of sales was for vaccines [£1.4 billion] and respiratory drugs [£5 billion] for treating asthma a chronic allergy condition which vaccines play a large part in causing [see further below onVaccines, Autism and Your Child’s Allergies]. [Added 24/1/2010]
That MMR is solely a political and money issue was given away by journalist Jeremy Laurance’s The Independent’s story of 24th February 2004. Laurance reported there was “delight” in Whitehall as “Ministers temper their triumphalism” and that “joy” was “unconfined at the discrediting of Andrew Wakefield“. [“Ministers temper their triumphalism but delight spreads at Whitehall” The Independent – Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor Tuesday, 24 February 2004 ].
This was bizarre if the issue was just which measles vaccine might be given to children. There was an acceptable, cheaper and more effective measles vaccine. This was hardly stuff for Prime Minister Blair to involve himself in but even he jumped in with both feet.
However, in the light of the British government’s financial indemnity to Glaxo, the potential damage to billion pound sterling Glaxo’s financial interests from a scandal over the vaccine and the British government’s liability in negligence to large numbers of children, it starts to make sense. This also puts into clearer perspective why the choice of which measles vaccine children received became a major political issue. It had and has nothing to do with protecting your children from disease or child health safety. [blue text 15/Jan/09]
Legal aid was withdrawn on 27th February 2004 in a secret judgment by High Court Judge Nigel Davis. The reasons remain unpublished today. Evidence given in open court at a different hearing included the allegation from a parent that an official admitted to her that legal aid was withdrawn after government pressure.
It was discovered in 2007 that Judge Sir Nigel Davis is the brother of Lancet owner’s CEO and main Glaxo board member Sir Crispin Davis. When challenged a statement was issued on Judge Davis’ behalf to The Telegraph newspaper’s legal correspondent Joshua Rosenberg and stated “The possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother’s position did not occur to him.“
The outcome of an investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints found no impropriety and resulted in no action taken regarding the relationship between Judge Davis and his brother Crispin Davis’ GlaxoSmithKline board position.
On 15th March 2004 Dr Evan Harris launched an unprecedented and defamatory Parliamentary attack on Wakefield and his Royal Free colleagues and to which not one of Harris’ Liberal Democrat colleagues contributed. This was based on material in documents Sunday Times’ freelancer Deer had obtained and passed to Harris. Harris used the opportunity to raise the allegations The Sunday Times chose not to publish after being dismissed by Lancet Editor Dr Richard Horton. This occurred following a meeting at The Lancet’s offices on 18 February 2004 at which Harris was present with Brian Deer and attended by Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch. Horton wrote of this in his book “The tension had been heightened…. by the shadowy presence of Evan Harris, a Liberal-Democrat Member of Parliament” and “Evan Harris, the MP who had mysteriously joined Brian Deer at the Lancet’s offices …” [Richard Horton,’MMR: Science and Fiction – Exploring the Vaccine Crisis’ Granta Books 2004, pps 3 & 7] [added 25/1/2010].
Harris later attended with Deer at the subsequent GMC hearings [added 27/Jan/2010].
Crispin Davis was awarded a knighthood June 2004.
Sunday Times’ freelance journalist Brian Deer confirmed numerous times on his website [later removed as reported in The Spectator online by journalist Melanie Phillips] that it was he who had made the submissions to the GMC which led to the present GMC proceedings against Wakefield. Wakefield’s lawyers had reported in November 2004 that Deer had made a statutory complaint to the GMC and freelancer Deer reported in the Sunday Times in December 2004 that the General Medical Council was investigating the complaints against Wakefield. In 2004 The Sunday Times journalist wrote three letters of complaint to the GMC: 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004 [added 24/Jan/2010].
Professor Denis McDevitt was due in July 2007 to chair the unprecedented British General Medical Council hearing of the case of Doctors Wakefield, Murch and Professor Walker-Smith. McDevitt and the GMC failed to declare McDevitt’s personal involvement in approving the dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine in 1988. He only stood down after Jamie Doward of the Observer, Martyn Halle, freelance journalist for the Sunday Express, Andy Wilks of the Mail on Sunday, Jenny Hope of the Daily Mail and Heather Mills of Private Eye challenged the GMC over the matter. [“MMR Conflict of Interest Zone” Private Eye – June 2007]
A British Medical Journal post suggests more troubling conflicts of interest of the current panel Chairman Dr Surendra Kumar. Kumar sits on two committees of the authority which licences the MMR vaccine (MHRA), the Independent Review Panel for Advertising and the Independent Review Panel for Borderline Products. Dr Kumar is also a shareholder in MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline. “Re: Financial conflicts – shock horror” John Stone – British Medical Journal – 2 October 2008″ [Blue text 15/Jan/09]
Contrary to Lancet Editor Dr Richard Horton’s evidence to the GMC that he did not know of Wakefield’s paid involvement in the MMR litigation, Horton had detailed correspondence in 1997 disclosing that involvement The correspondence was with Richard Barr, the solicitor who was working on the MMR litigation with Wakefield to help all those seriously injured British children. This correspondence was considerably in advance of Horton’s February 1998 publication in The Lancet of the Royal Free’s paper containing the interpretation that MMR vaccine is associated with autism cases involving inflammatory bowel disease.
Notwithstanding this, the alleged non disclosure of the legal aid funding to Lancet Editor, Dr Richard Horton and the publication of the 1998 Royal Free paper was the nub of Deer’s The Sunday Times’ February 2004 attacks on Wakefield where it was claimed:-
“The investigation has found that when [Wakefield] warned parents to avoid MMR, and published research claiming a link with autism, he did not disclose he was being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers. “
Now we know from this that Horton’s claims do not stand up and with them, those of The Sunday Times fall as well. But of course, not a word in the UK media.
Another key allegation in The Sunday Times’ journalist’s complaints to the GMC was that The Royal Free’s treatment of seriously ill autistic children with serious bowel disorder reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was simply research carried out without ethical approval. But the journalist was referring to the wrong ethical approval granted in December 1996 reference 172-96 when the applicable ethical approval was granted in 1995 reference 162-95. Ethics approval 162-95 was produced by Professor Walker-Smith’s defence team lawyers in the GMC. The production of this evidence contradicted numerous of the GMC’s allegations of professional misconduct against the doctors. In the 90 pages of GMC charges there are 113 references to 172-96.[added 25/Jan/2010].
It seems had it not been for the complaints by The Sunday Times’ freelance journalist or the claims of Lancet Editor Dr Richard Horton, there may never have been any GMC case brought: [“Wakefield unlikely to be charged over MMR scare” – By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor Sunday, 29 February 2004]. [added 25/Jan/2010].
Horton has not returned to the GMC Wakefield hearing this week [13/Jan/09] to clarify his evidence and face cross-examination. It seems only his statement will be read out.
As for the Legal Aid money, for months in 1996 the Royal Free Medical School prevaricated accepting it because “Clearly, this could lead to a case against the Government for damages.” wrote Dean Zuckerman privately to the British Medical Association Secretary on 11th October 1996.
What no one knows and disclosed here publicly exclusively worldwide for the first time is that when The Sunday Times published its allegations against Wakefield in 2004 their journalist already had the documents showing Wakefield – a man accused of doing what he did for the money – was fed up with this and had arranged in May 1997 for all the legal aid monies to be sent back and that he had intended to raise the money himself for the injured children [see copy Freedom of Information memo below – added 17/Jan/09].
It was the Royal Free which instead then reversed its position, decided to accept the money and arranged in July 1997 for it to be paid to special trustees. Wakefield was never going to and never did receive a cent.
Wakefield’s Recent Summary of Sunday Times’ freelance journalist’s Complaints to GMC
Writing recently in the Autism File magazine [July 2009] Andrew Wakefield summarised the position regarding the allegations in The Sunday Times’ journalist’s complaints to the General Medical Council:-
Myths: The Lancet paper
was funded by the Legal Aid Board (LAB)
False – Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. An LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent.
my involvement as a medical expert was kept ‘secret’
False – At least one year before publication, my senior co-authors, the Head of Department and the Dean of the Medical School7, and the CEO of the hospital were informed by me. This fact was also reported in the national press months prior to publication.
children were ‘sourced’ by lawyers to sue vaccine manufacturers
False – Children were referred, evaluated, and investigated on the basis of their clinical symptoms alone, following referral from the child’s physician.
children were litigants
False – At the time of their referral to the Royal Free – the time material to their inclusion in The Lancet paper – none of the children were litigants .
I had an undisclosed conflict of interest
False – The Lancet’s disclosure policy at that time was followed to the letter. Documentary evidence confirms that the editorial staff of The Lancet were fully aware that I was working as an expert on MMR litigation well in advance of the paper’s publication.
did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval
False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval – detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies – was covered by the necessary EC approval.
I ‘fixed’ data and misreported clinical findings
False – There is absolutely no basis in fact for this claim and it has been exposed as false.
findings have not been independently replicated
False – The key findings of LNH and colitis in ASD children have been independently confirmed in 5 different countries.
has been retracted by most of the authors
False – 11 of 13 authors issued a retraction of an interpretation [that MMR vaccine causes autism]. This interpretation is not provided in the paper. While it remains a possibility, a possibility cannot be retracted.
the work is discredited
False – Those attemping to discredit the work have relied upon the myths above. The findings described in the paper are novel and important.
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].
The official HHS position is that they conceded [whether frankly or spin] that vaccines caused Hannah’s autistic symptoms by exacerbating an underlying mitochondrial disorder. The case put the issue high up the US political agenda and continues to receive coast-to-coast media coverage in the USA [but almost total silence in the UK]. CNN lists the autism issue in its top ten US health stories of 2008:-
#2 – Autism – “Debate over the causes of autism continued to rage after a court decided to compensate a family whose daughter developed the disorder after receiving childhood vaccinations” – Autism in CNN’s 2008 top ten US health stories
But Hannah’s case is not isolated and her “underlying” mitochondrial dysfunction appears not to be as rare as the US HHS would like us to think [Explaining Vaccines Autism & Mitochondrial Disorder]. And other cases have been made public [see below for details of another three involving MMR – but we do not know how many cases have been settled quietly, as Hannah’s case was before it became coast-to-coast news in the USA throughout 2008].
US Autism prevalence was put on the US presidential political agenda by all US presidential candidates in 2008:-
US President Barak Obama: “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. …. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” “Obama Climbs On The Vaccine Bandwagon” – April 22, 2008 – David Kirby, Huffington Post]
“You do not want to bring your children into the world where we go on with the number of children who are born with autism tripling every 20 years, and nobody knows why,” Bill Clintonsaid.
In addition to the Hannah Poling case, the US Court also ruled last year in favour of a little boy Benjamin Zeller, deciding that as a result of the MMR vaccination received on 17 November 2004, Benjamin, suffered persistent, intractable seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay [US Court Rules In Favour Of Family In MMR Vaccine Case Ben Zeller J].
the judgement states the US Department of Health and Human Services had no alternative explanation beyond “Unconfirmed speculation by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer’s hypothesization“
the standard of proof being applied in this US Court is identical to that in the English Court.
just like the English Court, these cases are decided by judge alone sitting without a jury [and that means better decisions on fact and evidence – no decisions from jury sympathy for the claimant]
In Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007) MMR vaccine administered in March 2000 and the child was diagnosed with Pervasive Development Disorder [ie. Autistic Spectrum Disorder] secondary to acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). There have also been other reported cases. Michelle Cedillo’s case was one of the first three test cases. Michelle’s was a test case of whether Thiomersal and/or MMR vaccines were the cause of her autism and panapoly of other disorders.
The three test cases were unsucessful with judgements given in early 2009. Michelle Cedillo’s MMR case is under appeal. Just as The Sunday Times Journalist Brian Deer published stories in the UK immediately before the English Court judgment by Judge Davis [brother of Glaxo Director and Lancet CEO Crispin Davis] Deer published again, visiting the USA the week of the US Court decision. He had been also selectively passing documents about the UK litigation to the attorneys for the US defendant the Department of Health and Human Services. [Amended red 18/Jan/10].
The high and rising prevalence of autism brings into stark question the risk-vs-risk ratio of disease-vs-vaccines. In a recent authoritative peer refereed study [January 7, 2009] researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute has found that the seven-to-eight-fold increase in the number of children born with autism in California since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted — and the trend shows no sign of abating: [Press release “UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute study shows California’s autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis” – full text of study found here – “The Rise in Autism and the Role of Age at Diagnosis” Epidemiology 20:1 January 2009]. This authoritative new US study shows:-
the substantial increase in autism is real and
must be caused by environmental factors and cannot be genetic
cannot be explained away as better diagnosis and greater awareness
New figures from the US show a doubling of autism in 5 years [ie. 2002-6 – see Table 1]. This represents US government tax dollars paid out.
TABLE 1 – USA SOCIAL SECURITY AUTISM FIGURES 2002-6
SSI RECIPIENTS
COUNTS FOR ADULTS AND CHILDREN
RECEIVING BENEFITS
FOR AUTISTIC & OTHER PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENT DISORDERS
AS OF DECEMBER IN 2002 – 2006
As Of December In Year
Children 21 and under
Adults 1/
All Recipients
2002
38,324
7,360
45,684
2003
44,076
9,282
53,358
2004
51,581
11,450
63,031
2005
59,479
13,647
73,126
2006
68,050
16,190
84,240
1/ INCLUDES PERSONS AGE 65 AND OVER WITH CLAIM TYPE = DISABILITY.
The US Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) has voted to recommend earmarking millions of dollars in research funds from the Combating Autism Act of 2006 to study the possible role of vaccines in the causation of autism – [“Top Federal Autism Panel Votes For Millions in Vaccine Research” – David Kirby – The Huffington Post – January 5, 2009].
Further recent news from the USA indicates US President Barak Obama is serious on the vaccines-to-autism issue [“TV’s Gupta Chosen for US Surgeon General” – By Ceci Connolly and Howard Kurtz – Washington Post Staff Writers – Wednesday, January 7, 2009].
And what is the British Department of Health doing about this? It seems nothing whatsoever, even though at the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee 17th June 2008 MPs and Peers heard Cambridge autism expert Professor Simon Baron-Cohen concede to a questioner that more research into the vaccine/autism connection is needed and that a recent study indicates autism costs the UK £28 Billion pa. The £28 billion figure includes hidden costs, like costs of people taken out of the economy, whether those affected or their carers. [LSE “Economic Consequences of Autism in the UK” – Study by team led by Professor Martin Knapp [Executive Summary] [NB. The main defect in the research is the assumption there are 433,000 are adults (aged 18 and over) who have autistic spectrum disorders. We have the research to show there are approximately 107,000 children but there is not such a number of adults, the 433,000 being a projection based on the numbers of children.]
Here are some of the politics and cronyism of Labour’s approach to burying the autism problem. Surprisingly, we do not have any official “body count” of autistic children and adults. All we have is the “first ever” prevalence study commissioned by the DoH in 2008 [announced by Ivan Lewis] but seemingly involving “Tony’s Cronies”. “Department of Health announces adult autism strategy” – Thursday, 8-May-2008.
The study is to find all the adult autistics who should exist [to prove autism has always been this high] and is not due to report until this year. Minister Tessa Jowell’s first husband and New Labour stalwart, Roger Jowell’s old company, NatCen is involved. NatCen (The National Centre for Social Research) is billed as a “not-for-profit” company and works almost exclusively for government and governmental organisations. : [“University of Leicester to lead audit of adults with autism” Eurekalert – 9-May-2008].
To prove autism has always been this high the authors must find approximately 400,000 adult autistics in the UK and their assumed approx 400,000 carers. But there cannot be that many. Office for National Statistics figures show the total number of adults caring for a dependent adult or relative in September 2001 for any reason was 326,000: [Data source: “Census figures Table 1-7 “The economically inactive who look after the family or home“]
Measles Comparison
See here how the risk to children in Western economies from measles is now insignificant for the vast majority MEASLES MORTALITY UK & USA.
In addition to the new MMR vaccine, in 1990 infants were also “hit” with the “accelerated” DTP vaccine schedule – receiving three DTP shots – one each at 2, 3 and 4 months. Prior to this the intervals were 3, 5 and 9 to 12 months of age. The DTP vaccine contained a highly neurotoxic ingredient. The ingredient was an organo-mercury excipient called “Thiomersal” [“Thimerosal” in the USA]. Thiomersal is toxic in parts per billion – in extremely small dilutions. The vaccine was The Wellcome Foundation’s Trivax AD DTP vaccine. The Wellcome Foundation is now GlaxoSmithKline.Thiomersal was first introduced by pharmaceutical company Merck in the 1930s and was not clinically trialled for safety in use in vaccines.
Research shows that children with autism appear to have deficient mechanisms for expelling toxins like mercury and it accumulates in the body.
Revealed here exclusively worldwide for the first time, information obtained under the UK’s Freedom of Information law confirms the British MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency] has no data on how much Thiomersal was in Trivax AD DTP vaccine. Although the British DoH [Department of Health] claimed publicly to have known, that claim therefore appears incorrect.
Video:University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine – How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration
Thiomersal is also known to induce allergy. Many children, in particular those with regressive autism, have serious problems with allergies. Some have exceptionally high levels of IgE, [the allergic antibody immunoglobulin E].
The date of the rise can be tracked back to 1990 using publicly available data. This increase has occurred in parallel with significant increases in other disorders like autism, asthma and childhood diabetes.
Thiomersal is a well recognised cause of allergies: [The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products – Medicines Evaluation Unit – Safety Working Party Assessment of the Toxicity of Thiomersal in Relation to Its Use in Medicinal Product SCPMP/SWP/I898/1998 – 8 September 1998].
Thiomersal is not the only component of vaccines which causes allergy. Adjuvants are an ingredient in almost all vaccines and cause allergy. US biotech company BioSante’s CEO, Steve Simes said on the launch of their new adjuvant:-
The problem with most adjuvants is that they can cause allergies,” said Simes. “Ours might not be as potent as others, but it is safer.”
And again revealed here exclusively worldwide for the first time is the recent British 2006-7 Parliamentary session House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Report “Allergy” [6th Report of Sesssion] makes no mention whatsoever ofany vaccine or of Thiomersal in vaccines or as being a cause of the exponential rise in childhood allergies which has occurred since 1990 in the UK [Amended 18/Jan/10].
The use of Thiomersal in other pharmaceuticals [eg. contact len cleaning fluid] has been strictly controlled in Europe: CPMP Position Paper on Thiomersal – Implementation of the Warning Statement Relating to Sensitisation. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products London, 21 October 1999 CPMP/2612/99]
Thiomersal contains 50% by weight of mercury. There is no safe limit – only a “permitted daily/weekly tolerable” limit. This is measured in parts per million per kilogramme of body weight. Those limits apply when ingested in food]. This neurotoxic organo-mercury compound was injected directly into infants’ bodies at a time their bodies and nervous systems were developing the most rapidly at any time in their lives. The amount of thiomersal claimed to be in Trivax AD DTP vaccine was 50 millionths of a gramme injected directly into the body.
A 4 kilo weight 2 month old baby would have received in one injection 63 times higher than the permitted tolerable daily intake in food set by the US Environmental protection Agency and the UK’s Committee on Toxicity.
To protect infants the PTWI set by the UK Committee on Toxicity for intake of mercury compounds in food for women who are pregnant, or who may become pregnant within the following year, or for breast-feeding mothers is one tenth of a millionth of gramme per kilogramme of body weight per day – for a 9 stone woman [57 kg] that is 5.7 millionths of a gram per day.
Calculation of an infant’s daily and overall body burden of toxic mercury must also include the burden from environmental pollution. [Sources include mercury in the air from power station emissions and in fish as a result of oceanic pollution by anti-fouling applied to ships’ hulls. Mercury is liquid at room temperature and evaporates forming a toxic vapour in the air].
Also revealed here worldwide for the first time under Freedom of Information is that the British Government also had no data on Thiomersal content of many other vaccines around that time and some had more than claimed by the British government was in DTP. Examples are Duncan Flockhart’s DTP vaccine – 130 millionths of a gramme thiomersal per millilitre and Lister Institute Pertussis vaccine – 120 mcg/ml Thiomersal. Accordingly, this brings into question how much was in Trivax AD DTP vaccine.
The British Government also hid this lack of knowledge from Parliament. A further revelation made here exclusively worldwide for the first timeis that British Health Minister Hazel Blears MP misled the English Parliament in 2001 when she said in a Parliamentary answer that“All childhood vaccines licensed since 1986 which have ever contained thiomersal as an excipient are listed in the table” [to the answer]. [House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 3 Jul 2001 (pt 19)]. The table contained no such details and listed only those vaccines granted a licence in the UK since 1993.
Julie Kirkbride MP had asked for the “vaccines …. licensed since 1986 which contain thiomersal“.
If you are asked have you been licensed to drive your car since 2006, you will answer “yes” even if you have held a licence since 1980. Blears’ answer was in fact the answer to the question of the “vaccines granted a licence since 1986 which contain Thiomersal”.
The British Government claims Thiomersal was phased out of its childhood vaccines in October 2004 [but vaccine stocks may have taken longer to run down and how safe is what has replaced it?].
A previously confidential 1991 internal Merck memorandum published by the USA’s Los Angeles Times shows the UK authorities had then known about the problem and were privately expressing concern to the vaccine manufacturer about the presence of mercury in vaccines. This was along with Sweden, Japan and Switzerland: [‘91 Memo Warned of Mercury in Shots – By Myron Levin – LA Times – February 08, 2005].
So why did they take 13 years to do something about it and why did they and do they continue to tell the British public there is and was no problem when they knew there was and is? And as vaccines also alter the functioning of the immune system, the removal of Thiomersal may well not be the only factor affecting the increases in autism, asthma, allergies and childhood diabetes. [see above – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments].
On 7-8 June 2000, a confidential private meeting without public scrutiny took place between vaccine manufacturers’ representatives, 51 US scientists, and a representative of the World Health Organization. This was to discuss a study by US Centers for Disease Control expert Dr Thomas Verstraeten of increasing doses of Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. Verstraeten used US Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) data, an official US governmental data bank on the children from US health maintenance organizations (HMOs).
Verstraeten’s study showed a dose-response relationship between Thimerosal in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders in children that held up to rigorous statistical analyses. This means Verstraeten’s study showed a causal association between the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines a child received and the extent to which the child developed the symptoms of impaired brain development . These ranged from tics, speech impairment to symptoms of and full autism. The discussions can be read in the transcript of the Simpsonwood Conference obtained by US organisaton SafeMinds under Freedom of Information.
Three years later Dr Thomas Verstraeten, MD, MSc [now working for GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Belgium] published a different paper in the journal Pediatrics: [“Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases“. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. Pediatrics.2003; 112 :1039 –1048]. The new paper included another set of data from a third HMO, reorganised the criteria for inclusion of children and restructured the patient groupings, and a less than statistically significant link was demonstrated. It was heavily criticised by campaigners and concerned experts. Verstraeten published a vigorous letter in his defence in which he rejected any suggestion of impropriety: [“Thimerosal, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and GlaxoSmithKline“]: PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 4 April 2004, pp. 932.
What can be said about this? When Verstraeten was a public official working for the US CDC there was a serious problem. When Verstraeten was working for GlaxoSmithKline there was no problem.
The IOM committee held closed meetings to discuss the report’s content and before considering the evidence. A transcript of a meeting on 12th January 2001 was disclosed in Court proceedings [US District Court of Texas, Eastern District; Case #5:03-CV-141].
Here are some quotes from the transcript:-
[the Centers for Disease Control] “wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis.” [p33]
“We said this before you got here, and I think we said this yesterday, 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 would 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.” [p74]
“we are not ever going to come down that it is a true side effect,” [p97]
“Chances are, when all is said and done, we are still going to be in this category. It is just a general feeling that we probably still are not going to be able to make a statement,” [p123]
If you found this information helpful there are two things you can do about it.
Please share this page with others
email the links to this page to others
post links to this page
on your website
on your blog
in comments on relevant websites and blogs
email them to health journalists and journalists from your local newspapers, TV and radio stations – [phone them for details of email addresses or look them up on the internet]
UK Residents – Write To Your Politicians – Do It Now!
Write to your Member of Parliament with the link to this page. If you do not write to your MP, and do not keep on writing them, then don’t complain when politicians do nothing. Write to your Member of Parliament with the link to this page. It is their job to represent you.
Ask your MP to ask the UK’s Secretary of State to explain why the British Government allows officials of the UK’s Department of Health to cause the human rights of children to be violated.
To email your MP, all you need to know is your MP’s name. MP’s email addresses are in the form:-
In the US the official diagnostic definition of what we call “Autism Spectrum Disorders” or ASD are instead called “Pervasive Development Disorders” or PDD for short. That is under the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn)” or “DSM IV” for short.
“Autistic Spectrum Disorder” is the term applied internationally under the “ICD” or “International Classification of Disease”
Many refer to ASD and PDD as “autism” but “autism” is a subset of the spectrum and is often referred to also as “childhood autism”, “typical autism” and “Kanner autism”. [The common behaviours like hand flapping, loss of eye contact and suchlike in young children are unmistakable, whereas other spectrum disorders like mild Aspergers Syndrome can be more difficult to diagnose.]
Copyright ChildHealthSafety 2009 – The authors hereby assert their moral rights. All rights reserved.
For a Court of Human Rights to infringe the human rights of children when making vaccination for children compulsory is without doubt embarrassing for the Court, but there is much more to be embarrassed about in relation to the Court’s 2021 final decision in the case of Vavricka and Others v. the Czech Republic.
The European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR] is often criticised for its decisions by those with political motives who disagree with the Court or with the idea that humans should have rights. There is no shortage of critics with partisan motives.
The Defendants in cases before the ECtHR are exclusively the governments of signatory States in one form or another. Thus behind them are the elected political representatives who hold power as the governing parties and who may have political motives to criticise the ECtHR.
But this time there is a most significant difference. The critic is not a politically partisan external commentator.
This time, of the 16 ECtHR judges who made the decision, the seventeenth is the critic.
Judge Krzysztof Wojtyczek of Poland is no newcomer to law. That is also apparent from the terms in which Judge Wojtyczek’s decision dismantles the evidence and legal and judicial reasoning of his 16 colleagues and raises manifold serious deficiencies in it.
This article contains an analysis citing extracts from Judge Wojtyczek’s decision.
It is almost as if the majority took the opportunity to make a political decision to gain favour with the governments of the signatory states to the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] thinking compulsory vaccination would be an easy target with minimal harm caused to them and to the Court.
The ECtHR appears to have violated basic human rights of the child applicants in the case, including dispensing with the legal rules of procedural fairness in their effort to make this remarkably defective decision which is of such importance to children and their families worldwide.
The criticisms of the dissenting judgement from Judge Wojtyczek are well made. It is a careful considered assessment of the issues from an experienced judge, lawyer and jurist, which identifies manifold deficiencies in the majority decision striking at the heart of human rights laws.
One is forced to ask how is it possible that only one judge of 17 judges was so insightful and so capable of identifying these manifold fundamental deficiencies in the decision when his 16 colleagues appeared oblivious to what they were doing in coming to such a judgement.
It is as if only one judge of the ECtHR was capable of identifying and analysing the issues and acting judicially when his colleagues failed to.
The decision brings the credibility of the ECtHR into question and whether it has become an unsuitable forum for deciding such matters. In the USA, the founding fathers incorporated an ultimate protection into the Constitution – that of the right to bear arms against the tyranny of governments. The ECHR has no equivalent so it is even more important that the ECtHR is respected and is widely accepted to have credibility.
This decision does not support that.
The majority’s judgement is of poor quality and particularly for a judgement which was referred directly to the ECtHR Grand Chamber to forestall any appeal – a manoeuvre which also seems intended to deprive the child litigants and their parents of fundamental human rights in the event of a defective decision [which this decision according to Judge Wojtyczek’s judgment is].
It has the appearance of a political decision masquerading as a judicial one.
A report from the European Centre for Law & Justice (ECLJ) in Strasbourg reveals some disturbing conflicts of interest amongst some of the ECtHR judges including cases heard by judges with links via a political NGO to one or more parties. Available in English, French and Spanish the report is titled “ONG et les juges de la CEDH, 2009-2019” [“NGOs and the Judges of the ECHR, 2009 – 2019“]. ECLJ is an international organization dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights and religious freedom throughout the world. ECLJ has held special Consultative Status before the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations since 2007. The report in question was prepared by Mr. Grégor Puppinck, PhD, Director of the ECLJ, who also takes part in the Committee of Experts on the Reform of the ECtHR, along with Delphine Loiseau, Associate Research fellow at ECLJ.
JUDGE WOJTYCZEK’S CRITICISMS OF THE COURT’S DECISION
Bold and underlining for emphasis has been added to highlight significant aspects.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE DECISION
For such an important case with implications for all children in Europe, the submissions of all parties were and remain lacking in sophistication. This is particularly the case regarding the medical and scientific issues.
Similarly, also for such an important case, the evidence in support was scant to non-existent.
Judge Wojtyczek noted:
“[the Court] should seek to establish the material truth. The existing case law does not shed much light on the precise meaning of Article 38 with regard to the role of the Court. In many cases, the Court’s reasoning states that the Court can rely upon evidence introduced proprio motu and suggests that its role is to establish the material truth …… Under such an approach the outcome of the case should not depend upon the quality of the pleadings.
……. The comprehensive system of presumptions developed in the Court’s case-law suggests that the Court relies upon formal truth and the activity of the parties alone. Similarly, the fact that the Court usually accepts as established those factual allegations that are made by one party and not rebutted by the other party also points to this conclusion
………. The existing case-law and judicial practice are highly unclear and ambiguous with regard to the role of the Court and the purpose of the proceedings (establishing the material or formal truth). While the answer to this question may admittedly in some instances have no bearing on the manner in which the parties plead or on the outcome of the case, in many other cases it may be fundamental for the parties’ pleading strategies and determinative for the outcome. There is therefore an urgent need to clarify this issue in order to ensure procedural fairness.
……… In the instant case, the evidence which, in my view, would be necessary to show that the interference complained of was compatible with the Convention does exist, but has neither been submitted by the parties nor gathered proprio motu by the Court. However, I cannot rely upon my own knowledge of the matter and scientific data gathered by my own means in order to supplement the shortcomings in the material gathered by the Court
……… Since the instant case concerns a general issue that is important for all 47 High Contracting Parties, its resolution should not depend upon the quality of the parties’ pleadings. In a case such as this one, there are strong reasons to rely upon the principle of material truth and the Court’s entitlement to act proprio motu and, in particular, to appoint independent experts. In the absence of such steps, the remaining – although highly unsatisfactory – option is to apply the principle of formal truth and to decide the case on the basis of submissions and evidence put forward by the parties.”
COURT’S INAPPROPRIATE APPROACH TO EVIDENCE AND PROOF
Judge Wojtyczek wrote:
“The existing case-law clearly determines that in disputes concerning the compatibility with the Convention of an interference with Article 8 rights, the burden of proof and argumentation lies upon the Government. Under this case-law, the Government must justify the interference complained of, by providing relevant and sufficient reasons …..
Applicants bringing cases under Article 8 have a strong legitimate expectation that the Court will continue to impose upon the respondent Government the burden of justifying the given interference. …. it is for the Government to show a pressing social need and to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the obligation to vaccinate for each and every one of the diseases in question. ……
Moreover, the existing case-law suggests that any interference with the freedom not to undergo an unconsented medical intervention requires a strong justification and that the margin of appreciation left to the States parties is narrow (see point 7 below). ……
The Court, however, established a standard of scrutiny based upon a wide margin of appreciation ….. justified by questionable arguments and coupled with a marked deference to the choices made by the domestic authorities ……. The standard of scrutiny actually applied is even lower than that stated. In my view, this approach amounts to an unexpected jurisprudential development, impacting upon the litigation. In any event …… it would have been necessary to warn the parties in advance about the envisaged standard of review and to request their views on this issue, enabling them also to bring – if they considered it necessary – additional substantive submissions under a more precisely identified standard of scrutiny.”
So one has to ask whether the processes and procedures followed constitute a fair hearing in keeping with established norms of procedural fairness and whether the Court has infringed the human rights of the applicants in acting as it has done.
THE COURT’S BASIS FOR AND JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS FINDINGS
This aspect of the case is remarkable. The Court ignored facts which it should have treated as admitted by the Czech government. In other words, the 16 judges in the majority chose to cherry-pick the evidence they preferred in order to come to their clearly defective decision and omitted mention of these aspects.
Judge Wojtyczek wrote:
“I note in this context that the applicants formulated an important number of factual allegations which are relevant in the instant case and which have not been contested by the Government. …….
The parties could have expected that such uncontested allegations would be considered as established by the Court. However, they do not form part of the factual findings made in the instant case. Some allegations pertaining to the integrity of the decision-making process were dismissed as unsubstantiated ….. while others were simply ignored ……
…. it is necessary to explain in detail under which conditionsthe Court considers allegations made by one party and not contested by the other to be established. Clarity in this respect is essential for the parties.
WHETHER COMPULSORY VACCINATION IS A JUSTIFIED INTERFERENCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
Here the Judge summarises his main objections to the majority decision. These are fundamental aspects about which there are and remain significant deficiencies in the majority judgement.
In short, on a fair reading of the majority judgement compared to this dissenting judgement, it looks as if the majority just went through routine steps of creating a judgement without being too concerned about how they arrived at it. The level of dereliction of duty becomes ever more apparent the further one reads into it and Judge Wojtyczek’s critique. The former is imprecise and omits important aspects and the latter demonstrates this blow-by-blow.
Judge Wojtyczek wrote:
“My objections pertain in particular to: (i) the standard of scrutiny established by the majority; (ii) the factual basis of the judgment; (iii) the way in which the conflict of valueshas been approached; and (iv) the assessment of the decision-making process at the national level.
The question to be answered is ….. whether it is acceptable under the Convention to impose sanctions for non-compliance with the legal obligation to undergo vaccination. More specifically, the question is whether the added value brought by the obligation justifies the restriction on freedom of choice. For this purpose, it is necessary to demonstrate that the values protected in such a system outweigh the values which are affected. It is necessary to show, in particular, that the benefits for society as a whole and for its members outweigh the individual and social costs and justify taking the risk of suffering the side-effects of a vaccination.Given the weight of the values at stake, such an assessment requires extremely precise and comprehensive scientific data about the diseases and vaccines under consideration. Without such data the whole exercise becomes irrational.
………….. The obligation to vaccinate concerns children and constitutes a State interference with the bodily integrity of children. This is an important argument for applying even higher standards of scrutiny to the justification of the interference.”
ON HOW MUCH DISCRETION [“MARGIN OF APPRECIATION”] STATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED
In human rights law, States are in some circumstances allowed a broad discretion and in others a narrow discretion in the measures they adopt.
A striking aspect to the majority decision is a tacit assumption running throughout it that the State is acting benevolently in the interests of its citizens. In healthcare that is not true.
This makes this part of Judge Wojtyczek’s analysis and decision of greater significance.
Corruption in healthcare has developed over decades and is now entrenched.
The individual seeks healthcare in many circumstances where there is no choice and in others where the alternative to healthcare is to suffer poor health. The individual commonly lacks the complex skills and knowledge needed and so is in the hands of the professional. The professional seeks payment for services rendered to profit. And suppliers of pharmaceutical products and medical equipment supply for payment and profit.
Healthcare corruption has been present at least as long as the practice of medicine has been organised and regulated. It pervades all levels. No part of healthcare is unaffected: from professional and higher education; journal and other publishing; in professions and professional bodies; in government and government agencies; in the civil services serving government, the commercial interests this serves for the pharmaceutical industries.
This is of course not to say that all individual medical professionals are corrupt but none of them can avoid the the consequences of longstanding healthcare corruption.
One consequence is a substantial body of biased and unreliable information and expertise.
States, relying upon or promoting false information about the risks and benefits of pharmaceuticals generally and vaccines in particular very likely breach the State’s obligation to take reasonable steps to protect life. The use and repetition of false health information by the State and self-censorship by online, broadcast and print media, may make it impossible to judge where the greater risks lie. When taken with the wider corruption in healthcare, these aspects create a substantial body of official, professional and public healthcare misinformation designed to promote State policies which are not driven solely by a desire to perform public duties in the interests of the citizens of a State.
With that general context one can more readily appreciate the overall importance of Judge Wojtyczek’s judgement.
On the breadth of the State’s discretion he notes:
“In this domain, the margin of appreciation should be narrow and the threshold to justify the interference very high.”
And he included in his reasoning:
“The majority in the instant case defines the applicable standard in the following way:
“280. As reiterated above (see paragraph 274), the Court has previously held that healthcare policy matters come within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities. Having regard to the above considerations and applying its well-established case-law principles, the Court takes the view that in the present case, which specifically concerns the compulsory nature of child vaccination, that margin should be a wide one.”
This approach is difficult to accept. Under the established case-law, when determining the margin of appreciation, the Court considers that the following factors may plead in favour of widening it, without however prejudging its precise scope:
(i) a lack of consensus within the member States of the Council of Europe as to the relative importance of the interest at stake;
(ii) a lack of consensus within the member States of the Council of Europe as to the best means of protecting it;
(iii) the fact that the case under examination raises sensitive moral or ethical issues.
Against this backdrop it should be noted that there is a broad consensuswithin the member States of the Council of Europe that:
(i) bodily integrityshould be protected against involuntary medical treatment;
(ii) the most appropriate method of protecting it consists in subjecting such interventionsto the consent of the persons concerned. ……….
………. The instant case is neither about access to health services nor the manner in which they are organised (positive rights) but about the freedom to dispose of one’s own body and freedom from unconsented medical intervention (negative rights).
The issue at stake is crucial to the individual’s effective enjoyment of the most intimate rights, in a context in which there is no direct conflict between two or more rights and in which the right-holder asserts freedom from interference and does not claim any positive entitlements. Restrictions on the freedom to make choices about one’s own body, imposed outside the context of a direct conflict between two or more rights, require strong justifications.
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR THE COURT’S DECISION
This aspect of Judge Wojtyczek’s analysis is striking regarding what is meant to be the approach of experienced colleagues as lawyers and judges. The Judge Wojtyczek displays and appropriate lawyerly and analytical approach to evidence, fact-finding and decision-making which it is remarkable to observe, his colleagues failed to.
One might justifiably form an opinion that the majority were not concerned how they reached their decision provided it did not upset the status quo and so did not cause them political problems and subject them to criticism and scrutiny had they done so.
Judge Wojtyczek wrote:
“I note in this context that the majority shows a reluctance to rely on hard scientific data. They prefer to rely on value judgments and policy recommendations formulated by experts as if these had the same value as experts’ statements concerning facts.”
And he included in his reasoning:
“In the Czech Republic, the list of compulsory vaccinations encompasses nine diseases. These diseases are very different to each other. A rational assessment of whether the obligation to vaccinate complies with the Convention requires that the case be examined separately for each disease, proceeding on a disease-by-disease basis. For each and every disease, it is necessary to establish:
– the manner and speed of its transmission;
– the risks for infected persons;
– the average cost of individual treatment for the disease in the case of non-vaccinated patients, and the prospects of success of such treatment;
– the precise effectiveness of the available vaccines;
– the average cost of a vaccination;
– the risk of side effects of vaccination;
– the average costs of treating the undesirable effects of the vaccination;
– the minimum percentage of vaccinated persons which would prevent the disease from spreading (if applicable) and the prospects of achieving such an objective.
….. The majority’s overall approachis summarised in the following quote (see paragraph 300 of the judgment): “As for the effectiveness of vaccination, the Court refers once again to the general consensus over the vital importance of this means of protecting populations against diseases that may have severe effects on individual health, and that, in the case of serious outbreaks, may cause disruption to society (see paragraph 135 above)”.
It seems that both the respondent Government and the majority consider that the answer is so self-evident that it is unnecessary to resort to more detailed considerations to justify the interference. I do not share this view. The assessment of the legitimacy of the interference in the instant case requires expert medical knowledge.
Although the materials presented to the Court and summarised in the reasoning, particularly in paragraphs 152-157, include extensive expert statements, they do not contain the crucial data listed above. It is therefore not true that extensive scientific evidence has been gathered in the instant case (see paragraph 306). In particular, it is not sufficient to establish that the specific risk posed to an individual’s health by a vaccination is “very rare” (as indicated in paragraph 301). It is necessary to calculate with the utmost precision the risk for each and every disease separately, on the basis of comprehensive and reliable data, collected not only in the Czech Republic but also in other States. The possible counterargument that the vaccines have been tested, considered as safe and approved by the competent public bodies does not suffice to justify the obligation to vaccinate.
In my view, given that the evidence submitted by the parties is not sufficient to decide on the general issues raised in the case and that the decision-making process at the domestic level was not fully satisfactory (see point 16 below), the Court should have appointed independent experts in order to have sufficient grounds to evaluate the possible risks properly and to take a rational judicial decision in the instant case.”
Throughout the judgement the Court mentioned as justification for compulsory vaccination that the vaccinations are to protect against serious contagious diseases. But if one fairly and properly examines the facts on a disease-by-disease basis this is not true.
Indeed, it is by all ethical measures unethical to vaccinate all children with a vaccine for diseases which pose no risk to children in general. An example is rubella.
Furthermore, the failure by States to develop or promote the development of effective treatments for common childhood infectious diseases which might pose a material risk to some children is likely to breach Article 2 obligations. And if such treatments did exist the justification for mass vaccination programmes of healthy children not at risk from such diseases would vanish and along with them the material risks of adverse reactions.
CRITICISM OF THE COURT’S APPROACH TO RESOLVING CONFLICTING INTERESTS AND VALUES
ON FORCIBLE ADMINISTRATION
Judge Wojtyczek wrote:
…. It is not true that “there is no provision allowing for vaccination to be forcibly administered” ….. Small children usually resist vaccination. …… While it is true that the State cannot apply coercion directly in respect of children in this context, the whole system relies upon the following principle: sanctions are imposed upon parents so that they convince their children or, if necessary, use coercion to force their own children to undergo vaccination.
ON WHO SHOULD DECIDE
…. The majority addresses in this context the issue of the best interests of the child. They express, in particular, the following views (see paragraph 288 of the judgment):
“It follows that there is an obligation on States to place the best interests of the child, and also those of children as a group, at the centre of all decisions affecting their health and development. … The Court understands the health policy of the respondent State to be based on such considerations, in the light of which it can be said to be consistent with the best interests of the children who are its focus ….”
This approach triggers the following remarks. It is for the parents, not the State, to take decisions pertaining to children, to define their best interests and to guide the children in the exercise of their rights (compare M.A.K. and R.K. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 45901/05 and 40146/06, §§ 75-79, 23 March 2010). Parental rights may be limited only in exceptional circumstances (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019) and, in principle, the best interests of a child may be invoked against parents only once the latter’s parental rights have been limited or forfeited.
ON THE CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE HEALTH POLICY AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
… In the instant case, the central question around the best interests of the children is not whether the general health policy of the respondent State promotes the best interests of children as a group, but instead how to assess in respect of each and every specific child of the applicant parents, with the child’s specific health background, whetherthe different benefits from vaccination will indeed be greater than the specific risk inherent in it. The parents – sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, but in good faith – may identify certain very individual risk factors which escape the attention of other persons.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES
The applicants rely upon the argument that less restrictive alternatives are available, in that the same aims can be achieved without imposing the obligation to vaccinate. They rely for this purpose on comparative law, which indicates that many States consider that public health objectives may be achieved without making vaccinations compulsory. This argument has not been convincingly rebutted by the Government, which merely mentioned, in a very general way, the risk that “a possible decline in the rate of vaccination would [arise] were it to become a merely recommended procedure” (see paragraph 283 of the judgment). However, the applicants’ argument deserves very thorough consideration and requires a persuasive rebuttal.
I note in this context that the Court has previously expressed the following views on these questions:
“65. As to the Federal Court’s argument that the question whether there were other possibilities apart from the dissolution of the association was of little importance in the present case (see point 4.3 of the Federal Court judgment, paragraph 23 above), the Court would observe that it has ruled in a different context that, in order for a measure to be considered proportionate and necessary in a democratic society, there must be no other means of achieving the same end that would interfere less seriously with the fundamental right concerned (see Glor v. Switzerland, no. 13444/04, § 94, ECHR 2009). In the Court’s opinion, in order to satisfy the proportionality principle fully, the authorities should have shown that no such measures were available.” (Association Rhino and Others v. Switzerland, no. 48848/07, § 65, 11 October 2011), and
“… in order for a measure to be considered proportionate and necessaryin a democratic society, there must be no other means of achieving the same end that would interfere less seriously with the fundamental right concerned. In the Court’s opinion, in order to satisfy the proportionality requirement, the burden is on the authorities to show thatno such measures were available (see Association Rhino and Others, cited above, § 65).” (Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, no. 33203/08, § 58, 12 June 2014).
……..
“The central question as regards such measures is not, as the applicant suggested, whether less restrictive rules should have been adopted or, indeed, whether the State could prove that, without the prohibition, the legitimate aim would not be achieved. Rather the core issue is whether, in adopting the general measure and striking the balance it did, the legislature acted within the margin of appreciation afforded to it (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 51; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, § 53; and Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 91, all cited above).”
It is not clear why in some casesthe Court addresses the issue of the existence of less restrictive alternatives, whereas in most cases it passes the question under silence and in other cases it explicitly rejects the test in question. The issue is important for devising pleading strategies. Had the applicants known that the “less restrictive alternative” test would be rejected, they would have probably pleaded the case differently. In my view, it is necessary to provide clarity concerning the scope of application of the “less restrictive alternative” test, so that the parties may rely upon more precise principles in future cases.
ON THE NEED FOR COMPULSORY VACCINATION
I also note that no evidence was presented to the Court which would show that those States which have introduced the obligation to vaccinate perform better in terms of public health than the States which have not introduced such an obligation. In this second group, no decline in the rate of vaccination below the recommended targets has been established before the Court. The fact that in many Statesthe objectives of health policy can apparently be achieved without introducing an obligation to vaccinate is a very powerful argument that less restrictive means are indeed available and that the impugned interference is not necessary in a democratic society. The fact that the majority explicitly dismisses the “less restrictive alternative” test without further explanations for this rejection gives the impression that the applicants’ point under this test would have been taken had it been applied.
INVALIDITY OF MAJORITY ARGUMENTS FOR COMPULSORY VACCINATION
“In paragraph 272 of the judgment the majority states:
“With regard to the aims pursued by the vaccination duty, as argued by the Government and as recognised by the domestic courts, the objective of the relevant legislation is to protect against diseases which may pose a serious risk to health. This refers both to those who receive the vaccinations in question as well as those who cannot be vaccinated and are thus in a state of vulnerability, relying on the attainment of a high level of vaccination within society at large for protection against the contagious diseases in question.”
In paragraph 306 they further argue:
“The Court considers that it cannot be regarded as disproportionate for a State to require those for whom vaccination represents a remote risk to health to accept this universally practised protective measure, as a matter of legal duty and in the name of social solidarity, for the sake of the small number of vulnerable children who are unable to benefit from vaccination.”
“Those to whom such treatment cannot be administered are indirectly protected against contagious diseases as long as the requisite level of vaccination coverage is maintained in their community, i.e. their protection comes from herd immunity. Thus, where the view is taken that a policy of voluntary vaccination is not sufficient to achieve and maintain herd immunity, or herd immunity is not relevant due to the nature of the disease (e.g. tetanus), domestic authorities may reasonably introduce a compulsory vaccination policy in order to achieve an appropriate level of protection against serious diseases.”
I do not see any logical link between the first and the second sentence: this is a non sequitur. Moreover, the fact that “herd immunity is not relevant due to the nature of the disease (e.g. tetanus)” does not suffice to justify the power of the domestic authorities to “introduce a compulsory vaccination policy in order to achieve an appropriate level of protection against serious diseases”.
SPURIOUS AND INVALID ARGUMENTS TO JUSTIFY COMPULSORY VACCINATION
“Lastly, the applicants argued that the system was incoherent, in that while small children were required to be vaccinated, this did not apply to those employed in preschools. The Court notes, however, the Government’s reply that the general vaccination duty, which consists of initial vaccinations as well as booster vaccinations, applies to everyone residing in the Czech Republic permanently or on a long-term basis (see paragraphs 11 and 77 above), so that the staff members concerned should normally have received all the prescribed vaccinations at the relevant time, as required by law.”
The problem is that the obligation to vaccinate in respect of certain diseases was introduced after some older staff members had become adults, so they would have not received all the currently prescribed vaccinations at the relevant time. For instance, the vaccine against rubella became available only in the late 1960s, while the vaccines against hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b infections became available only in the 1980s. Moreover, any staff members who spent their childhood abroadhave not necessarily received all the vaccinations currently prescribed in the Czech Republic.
THE SOCIAL SOLIDARITY ARGUMENT
In paragraphs 279 and 306 the majority refers to “social solidarity” (“solidarité sociale”). It is not clear what this concept …. means here. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (Oxford 1998, p. 1772), provides the following definition of solidarity tout court: unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group. The Dictionnaire Larousse 2019 (Paris 2018, p. 1081) gives the following meanings of the word “solidarité” in French: 1) dépendance mutuelle entre des personnes liées par des intérêts communs, esprit de corps ; 2) sentiment qui pousse les hommes à s’accorder une aide mutuelle (the meanings in legal language have been omitted here; see also E. Littré, Dictionnaire de la langue française, Paris, Hachette 1874, t. 4, p. 1968). Although the French word solidarité may also have a different meaning (le fait de faire contribuer certains membres d’une collectivité nationale à l’assistance (financière, matérielle) d’autres personnes (Le Petit Robert, Paris, Le Robert 2013, p. 2390)), the very idea of solidarity, as initially understood in ordinary language (stemming from legal language), presupposes spontaneous self-organisation, not sacrifices imposed by State power. The two underlying concepts of social organisationare very different, the second approach (based upon legal obligations) compensating for shortcomings in the first.
PROPORTIONALITY AND QUALITY OF NATIONAL DECISION-MAKING
….. the Court takes sometimes into account the quality of the domestic decision-making process …. The applicants point to numerous deficiencies in the decision making process at the domestic level. They restate and endorse very precise factual allegations made in the Czech press. They allege, in particular, conflicts of interests among persons involved in the decision-making process and the fact that documents on which the risk evaluation of the different vaccines were based have not been made public.
The majority replies with this argument in paragraph 297 of the judgment:
“As for the integrity of the policy-making process, the Court notes that in reply to the applicants’ claim about conflicts of interest the Government have explained the procedure followed by the NIC, in accordance with relevant European and international standards (see paragraph 200 above).”
With all due respect, the system of declarations described in paragraph 200, whichis apparently devoid of sanctions for making false declarations, is clearly insufficient.
The majority further argues in the same paragraph:
“In the light of the elements before it, the Court considers that the applicants have not sufficiently substantiated their allegations that the domestic system is tainted by conflicts of interest, or their suggestion that the position on vaccination adopted by the relevant Czech expert bodies, or by the WHO, is compromised by financial support from pharmaceutical corporations.”
This is precisely where the problem lies: many citizens no longer trust public institutions. It is not sufficient that decision-making processes are fair: they must be perceived to be fair, and there should therefore befar reaching legal arrangements to protect the integrity of the process and build public confidence. The pro-choice attitude in the field of vaccination reflects a broader problem of mistrust among citizens vis-à-vis the democratic institutions.
ABSENCE OF RISK-BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS
I further note that no national document containing a precise assessment of the various vaccines’ efficiency and the attendant risks has been presented to the Court, as though no such assessment had ever been made in the respondent State or had ever been the subject of public debate. The fundamental issues enumerated above (see point 6 of this votum separatum) appear to have been left unaddressed in publicly available documents related to the decision-making process at national level. The persons affected by the obligation to vaccinate are entitled to know not only the precise risk for each and every disease, but also how this risk was calculated and assessed by those who took the decision to introduce the obligation to vaccinate. Their legitimate queries in this respect remain without a satisfactory answer.
INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF THOUGHT BELIEF AND RELIGION
Judge Wojtyczek wrote:
“…. I consider that the applicants made a sufficient prima facie case that the legislation under consideration interferes with their rights as protected by this provision. The issue of whether a risk inherent in a medical intervention is one that is worth being taken may be a matter of personal belief, protected by this provision. Moreover, it is problematic to refer to developments in the domestic case law subsequent to the facts of the case and to blame the applicants, with the benefit of hindsight, for failing to explore the avenues opened by this subsequent case-law and to assert certain rights which were not previously protected (see paragraphs 292 and 335 of the judgment). In any event, the legal recognition of exceptions to the obligation to vaccinate based upon conscientious objection is a very important argument in favour of the compatibility of the obligation in question with the Convention.
I also consider that the Court should have examined the case under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, even if vaccinations, especially those limiting the propagation of contagious diseases, can be a valid criterion for selecting children who are admitted to nursery schools run by public bodies, in a context of a shortage of places in those institutions.”
Official UK statistics indicate 1 in 21 English schoolboys is now autistic. Worse still when school leavers are included, in just 15 years the total number of new autistic school children and young adult school leavers is 258,000 according to CHS’ estimates from the official figures.
These are all truly horrifying figures. And you can see from the chart how the numbers of New Autistics have been increasing every year.
If the USA follows the same pattern Americans have today an extra 1.6 million New Autistic children and young adults added in just the last 15 years. But the US has the highest vaccine burden of any country in the world, so the figure could be higher. 1.6 million is a crude estimate for the equivalent number of New Autistic American children and young adults added to the US population over the past 15 years. This is calculated by multiplying CHS’ estimate for England by 6 times. The USA has approximately six times the population of England [330 million US vs 54 million England].
People like Sir Norman Lamb a former UK health minister and Matt Hancock the current English Secretary of State for Health along with many others have been pretending nothing is wrong, there are no New Autistics in any greater numbers than before and that vaccines have nothing to do with causing autism. It is just not true and the evidence of the numbers of New Autistics has been building up for over three decades now.
The British Government can spend billions on a lockdown caused by junk science but does not care about 250,000 New Autistics added to the English population in just 15 years. To these we need to add the Irish, Welsh and Scottish New Autistic children and the now young adult New Autistic school leavers in those regions over the past 15 years.
The figures these estimates are taken from are highly reliable. They are not from inaccurate surveys. The figures of New Autistics are from official government figures from the annual schools census. The census counts every child in school in England known to be autistic.
The hollow claims of those who either want to cover up this disaster for children and their families or bury their heads in the sand or sit in denial, that there is no real increase in New Autistics are hollower by the second. It is not credible nor scientific.
But if anyone wants to play stupid games claiming there is no increase and we always had these numbers of New Autistic children, the recent figures from Ireland show that nearly two thirds of New Autistic children are stage 5.
…. the authors dismissed suggestions that changes in lifestyle or the environment were behind the rise. They put it down to improved awareness and detection, and the inclusion of milder conditions within the diagnosis.”
NAS have claimed for a very very long time the prevalence of autistic conditions is 1 to 1.1%. Autistica has paid Brugha and Baron-Cohen’s groups to carry out research. Autistica tells us 1% of children are autistic. None of these groups and organisations recognise the dramatic increase nor do they accept the scientific evidence that vaccines play any role.
Cognitive dissonance, the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in people is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: they reject, explain away, or avoid the new information; persuade themselves that no conflict really exists; reconcile the differences; or resort to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in their conceptions of the world and of themselves.
And of course over this period the scientific evidence that vaccines play a significant role in causing autistic conditions has been building up steadily.
Whilst the new official figures provide a sound base for these CHS estimates of New Autistics that is not the full picture as you will see from the annual totals below and notes.
The science has also consistently shown about 4 in every 5 New Autistic cases is a boy. The figures from Northern Ireland indicate now that 3 in every 4 New Autistic cases is a boy.
Hence taking these aspects into account provides the overall 3% prevalence of New Autistic schoolchildren in England as at January 2019 and the 1 in 21 figure for New Autistic English schoolboys.
Further figures are due for publication in just over a month’s time. CHS will keep you posted.
And what else must we think about?
How old are the New Autistics and why do we need to know?
What is the current likely age range? What is the point of knowing this?
The wool has been pulled over too many peoples’ eyes so far. All vaccine aware people need to be clear about the facts so that the chances of that continuing are minimised.
In this age of autism the age range of the New Autistics is from early childhood to around 44 years of age. In only another 16 years the oldest New Autistics will be in their 60s [if still alive].
Essentially we are moving from and have moved from this being a problem affecting children only.
Despite the age range of the New Autistics being approximately between 0 to 44 years, the age distribution of cases is heavier for the younger ages as you can see from the chart at the beginning of this article.
So even when the oldest New Autistic reaches 60 years of age he or she will be at the bottom point of an inverted pyramid of many many more New Autistics. Their number each year going back will be greater than the succeeding year. The numbers will be greater the younger in age they are than the previous year’s New Autistics. If this is all allowed to continue with the current vaccine schedules unchanged the number of New Autistics each year might plateau eventually but not for many years from now.
In 2004 the youngest of the English New Autistic schoolchildren would be aged about 4 to 5 years old. And the oldest about 18 years old. So now in 2020 the age range for the New Autistics during just 2004 is 19 to 33 years old.
And this problem started in the mid-1980s with the worldwide expansion of vaccine programmes. The MMR vaccine was the first but others were added as the years went by.
Also there were “catch-up” vaccinations so that older children in the mid 1980s were vaccinated. This is going back to about 1986. A ten year old in 1986 still alive today would be 44 years of age.
Why is there “vaccine hesitancy”?
There are two main reasons.
It is because no one can hide the problem any longer and more and more mothers and fathers and future parents planning their new families are becoming and are vaccine aware.
Vaccine awareness is a political and philosophical position based on knowledge and science of the risks vaccines pose to you and your children.
The other reason is the drug pushers have realised it is counter-productive label-libelling vaccine aware parents as “anti-vaccine“. So they have come up with this new term “vaccine hesitancy“.
So now you know the reasons why this term exists.
Every time they add a new vaccine to the schedule we get more New Autistic children
The data for the graph above is from a 2001 paper by Jick et al. The dates of introduction of the vaccines has been superimposed. The authors of the paper claimed [emphasis added]:-
No need to guess what those environmental factors are. We have 258,000 new reasons to know for sure.
TABLES
Sources for the 2020 autism figures in this CHS post: Data from each Annual School’s Census from the Department for Education from 2004 to 2019.
Percentage of School children in England with ASD as Primary or Secondary Special Educational Need (2). Sources – Annual School’s Census from Department for Education
[See Notes at end]
Year (1)
% School children in England with ASD as Primary or Secondary Special Educational Need (2)
Census Taken
Total Autistic Children
2004
0.91%
January 2005
41,380
(3)
2005
0.94%
January 2006
46,381
(3), (4)
2006
1.04%
January 2007
51,097
(3)
2007
1.15%
January 2008
56,027
(3)
2008
1.25%
January 2009
60,471
(3)
2009
1.37%
January 2010
66,668
(3)
2010
1.49%
January 2011
72,665
2011
1.60%
January 2012
78,580
2012
1.70%
January 2013
84,280
2013
1.81%
January 2014
90,670
2014
2.12%
January 2014
107,185
2015
2.30%
January 2016
117,980
2016
2.47%
January 2017
128,680
2017
2.72%
January 2018
142,683
2018
2.98%
January 2019
157,958
Notes:
(1) Figures are collected in January eg. 2016 figures reflect the 2015 school population. The absolute numerical totals shown are the totals of children with ASD as a primary or secondary educational need as taken directly from the official Government statistics.
Additionally, the yet-to-be-diagnosed figure of 2 yet-to-be-diagnosed in every five autistic schoolchildren is to be expected.
Even up to and after the age of 18 some autistic children will not yet have been diagnosed. In any group of schoolchildren up to half of those under 10 will not have been diagnosed. This is because the UK median age of diagnosis of Asperger syndrome is 9 years 8 months. In contrast for ‘autistic disorder’ the median age of diagnosis is 3 years 9 months. However it is 6 years 4 months for Pervasive Developmental Disorder—Not Otherwise Specified/Autism Spectrum Disorder: [Williams, E., Thomas, K., Sidebotham, H., & Emond, A. (2008). Prevalence and characteristics of autistic spectrum disorders in the ALSPAC cohort. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 50(9), 672–677.]
(3) For 2004 to 2009 the total estimated = a) actual figure for primary SEN + b) estimated additional 18.5% with secondary SEN. The reason for this is that prior to January 2011 the figure for Secondary SEN is not recorded. However, for each year since then secondary SENs have consistently been close to 18.5% of the total permitting a reasonable estimate to be made of the total.
(4) As a cross-check indicating the reliability of the estimates for 2004-2009 the 2004 figure of 0.91% very closely corresponds to 0.9% figure from independent ONS 2005 Survey “Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004” A survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department of Health and the Scottish Executive.
(5) Estimates of the number of autistic adult school leavers over the 15 year period 2004 to 2018 [inclusive] assumes 1/13th of the total each year leave school as adults. This is an estimate for illustration. A more accurate figure can be calculated from the detailed statistics. The figures on these estimates are already far far too big.
______________________________________________
HOW YOU CAN HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening: Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and other vaccine aware people can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
In 2016, Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, CDC’s Principal Investigator for the Autism Monitoring Network (ADDM) filed a federal whistleblower suit charging that CDC routinely forces its investigators to falsify data to hide the Autism Pandemic. “The autism explosion is an acute embarrassment to CDC so they fix the numbers.”
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening. Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and your vaccine aware friends can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
Unvaccinated children are less likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays, asthma, and ear infections.
Redding CA— A new peer-reviewed study in the journal SAGE Open Medicine details the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children from three pediatric practices in the United States concludes that unvaccinated children have better health outcomes than their vaccinated peers.
Children in the study were followed continuously for a minimum of 3 years from birth. The study was based on medical records of over 2000 children enrolled in three pediatric practices and born between November 2005 and June 2015. Vaccination status was determined based on any vaccination received prior to one year of age which yielded 30.9% of the children in the unvaccinated group. Results show that vaccination before one year of age led to significantly increased odds of medical diagnoses of developmental delays, asthma and ear infections in children.
In a separate analysis, based on the number of vaccines received by one year of age, children receiving more vaccines were more likely to be diagnosed with gastrointestinal disorders compared to those who received no vaccines within the same timeframe. In temporal analyses, children vaccinated prior to six months of age showed significant risks of each of the disorders studied as compared to unvaccinated children in the same timeframe.
The study, coauthored by Dr. Brian Hooker and Mr. Neil Miller, is unique in that all diagnoses were verified using abstracted medical records from each of the participating pediatric practices. Lead author of the study, Dr. Hooker, stated, “The results definitely indicate better health outcomes in children who did not receive vaccines within their first year of life. These findings are consistent with additional research that has identified vaccination as a risk factor for a variety of adverse health outcomes. Such findings merit additional large-scale study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children in order to provide optimal health as well as protection against infectious diseases.”
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has assembled nearly 60 studies that find vaccinated cohorts to be far sicker than their unvaccinated peers. CHD is a non-profit organization dedicated to ending the recent epidemic of chronic health conditions affecting 54% of children. The organization recognizes a variety of harmful environmental exposures contributing to an overall decline in children’s health.
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening. Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and your vaccine aware friends can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
If you are reading this you are more likely than not already “Vaccine Aware“. These are people who have learned the science about the risks vaccines pose to health outweighing the claimed benefits. Vaccine awareness is a political and philosophical position based on knowledge and science of the risks vaccines pose to you and your children.
There is much published about how educated people tend to avoid vaccines for themselves and their children.
Why?
It is because they are the “Vaccine Aware“. People with college degrees and many medical professionals try to avoid vaccines if they can.
Clearly, intelligent educated people are vaccine aware. If you are vaccine aware you are more likely to be smart.
The Vaccine Aware can stand together knowing they have sought out the science and information they need to protect themselves and their children from a corrupted health industry and governments.
The more the Vaccine Aware are attacked by the mainstream in politics, media and the swathes of trolls infecting social media the more the mainstream loses credibility. So stand with the science and the intelligent educated vaccine aware.
If you want to become more Vaccine Aware visit CHS’ extensive library of nearly 400 articles and information with links to many original sources:
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening. Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and your vaccine aware friends can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
CHS EDITORIAL: No mainstream media have reported so far [9pm EDT 17 May] on this speech in the Italian Parliament other than Russia Today, which dismissed Sara Cunial as bringing “the conspiracy blame-game to an entirely new level” and “a notorious anti-vax activist, Cunial apparently singled-out Gates as the villain …… she also added a good pinch of GMOs and 5G tech to the dense conspiracy mix of his ‘sins.’” Italian lawmaker demands Bill Gates be ARRESTED for ‘crimes against humanity’… But WHY? 18 May, 2020 00:40
However, anyone watching the exposées by Polly St George on YouTube of the extraordinary but well documented connections between billionaires including Gates and a swathe of individuals in government and health organisations receiving money from Gates [and others] can see there is cause for concern. Gates and his playmates have closed down the world on the back of fake science from Imperial College and elsewhere and fake news from mainstream media.
Catch Polly’s latest report here where she dishes the dirt including on the UK’s Imperial College and Sir Patrick Vallance:
______________________________________________
HOW YOU CAN HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening. Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and your vaccine aware friends can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
An independent Swiss research group is providing detailed referenced and well-research facts and science about Covid 19. And it is translated into 24 languages.
You only need to add your email address to subscribe to updates [subscribe box is bottom right of each SPR web page].
This information contrasts dramatically with the junk science and fake news diet fed by government and the mainstream media. Why is your government not doing this? Why is your media not doing this? Why are we getting what looks like amateur-hour scientific advice from our governments in comparison?
SPR has published a comprehensive new Covid19 update plus a fully updated 25-point summary. ….
The medical debate is mostly over, as all new serological studies converge towards a flu-like 0.2% overall lethality with 50 to 70% of deaths occurring in vulnerable nursing homes. Instead, the focus is quickly shifting towards the political and geopolitical impact of the coronavirus.
In response to many inquiries, please note that there has been no censorship of SPR. Future updates will be provided about once per month. SPR doesn’t discuss medication and doesn’t link to political content. Donations to SPR are not possible.
Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)
“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” Albert Camus, La Plague (1947)
Overview
According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.
Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons show mild symptoms at most.
Up to one third of all persons already have a certain background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
In most Western countries, 50 to 70% of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from extreme stress, fear and loneliness.
Up to 50% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old.
The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons.
In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. In addition, up to 15% of doctors and health workers were put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.
The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles, smartphones or at the hairdresser).
There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Numerous operations and therapies were cancelled, including some organ transplants and cancer screenings.
Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react to other coronaviruses.
Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups. The risks for children are virtually zero and closing schools was never medically warranted.
The number of people suffering from unemployment, psychological problems and domestic violence as a result of the measures has skyrocketed worldwide. Several experts believe that the measures may claim more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN millions of people around the world may fall into absolute poverty and famine.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the massive and permanent expansion of global surveillance. The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures“. Leading British virologist professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
More than 500 scientists have warned against an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is already carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is already being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach.
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening. Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and your vaccine aware friends can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
EDITORIAL: Watch and hear Austria’s former Interior Minister Herbert Kickl in this video denounce fear-based manipulation employing fake science and fake news catastrophe forecasts from government and mainstream media. [See video at the end of this Editorial].
On April 22, 2020, before the Austrian government, former Minister of the Interior Herbert Kickl openly denounces the fear-based manipulation, helped by the media, to establish strict mass public confinement, presented as the only way to avoid Corona-virus mass death. However Sweden, judged irresponsible for not having applied lock-down, had neither mass death, nor destruction of its economy, nor restriction of its citizens’ freedoms. Despite this, the discourse of fear continues and we do not talk about these alternatives, why?
Covid 19 has been employed to open a mass hysteria health fear doorway to The New Dark Age. The vast majority have entered like sheep. The rest have been forced to under emergency laws demanding their lock-down and fear of denunciations by neighbours on non-compliance.
People need to understand the danger this development represents to fundamental hard won freedoms and to take political action widely to get it reversed. People need to denounce any cowardly elected officials and political representatives who have caused this situation and allowed it to continue.
This New Dark Age is only possible because most mainstream media not merely do not do their job as the “Fourth Estate” check-and-balance on political abuses but they report unquestioningly the news governments release, which is far too often fake.
In the case of Covid 19 the fake science behind the scare was used to crank up a world-wide lockdown.
The fake science is only now being denounced in some parts of the media after one politically Conservative newspaper released the news not that it is fake but because of what appears to be lock-down sexual promiscuity by the key scientist, now dubbed in some parts of the media as “Professor Lock-down” and “Professor Trousers-Down“.
Only once that news was broken was criticism of the fake science reported in the mainstream media more openly, but again in The Telegraph: with claims it is amateur created using software written in “Pac-Man era” programming: Despite the Ferguson fiasco, No 10 is about to make its second major blunder Sherelle Jacobs, Telegraph Columnist, 7th May 2020.
______________________________________________
HOW YOU CAN HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Vaccination and healthcare are political issues. There is continuing and increasing censorship of vaccine aware sites like CHS publishing information which is challenging corrupt practices and the political status quo in government and healthcare.
You may already have seen what is happening. Google no longer including sites in searches for example and other practices.
You and your vaccine aware friends can help and make a difference.
Get the information to others.
Consider
reblogging CHS posts
using social media
posting links to CHS posts
circulating links to CHS posts to your family, friends and acquaintances
Californians should know very soon if the Californian courts will issue an immediate urgent temporary Court restraining order against the new backdoor compulsory vaccination law [statute SB 277]. The evidence and procedure documents have been filed. Some new Plaintiffs have been added. Previously reported on CHS:
If the restraining order is granted it is just a temporary measure until the full case can be heard. Winning or losing this application does not mean the final case is won or lost. It is just to keep things as they are until the full case is heard and a final decision made.
The filing of this amended case is reported on the Bolen Report in more detail:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANA WHITLOW, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of B.A.W. and D.M. F.-W., minor children; ERIK NICOLAISEN, Individually, and as Parent and Next Friend of A.W.N., a minor child; DENE SCHULTZE-ALVA, D.C., Individually, and as Parent and Next Case No. 3:16-cv-01715-DMS-BGS
SB 277 is in effect a law to introduce compulsory vaccination indirectly.
The lawsuit included an application for an immediate but temporary order without the Defendants and their Attorney’s being notified and present at a hearing and to restrain implementation of SB 277 until there is a hearing.
Under US law this can be done with evidence of immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage and of efforts to notify the Defendant and why the order should be granted without the Defendants being present and heard in Court.
San Diego Federal Judge Dana M. Sabraw has denied the application for the immediate restraining order without notice writing in her decision:
there are no allegations that any child is currently enrolled in a school and has been expelled or would face immediate expulsion if SB 277 is enforced”
However, that is clearly the nature and effect of SB277. A judge can and in fact must take judicial notice of the law and can take judicial notice of the fact that California has children who are of school age and who do attend school. The feared harm seems an inevitable consequence of the law for those who have not satisfied its requirements.
On the other hand, to grant such an immediate temporary order without a hearing is a draconian step, so one might have some sympathy with the Judge not wanting to be appealed if an order were granted without there being evidence of specific individuals and their circumstances in support.
Not all applications for temporary restraining orders are made or heard without the Defendants or their Attorney’s being present. More often they are made following a hearing. In those rarer cases where there is extreme urgency and immediate risk of irreparable harm an application for an immediate order can be made and succeed without the Defendants being present or even knowing of the application.
However, in such cases, a hearing is normally held very soon after for the Defendants to be present and heard to decide if the order is to continue or not until there has been a full trial of the case.
Similarly, a temporary order can still be made at a hearing with the Defendants notified and with their Attorneys present.
According to the Bolen Report, the Plaintiffs Attorneys will be pursuing the application for the temporary restraining order which obviously means filing the relevant evidence and confirmation of certifications required by law: Fed Judge Denies SB 277 TRO – Wants More Info…
That is likely to be at a hearing with all parties and their Attorneys present.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendant.
Case No. 16-cv-1715 DMS (BGS)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to prevent Defendants from proceeding with a foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs’ property.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) allows for issuance of a TRO: without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Plaintiffs here have not served a copy of their motion on Defendants and have not claimed that they made any efforts to do so.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are minors and corporations challenging the validity of California’s Senate Bill (“SB”) 277, which closes previously available personal belief exemptions (“PBEs”) to the general requirements that students seeking to enroll in California schools must be vaccinated. According to Plaintiffs, SB 277 violates their constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, in addition to other fundamental rights, without a compelling government interest. Additionally, they claim that even if the government shows a compelling interest, SB 277 is not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief from SB 277 to prohibit the enforcement of SB 277.
II. DISCUSSION
The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (noting a temporary restraining order is restricted to its “underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”). Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). A party seeking injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 must show “‘that
he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).
Here, the Court need not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ request, as it is facially and procedurally defective. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs state that “special education students in year-round IEP Programs face immediate expulsion.” Upon reviewing the motion, complaint, and attached affidavits, there are no allegations that any child is currently enrolled in a school and has been expelled or would face immediate expulsion if SB 277 is enforced. TROs are intended as a remedial measure to prevent harm before an adverse party can respond to a request for preliminary injunction. Here, there appears to be no harm to any plaintiff until the fall semester.
Additionally, Plaintiffs have failed to certify any efforts to serve the TRO or a preliminary injunction on Defendants. Without evidence of either frustrated attempts to notify Defendants or reasons why such notice should not be required, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the plain language of Rule 65(b)(1). In addition, in the absence of an immediate and irreparable injury, Plaintiffs are not entitled to a temporary restraining order.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.
This is the story of how the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] blocked the Ministerial mandated introduction of direct reporting of adverse drug reactions by patients.
The UK continues to have a system of adverse drug reaction monitoring which is claimed by some to be excellent but which is known to be inadequate. Dr Bill Inman, a retired Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Southampton, UK, pioneered the system of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (‘yellow card’) and of prescription event monitoring. The Yellow Card scheme was a response to the 1960s Thalidomide drug scandal which left many children born with serious deformities including no arms or legs.
The Yellow Card system could long ago have been improved but was not. For example Dr Inman considered that there are no national systems in place which might prevent another tragedy like thalidomide: for which a database of pregnant women’s drug histories is critical. The lack of medium-term and long-term (25 years) follow-up for cancer treatments was another concern and he thought the World Health Organistion should be more active in that: “Profile of Bill Inman – Yellow Cards and Green Forms WHO Uppsala Reports 27 October 2004” http://www.who-umc.org
What Was Meant to Happen in the UK
UK pilot trials for direct patient reporting were announced on 18 November 2002 by what is now the MHRA:
Lord Hunt [a Health Minister] …. announced his intention to introduce a scheme to allow patients to report adverse reactions through NHS Direct and NHS Direct Online in the New Year.”
Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, said in relation to the extension of the Yellow Card scheme to nursing and other staff:
Doctors up and down the country know the Yellow Card goes hand in hand with improving what we know about drugs and how they are used. And now a new generation of reporters to the scheme – nurses, midwives and health visitors, including nurse prescribers, in the frontline of patient care – will be able to play a full part in making sure that we keep learning and that patients benefit from experience.’
Six months later on 8th May 2003, another MHRA press release stated:
Health Minister David Lammy has announced the first phase of patient reporting of suspected Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) via NHS Direct.
The NHS Direct call centre in Beckenham, covering South East London, has become the first centre in the country to introduce patient reporting of ADRs.
Subject to experience at the first call centre, the intention is to roll out the new service to all 22 NHS Direct call centres throughout England.”
Minister David Lammy was quoted:
Today marks an important step in putting patients in England at the heart of systems for promoting and protecting public healthcare by enabling them for the first time to report suspected ADRs.
Rather than having to go to a GP, patients can quickly access advice and report reactions that can help to improve our knowledge of the safe use of medicines.’
Professor Alasdair Breckenridge who was by then the chairman of the MHRA, was also quoted in the press release as saying:
The Yellow Card Scheme has been the cornerstone of monitoring drug safety for nearly 40 years.
We now plan to roll out across England a new service offered by NHS Direct.
This will enable patients to contribute directly to the Yellow Card scheme by reporting their own ADRs. We will be carefully monitoring the results of this pilot.”
[Professor Alasdair Breckenridge was previously the Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The MHRA was formed in 2003 with the merger of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Medical Devices Agency (MDA).]
What Really Happened
The MHRA under Professor Breckenridge’s Chairmanship wrested control of direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions from the NHS and well and truly buried it.
The pilot trial was for the whole of SE London using what was then the NHS Direct call centre in Beckenham, Kent. There were only 39 responses for the whole of South-East London in an entire year.
Dr Metters, the Chairman of the ‘independent’ review of the trial was reported in the British Medical Journal saying:
We can only speculate why participation has been so poor”
The truth was it was extensively unpublicised. The MHRA, in the person of Miss Carrie Scott Pharmacovigilance Co-ordinator Room 15-259 in a letter of 11th June 2004 ref: OG 04/43 to Social Audit admitted hardly anything had been spent promoting this scheme. In the letter she wrote:-
The MHRA has not incurred any significant costs due to this initiative. Advertising regarding the Scheme was limited to local press coverage. Due to the small number of reports received no costs were incurred in terms of staff resource.”
This was to cover the whole of South East London, an area with a population of several million people, and yet no significant costs were incurred. Not even the local Beckenham GP surgeries or pharmacies appear to have had heard of it until some local GPs read an abridged news item in the paper version of the BMJ published Saturday 8th May 2004. There were no posters in doctor’s surgeries or pharmacies; no patient ‘How To Report’ leaflets; nothing.
The MHRA published FAQ, items 16-19 and particularly item 17 stated:-
the number of reports [39] suggests the Scheme is not universally popular and anecdotal feedback suggests patients would prefer to report direct to the MHRA.”
There were only 39 reports because hardly anyone knew about the scheme.
The UK satirical and political commentary magazine Private Eye reported in an article titled “DRUG SAFETY Yellow fever” 29th May 2004:
But Metters and others should not have been surprised by this. Hardly anybody in the area had heard of the scheme – not even doctors or pharmacists. As one resident said: “My own local GP surgery did not know about it until they read about it in last week’s BMJ.” And as a pharmacist put it: “What scheme? Never heard of it.”
The current next-to-useless drug safety system whereby doctors fill in a yellow card if they suspect a drug or vaccine has caused an adverse reaction, certainly needs improving: it picks up only a tiny fraction of bad reactions.
While NHS Direct would have been an ideal body to collate reports of adverse incidents Metters and colleagues have seized on Beckenham’s “poor response” and suggested that reporting might be improved if patients have direct access to the new Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHPA). Unfortunately this would mean that information, and control of that information, would go straight to the body which, with its advisory arm, the Committee on the Safety of Medicine, has been criticised for its secrecy, conflicts of interest and past failings.
Key figures on both bodies have consultancy research, financial or employment links with the big drug companies. For example, the MRHA’s top man is Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, who used to advise GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of the antidepressant Seroxat. It was the failure of the drug regulators to warn doctors earlier about potential problems associated with Seroxat that led to the recent resignation in protest of Richard Brook, the lay member on the CSM.
The scandal prompted Charles Medawar of consumer group Social Audit and author of Medicines Out Of Control to suggest that it was Sir Alasdair who should have resigned. But he didn’t.
The MHRA also announced:
The MHRA intends to get direct patient reporting up and running as soon as possible.”
But it was already up and running, at NHS Direct. All they needed to do was tell people about it like notifying the GPs and pharmacies and produce the leaflets and publicise it.
As Social Audit noted, there was still after the MHRA intervened with their own system no provision for direct patient reporting via the electronic yellow card scheme. The Scheme invites reports from by doctors, dentists, pharmacists, coroners, radiographers, optometrists and nurses, and expressly confirms no provision has been made for direct patient reporting.
It is not sound to put the MHRA in charge of the information which can show it has been failing in its duties to protect the public. But that is what happened and the MHRA played its part in making that happen.
The following account is of extraordinary developments in the battle against corruption in drug safety, so settle yourself down and prepare for some surprises and for confirmation that what you already know or suspect is still at least as bad but more likely far worse than ever.
Corruption in governments and their agencies is so widespread in the 21st Century that it is regrettably the case that organisations like the European Medicines Agency [EMA] can sometimes truly, fairly and justifiably support an opinion they can be described as “crooked“. This example seems to point in that direction.
Observed to Expected analyses were a significant part of the EMAs clearing of the HPV vaccine. A previous example showed the EMA for 16 years continued to accept a calculation of the Observed to Expected ratio of deaths of infants reported compared to those expected which was a factor of three times out and when fully corrected for all other factors showed a significant excess of deaths in the vaccinated group: Vaccines Proven To Cause Sudden Death in Children – 67 Deaths Only Explicable As Caused By Vaccines – Drug Safety Regulators Had The Information for Over 2 Years And Let Children Die. The documents containing this information were leaked and had been kept confidential for over 16 years of annual reporting by the manufacturer. The EMA keeps key information confidential which prevents public scrutiny and challenge.
At best that demonstrates a very high level of incompetence. Essentially, they cannot be trusted, crooked or not.
Read on to answer this for yourself and see for yourself the evidence of how dangerous HPV vaccines are for you and your children.
It is an open secret at the world renowned UK’s Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital [GOSH] that the HPV vaccines are not safe. Large numbers of British schoolgirls are routinely referred there for a variety of serious and less than usually-to-expected medical conditions following vaccination with HPV vaccines. So it is hardly surprising when mothers discover routinely other mothers of girls with the same and similar serious medical conditions following HPV vaccination.
So have we seen public reports from GOSH reporting this phenomenon? No. Why not? What is wrong with these people? Aren’t their patients meant to be able to trust their physicians? Aren’t the physicians meant to tell them the truth so that they and their siblings and schoolfriends can avoid the harm?
The efforts of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] to hide the adverse effects of HPV vaccines, were reported by CHS here:
The Danish Health and Medicines Authorities’ [DHMA] 17 April 2015 report on the EMA’s assessment of the HPV vaccine concluded that the benefits of the HPV vaccines outweigh the risks. This was despite very high levels of under reporting of adverse events. It was also despite the finding [as at 30 September 2014] of a total of 33 cases of Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) as a possible adverse reaction to Gardasil having been reported from 2006 to 2014.
With the full extent of the problem not being reported DHMA claimed “it has not been possible to document a relationship between the vaccine and POTS“. This is just one serious adverse reaction to HPV vaccines suffered by schoolgirls and women which go un and under reported worldwide.
The European Medicines Agency oddly had held an online video press briefing two weeks before their report was published. This meant there was no opportunity for independent experts to review their claims in advance so that pertinent questions could be asked. And that is just what they appear to be – claims. Also troubling is the absence of hard detail and figures in the EMA’s report. It is close to a narrative, telling a story of what they claim to have done and expecting everyone to believe them with no hard facts or data to make a judgment. It is pretty much “we are the experts with all the information and what we say is what it is and we don’t care to prove it“. One seemingly bizarre aspect was the claim to have carried out numerous analyses taking into account from 1% to 100% under reporting, aside from suggesting they have no idea how high the level of under reporting is.
The briefing can be viewed here. It is worth watching, especially to see the people behind the report and for the press questions starting at 7 minutes and 45 seconds into the video:
How Modern Government, Its Institutions and Agencies Have Become Ever More Corrupt – but surprisingly – this time – the US Central Intelligence Agency are with the “Good Guys”!
Seemingly corrupt practices at the EMA are all part of a far too familiar story of a wider pattern of corruption in modern governments.
Before considering the criticisms of the EMA, it is worth considering how far and how blatant this has come. It puts it in perspective. State agents too commonly now do whatever they want.
This pattern is set at the highest levels. The now commonly reviled former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair demonstrated universally in the most public fashion how corrupt governments and their agencies have become in the 21st Century when he helped start a disastrous war in Iraq with false evidence of the Western territories being under threat within 40 minutes of launch of non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
In the UK the long delayed Chilcot Inquiry report into the war is due to be published this week – conveniently further delayed until after last year’s UK general election to elect the UK government and Parliament: Iraq War report ‘delayed until after UK election’ BBC News 21 January 2015.
Blair’s false claims were repeated to the UN and world and believed. This enabled some of former US President George W Bush’s supporters to become even richer from US tax dollars on the back of the lives and bodies of US GI’s, British servicemen and women, and an estimated hundred thousand [or more] moslem’s by supplying military ordnance and other support to this illegal war. Obviously, a small minority rather than the majority of Americans who supported Bush benefited. It is hardly likely the vast majority did.
In parallel to Blair, President George W Bush’s administration was busy fabricating evidence to the same ends. That is a true life story told in the remarkable film “Fair Game” with excellent performances from actors Naomi Watts and Sean Penn as covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and her former US Ambassador husband Joe: Fair Game – review – by Philip French Saturday 12 March 2011 – UK’s The Observer.
Remarkably, in “Fair Game” the CIA, Plame Wilson and her husband bucked the trend to be portrayed as the “good guys” working to prove the Blair and Bush claims were not true.
On the back of this endemic corruption in governments, social media is overrun by some trolls and bullies who bully, abuse and harass pretty much anyone and everyone who endeavours to expose the modern day corruption in science and medicine. These are led and/or exhorted by loners like Dr David Gorski on his blog and the activities engaged in worldwide by some of those led and/or exhorted by the activities of non practising psychiatrist Dr Ben Goldacre: Dr Ben Goldacre, Online Abuse, Bullying and the Suicide of a Gentle British Doctor.
People like that distract effort and attention of ordinary people onto the internet and away from demanding answers and accountability of government, government agencies and politicians. This dilutes public pressure and demands for public scrutiny of the drug industry by elected representatives and government officials. At the same time it helps make the modern world the nasty place we all now have to live in and for Moms and Dads to raise their kids.
Some of the “Good Guys“
Japan, Cochrane’s Nordic Centre and Louise Brinth MD PhD
evidence does not support that HPV vaccines cause CRPS or POTS”
CRPS or “complex regional pain syndrome” is another of the many serious adverse events associated with HPV vaccines which go substantially under reported.
Essentially, Brinth criticises the EMA and sets out good evidence to support the view that HPV vaccines cause serious adverse reactions in children and adults. Brinth however appears misguided and in error herself in the evidence upon which she relies, not that the HPV vaccines are a cause, but in underplaying the extent of their role in causing serious adverse events. She with other internationally reputed and respected medical professionals make up for this later as you will see.
Brinth believes, as she wrote, that:
Vaccines are, within medical science, considered a global and groundbreaking health success. Through vaccination programs coordinated and implemented throughout the globe, diseases such as smallpox have been eradicated. Moreover, other infectious diseases have been reduced significantly with impressive impact on both mortality and morbidity worldwide.”
This shows that Brinth is a supporter of the sadly-for-children erroneous mainstream medical view on the safety and efficacy of vaccines, despite being misguided and lacking an appreciation of the falsity of that widespread canard – such as obtained from analysis of well-documented facts from over 200 years of official statistics.
Additionally, it is a certainty that Denmark under reports adverse events to HPV vaccines more so than they might be expected to. Even Brinth’s report reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of when adverse events should be reported when she writes:
Denmark is a small country. Many patients who suspect that they suffer from side effects to a vaccine tell us that they have felt that their suspicion has been ridiculed or dismissed when presented to medical professionals. We have not reported all the patients who suspected to suffer from side effects as AER. However, if we had a suspicion that their symptoms could be related to the vaccine – and we could not dismiss this suspicion by finding other explanations for their symptoms etc – we reported it. We are obliged to do this by Danish law.”
Failing to report all suspected adverse events regardless of circumstances results in there being insufficient statistical data to judge whether there is a statistically significant signal against the background “noise” of events which are not adverse events.
So even Brinth and her colleagues are part of the problem she complains about in her response to the EMA but again as you will see she makes up for this with the assistance of the Cochrane Nordic Centre and other respected mainstream vaccine experts. But it does suggest that under reporting may be higher than might be expected.
This also however illustrates how defective the EMA’s analyses of adverse events to HPV vaccines are. That is of course entirely usual for the EMA. It appears an organisation less interested in protecting public health and more interested in making sure that potentially harmful and harmful-in-fact drugs are authorised and remain authorised to the financial profit of the drug industry. Where do some senior EMA officials look to to get their next job when they retire from the EMA? Surely not the drug industry perhaps?
Peter C Gøtzsche, DrMedSci, MSc, Director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Professor, University of Copenhagen and co-signatories,
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Deputy Director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet,
Tom Jefferson, Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom
Margrete Auken, MEP (The Greens/European Free Alliance)
Louise Brinth, PhD, MD, Danish Syncope Unit, Frederiksberg
We suggest you read the whole document. The following lengthy extract is from pages 12 to 17:
Are the vaccines safe?
According to the firms they are safe. Initially, the vaccine was compared with a placebo group being vaccinated with physiological serum, whereby the number of adverse reactions was much higher and much more serious than in the control group. After comparing 320 patients in the saline placebo group a quick move was made to an aluminium-containing placebo, in order to be able to only evaluate the effects of the active substance. However, this distorted the comparison, because no one voluntarily wants to be vaccinated with toxic aluminium, as this is not really necessary, when inoculation with a harmless saline solution can be done. The differences between Gardasil and the saline placebo group were, however, already noticeable15. Here we can refer to the Vioxx scandal, where the adverse reactions in fact were known, but concealed by the firm. Here also the difference between the vaccine and the saline placebo is concealed in all publications, as the table below clearly shows. For serious adverse reactions one suddenly takes the saline and aluminium group together, perhaps to cover up the major differences between these two groups.”
These two experts question seriously the prevailing assumption, apparently also at the EMA, that the vaccine is so important for public health that it is justified not to communicate to the public 1) that there are uncertainties related to vaccine safety, 2) that drug companies cannot be trusted; and 3) that it is wrong to lump together results obtained with a genuine placebo with those obtained with a potentially neurotoxic placebo. We agree with the two experts when they suggest that this lumping may represent a cover up and we also find that the EMA should have informed the public about this unacceptable lumping of a true placebo with an active placebo instead of keeping it secret. This is totally unacceptable and contrary to good scientific practice to such a degree that we consider it outright scientific misconduct committed by the EMA.
Conflicts of interest
According to laws of public administration in several European countries, people should never be in a position where they are being asked to evaluate themselves. For example, Danish law states (our translation):
“Anyone who works in the public administration is disqualified in relation to a particular case if he or she has a special personal or financial interest in the outcome … The person who is disqualified in relation to a case does not make decisions, participate in decision making or otherwise assist in the consideration of the case.”
1. The EMA asked the MAHs to provide “a cumulative review of available data from clinical trials, post-marketing and literature in order to evaluate the cases of CRPS and POTS with their product” … an analysis of the observed number of post-marketing cases of CRPS and POTS in association with their HPV vaccine in comparison to those expected in the target population, stratified by region, if available … a critical appraisal of the strength of evidence for a causal association with HPV vaccine for CRPS and POTS” (4, p5).
“The responses submitted by the different companies were assessed by the PRAC’s Rapporteur
(attachment 1) and Co-Rapporteurs (attachments 2 and 3) for this procedure. Before adopting a recommendation, the PRAC decided to convene the Scientific advisory group (SAG) on Vaccines and additional experts on vaccine safety, neurology and cardiology to provide an independent advice and responses to the questions below” (4, p5).
It is clear from its confidential document that the EMA relied heavily on the companies to come up with honest answers to highly complicated questions, and that the work of the EMA’s various assigned experts was not to control what the companies had done, but merely to discuss it (4). We find that this procedure provides poor protection of public health, particularly considering that there are so many egregious examples that companies have cheated by omitting major harms – including deaths – in their reports to the authorities (6, 10). We find it unacceptable that the EMA did not check the veracity of the MAHs’ work.
2. At a hearing about HPV vaccine safety in the Danish Parliament on 17 December 2015, which was video recorded (11), Enerica Alteri from the EMA told the audience that the EMA’s Scientific Advisory Group consisted of members who were independent. However, she also said that they had declared their conflicts of interest (her remarks on this point were not translated by the simultaneous translation). As stated above, we know from the confidential internal EMA report (4) that the members of the Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) are bound by a life-long secrecy clause that prevents them from discussing their disagreements in public. The EMA keeps it secret who they are and what conflicts of interest they have. We have been informed, however, by one of the persons who participated in meetings at the EMA, that some of the SAG members have financial conflicts of interest in relation to companies that sell an HPV vaccine, which means that they are not independent. Enerica Alteri told the audience that the HPV vaccine can prevent most, if not all, deaths from cervical cancer. She walked out immediately after her presentation with no excuse and did not take questions or participate in the panel discussion. This was perceived by some as being blatantly arrogant and counterproductive in terms of building trust in the vaccine and in the EMA.
We find it totally unprofessional and misleading to the extreme to suggest that the HPV vaccine can prevent all deaths from cervical cancer. Such a claim would not have been tolerated by the EMA if it had come from one of the manufacturers. The different vaccines don’t protect against infection from all HPV strains, only from 70%, 80% and 90% of the strains, respectively, and the vaccines are not 100% effective against the targeted strains (2).
We also find it inappropriate to use experts with financial ties to the manufacturers, as it is always possible to find experts without such conflicts.
………
4. We are aware that some of the top officials at the EMA have failed to declare their conflicts of interest in relation to the work they do at the EMA, although they have a legal obligation to do so. For example, the EMA’s director, Guido Rasi, declared on 20 July 2015 that he had no conflicts of interest (14). On a form called “EMA Public Declaration of Interests,” he replied “none” to all four questions, also to question 4, which is: “Other interests or facts whether or not related to the pharmaceutical industry4 which you consider should be made known to the Agency and the public, including matter relating to members of your household5.”
However a Guido Rasi, which we assume is the same person, holds a number of patents, some of which were filed or approved in 2012 or 2013, and where the applicant was a drug company (Applicant: SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Inventors: Guido Rasi, Enrico Garaci, Francesco Bistoni, Luigina Romani, Paolo Di Francesco) (15). As they go back less than five years, we believe he should have declared them, according to the EMA’s regulations concerning the handling of declared interests of its employees (16).
Final remarks
We find that the EMA’s requirement of life-long confidentiality is absurd. All available material about suspected harms of a public health intervention directed towards healthy children should be accessible to anyone. The EMA’s internal report (4) and all other documents related to this case should therefore be made publicly available, without redactions. We did not find any commercially confidential information anywhere in the documents we reviewed.
The American College of Physicians found that 89 cases of premature ovarian failure reported for HPV vaccines (86 for Gardasil and 3 for Cervarix) versus no reports for other vaccines were sufficiently alarming to motivate an alert in January 2016 making physicians and the public aware of a possible link (17). The confidential EMA report mentions in one sentence that the vaccine is under increased surveillance for this possible harm, but the reason is not given: “Adverse events related to potential immune-mediated disease (piMD) following vaccination with Cervarix, as well as primary ovarian failure are currently under close safety surveillance and in depth discussed in PBRER” (4, p175, or 63/77 in the subdocument). In response to an “Expert Submission to EMA relating to absence of ovarian safety research 17-10-2015” (7, p.110), the “Assessor’s comment” is: “This document contains an argumentation that the “ovary safety research” undertaken with the HPV vaccines is insufficient. Ovarian safety is beyond the scope of this referral, and will therefore not be commented in detail. Nevertheless, in October 2013, the PRAC finalised a review of Premature ovarian failure for Gardasii/Silgard. The PRAC concluded that the available evidence did not support a causal association.” There is nothing about this important potential harm in the EMA’s official report (2) although it is widely suspected that the possible severe toxicity of the vaccine is autoimmune-mediated.
The EMA might also have considered that when doctors first alerted the scientific community to the possibility that Pandemrix, one of the pandemic influenza vaccines used in 2009-2010, could be related to the occurrence of narcolepsy in people with a specific tissue type, the reaction was to ridicule these doctors. It has now been firmly established that Pandemrix can cause narcolepsy, a very serious condition, up to several years after vaccination of children and adolescents, and that this disease is immune-mediated. However, there was nothing about this, neither in the EMA’s official report (2), nor in the confidential report (4).
The bottom line for the EMA seems to have been that the vaccine should be protected from criticism at all costs because it is believed to save lives by protecting against development of cervical cancer. One sign of this is that the text in the official report is nearly identical to the assessments of the rapporteur and the companies. However, this paternalistic attitude comes at a great cost. The EMA accepted uncritically substandard research performed by the MAHs and produced a superficial, substandard official report (2) that was clearly flawed and unrepresentative, considering the serious concerns raised in internal discussions, which were sealed by life-long confidentiality agreements. Unprofessional and defamatory criticism, such as the one the EMA raised against the Danish researchers, is not unknown to scientists but it is a serious threat to scientific progress and public health. Those who raise concerns should be complemented for their courage, even if their suspicions are later shown to be wrong. Indeed, it is a requirement by DMHA that Danish doctors raise concerns they might have. Unfounded criticism of whistleblowers from those at the top of the power pyramid are potentially highly damaging as it may prevent important concerns from being raised. Unfounded dismissal of signals from ADR reports as reported by the UMC also seriously undermines this central mechanism to monitor adverse drug reactions. These serious failures on behalf of the EMA could create a problem orders of magnitude greater than declining participation rates in HPV screening programmes. Should the concerns over possible harms of the HPV vaccine be confirmed, the trust in the EMA and in vaccines in general may be damaged beyond repair. In fact, we know that the EMA’s handling of the HPV controversy – pretending that we have sufficient knowledge when we haven’t – has already become a PR disaster. In Funen, the uptake of the vaccine decreased from 74% to 31% in just one year (18).
The EMA’s procedures for evaluating the safety of medical interventions – where the companies are by and large their own judges – need to be fundamentally reworked and all procedures and information should be made transparent to the public. Our societies should no longer accept that assessments of drug safety are left to companies with huge financial interests and to a drug agency that receives 80% of its funding from the drug industry.
The secrecy imposed by the EMA is not in the public interest. Drug regulators tend to have a narrow vision, either because of their remit or because they have become too close to the drug industry by their daily work, which often involves contacts with the industry, and by employment of people with long careers in the industry. As an example, the EMA’s director, Guido Rasi, has brought in a number of people from the drug company Sigma Tau that include Stefano Marino, his head of legal affairs. Rasi has worked with this company for many years and apparently owns several patents together with the company (15).
Public health is about the promotion of health and prevention of disease and disability through the organised efforts of society. This entails protection from harms and involves progression of knowledge in open collaboration. As far as we can see, the actions of the EMA in this case indicates that the agency is more concerned about protecting its own previous decisions and the vaccine than about protecting the citizens and giving them the option of choosing for themselves whether or not they would like to get vaccinated against HPV. Some people will prefer to avoid the vaccine, even if the risk of serious harm is very small, and some will prefer screening instead. It is not within the powers of regulatory authorities to deny citizens’ right to make informed choices about their own health by withholding important information. The citizens need honest information about the vaccine and the uncertainties related to it; not a paternalistic statement that all is fine based on a flawed EMA report (2).
With repeated claims about how effective the vaccine is, Snyder Bulik’s report makes no mention of the fraudulent efforts of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] to hide the adverse effects of HPV vaccines, as reported by CHS here:
And it is of course impossible to know for about 20 to 30 years what effect if any these vaccines might have had – when those receiving them now will be at an age when cervical cancers do strike adults – particularly those over 40 years of age.
Nor does Snyder Bulik mention that the world of drug safety is now so crooked it seems well nigh impossible and a fool’s errand to try to find somewhere that is not crooked – if there is anywhere.
No mention for example is made in the FiercePharma report of the formal complaint filed by the internationally reputed Cochrane Centre. Cochrane assesses the reliablity of allegedly scientific medical evidence. In short, the naturally also crooked [what else?] European Medicines Agency, just like the US Federal Drug Administration does routinely, has been erasing from recognition the wide scale and very serious adverse effects of HPV vaccines on children and adults. Not much of a surprise there.
The Cochrane Centre in Norway’s 19 page formal complaint can be found here:
In issuing its recommendation, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices weighed “data showing poor or relatively lower effectiveness” from three previous flu seasons. In late May, the body received data showing that FluMist was just 3% effective in children aged 2 to 17 during the 2015-2016 flu season, compared with an estimated 63% effectiveness for flu shots. ACIP said “no protective benefit could be measured” from the nasal vaccine.
Flu vaccines are particularly useless vaccines especially for children who are at no major risk from this overhyped disease. Children are given the vaccine supposedly to stop very old people catching ‘flu from them. Of course with the widespread under reporting of adverse reactions and inadequacy of testing the extent of adverse effects on children is substantially undocumented – Hip Hooray for drug safety regulation – a fraudulent misnomer.
Here are some previous CHS reports showing how useless ‘flu vaccines are for everyone:
California’s Governor Brown signed into law the most stringent vaccine mandate in the United States – SB 277 – on June 30, 2015.
The new law came into effect yesterday July 1, 2016.
On the same day a substantial lawsuit against 10 Defendants was filed electronically against this draconian unconstitutional and unnecessary US law by attorney Carl Lewis in the San Diego Federal Court on behalf of 10 Plaintiffs: six American Moms and Dads and four non profits.
Defendants include the State of California Department of Health, Department of Education, three Schools Districts, and one County Public Health Department (Santa Barbara), and their employees, some named individually, and others in a group. [Further details appear below.]
US Health Fascism At Its Finest
As the California Coalition for Vaccine Choice explain, families that do not comply with Governor Brown’s one-size-fits-all vaccine mandate, will lose their State Constitutional right for a free and appropriate education in public and private K-12 schools. The use of licensed daycare facilities, in-home daycare, public or private preschools and even after school care programs are also included in SB 277.
School aged children, not up-to-date on every mandated vaccine, will be required to home school without options for classroom learning.
SB 277 eliminates a parent’s right to exempt their children from one, some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure including death.
In 2016, California parents will be forced to give their children more than 40 doses of 10 federally recommended vaccines.
This open-ended vaccine mandate allows the State of California to add any additional vaccines they deem necessary at anytime. The only exemption available is a medical exemption that doctors deny to 99.99 percent of children under federal guidelines.
Why is this important? The drug industry has bought such a powerful level of influence in government, the media and health professionals that the serious adverse effects of vaccines have been and continue to be buried. When children die or are seriously injured by vaccines it is commonplace these cases are not investigated properly or at all. Medical professionals don’t report. Coroners commonly don’t investigate properly or the experts who testify don’t tell it as it is or both.
Vaccines have been promoted as necessary to control disease, safe and effective when none of these propositions stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. But that holds no sway. The drug industry promoted hype with its wide base of support in the medical professions and government has been so successful convincing the majority that those who turn to the facts are dismissed, personally attacked and subjected to widespread abuse and disparagement.
It is not just the US and not just Dr Gorski. Read here about the gentle British doctor who killed himself after years of abuse from some members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum:
As Europe’s seeming leading front man for this kind of online bullying, abuse and harassment, the now not-so-young Goldacre seems to have been set up some years ago with the image of irresponsibility, youthfulness and impetuosity specifically to appeal to the UK’s high school and university students. On one view, it looks as if the now ageing Goldacre was a covert poster-boy for the UK drug industry; a never practising psychiatrist with a “BadScience” column in a UK national newspaper.
SB277 is also an example of how far US health fascism has come. The US is behaving towards every US child, Mom and Dad and other citizen as it has to every Moslem and every Moslem country that hates the US. Americans are seeing just a tiny little bit of why the US is so widely hated around the world.
Get used to it. For you all its vaccines today, with more just around the corner. This is why the US Constitution’s right to bear arms is regrettably so important despite all the deaths which occur through gun crime. It is sadly the option of last resort when government declares war on its own people. But this war is a war fought by buying up the media, by buying influence and perverting and corrupting government, politicians and institutions meant to protect not harm the citizen – like the US Centers for Disease Control.
The Lawsuit
Details have just emerged from Tim Bolen on the Bolen Report:
It is called a “Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Temporary Restraining Order Sought.”
(1) The Plaintiffs are asking the Court, in this case, to temporarily stop the enforcement of SB 277 until the issues brought to the Court, in the Motion, are finally decided, and then,
(2) on the findings, issue a Permanent Injunction against SB 277.
The background to the case is:
(1) Effective July 1, 2016, SB 277 will bar children from attending any public and private school unless proof is provided that the child has received multiple doses of vaccines for ten enumerated childhood diseases.
(2) SB 277 abolished the Personal Belief Exemption (“PBE”) to California’s school vaccination requirements and arguably eliminated an existing exemption from vaccination based on religious beliefs.
(3) Forty-seven states currently allow either a religious or a conscientious/personal belief exemption from school vaccination mandates.
(4) The California Supreme Court has long recognized that a child’s right to an education is a fundamental right guaranteed by the California Constitution. Laws that impact the fundamental right to education, and which are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, are unconstitutional. As the court held in Serrano v. Priest 18 Cal 3d 584 at 606 (1971) “We indulge in no hyperbole to assert that society has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.”
(5) The State has broad responsibility to ensure basic educational equality and to provide a statewide public education system open on equal terms to all.
(6) Since 1961, California has allowed a philosophical exemption to vaccination based on one’s personal beliefs.
(7) Since 1961, the number of vaccines and vaccine doses required for school attendance have dramatically increased.
(8) Notwithstanding the increase in required vaccines and vaccine doses, PBE rates have always remained below four percent.
(9) For decades, full vaccination coverage in California has remained well above 95% for each required vaccine.
(10) Public health experts agree that 95% vaccination coverage meets or exceeds the levels of vaccination theorized to achieve herd immunity for infectious diseases for which vaccines are available.
(11) California’s PBE rate has not exceeded four percent of the entire population of school children.
(12) At the time SB 277 was enacted, according to the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), over 97% of California’s school-aged children were fully vaccinated for each of the vaccines required by SB 277.
(13) Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the children with PBEs are selectively vaccinated. They received some, but not all of the required vaccine doses.
(14) Only one year before SB 277 was enacted, the Immunization Branch of the CDPH stated that “[v]accination coverage in California is at or near all-time high levels.”
(15) At the time SB 277 was enacted, California had seen a 19 percent reduction in PBEs when AB 2109 (Pan, 2012) went into effect.
(16) Notwithstanding declining PBE rates and historically high vaccination rates, SB 277 was enacted to permanently bar children who do not receive every dose of every mandated vaccine from all public and private schools.
(17) Plaintiffs have thus been denied their fundamental right to an education guaranteed by the California Constitution.
Outcomes Sought From The Court
(1) Declare unconstitutional and set aside SB 277 and its regulatory scheme;
(2) Grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the unconstitutional ban on personal belief and religious objections and the restriction of medical choice exemptions;
(3) Grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief immediately prohibiting the denial of school admission to the children of the individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.
(4) Award to Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred in connection with this action; and
(5) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Legal Grounds For The Action
(a) Infringement on Rights protected by the California Constitution,
(b) Infringement on Rights protected by the US Constitution,
(c) Violation of Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),
(d) Violation of California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and
(e) Violation of California Information Practices Act, and Violation of California Health and Safety Code 120440.
Dr Ben Goldacre engages in online bullying and abuse and his BadScience forum is a notorious centre for some of what seem to be amongst the worst of the internet’s trolls, bullies and abusers.
So when a troubled gentle soul takes his own life after years of bullying, abuse and harassment from some from Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum, Ben Goldacre bears a heavy responsibility.
On Thursday August 15th 2013 after years of relentless online bullying, abuse and harassment from some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum members, family physician Dr Mark Struthers took his own life.
In life Dr Struthers tried to take them on by challenging them online, posting comments on blogs as “Cybertiger“. Their response routinely was to gang up in hordes to attack abuse and disparage him personally.
Dr Mark Struthers was a gentle man and doctor who was well aware of the hazards vaccines present to children, the serious limitations of their alleged benefits and the concerted behaviours of too many in the medical profession to fail to report on and thereby to suppress their too often serious adverse effects particularly on children. It concerned him greatly. Though Mark was prone to depression and without doubt the more so with the behaviour of Dr Ben Goldacre’s hordes, Dr Ben Goldacre is all the more culpable and not less. If you pick on a victim you have to accept the victim as you find him, with all the human fallibility and weakness he may have.
One of what appears the favorite approaches to bullying and abuse is to “out” their victims by trying to determine their identity and then publishing the full name along with personal details which they then use to engage in their attacks. That is what they often did to Mark and it obviously was going to and did cause considerable harm and distress to him particularly in his professional career.
Those of Dr Ben Goldacre’s associates on his BadScience forum involved appeared to gloat about the death, posting a notice of the announcement of the press report on one of the numerous anonymous free blogs they use to engage like low cowards in these kinds of attacks.
[CLICK IMAGE TO OPEN FULL SIZE IN A NEW WINDOW]
The author of the blog is a grown Englishman of mature years who pretends to be a woman whilst engaging in abuse of others on the internet in sexually explicit terms. [Impersonation is not unknown like another of his BadScience associates who for years adopted the persona, image and language of a five year old boy until pointed out on Twitter but he now appears to have reverted again to type.] The abusive Englishman set up the blog after being blocked from the forum of a self-help group for parents of vaccine injured children, JABS, following years of relentless trolling and harassing of forum members. Clearly a man with issues.
Some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum associates congregate on the BadScience forum to exchange information and ideas about whom to bully, abuse and harass, what to do and how to do it. Ben Goldacre can hardly not know. One might think that is one of the purposes for which Dr Goldacre established the forum if not the main purpose. After years of this it surely looks like that is the case. It is certainly a purpose it is put to. Goldacre himself exhorted them to action writing:
They go to great lengths to “out” their victims knowing destroying online anonymity can cause great harm and Dr Ben Goldacre can also only be too aware of that. Their own rules – which Dr Ben Goldacre must surely know very well – state doing this is banned because it can cause “a lot of harm“:
This is an announcement that the general rules of the forum have changed to include this provision:
5: Linking to or exposing the real life identity of a forum member is not allowed.
Listen, a lot of harm can come from having your true identity associated with your online pseudonym or handle. While a lot of people do use their real name or well known pseudonyms as forum handles, I do not recommend this. Moreover, I do not think that purposely exposing someone’s real life identity is something that we should allow here on BS forums. The moderation team agrees, and therefore the rule change is hereby effective immediately.
A previous incident involving a suicide is reported here:
There is no evidence Dr Goldacre engaged in bullying Mark or that he engages in anonymous bulling and abuse activities like those of some of his forum members. The BadScience forum is more like a means of bullying-by-proxy. That is like letting others do the dirty work to look innocent and to maintain a kind of credible deniability of responsibility and blame. A move further in the direction of credible deniability may have been the removal by Dr Goldacre of the prominent link from his Badscience.net blog to the BadScience forum. That appears to have occurred after the events described in this CHS post: Dr Ben Goldacre’s Grovelling Apology For Sexual Abuse, Bullying & Harassment of Female Doctor & Medical Journalist By His BadScience Forum Trolls and Bullies.
Prior to that Dr Ben Goldacre had to ask his hordes to stop bullying, harassing and abusing another journalist:
Ironically a point radio presenter Jeni Barnett was making was that she did not know much about issues of vaccines causing autistic conditions but that there seemed to be a lot of bullying going on about it.
In May 2014 Dr Ben Goldacre had been the subject of what seemed sound valid criticism of his activities posted on the blog of an eminent expert Professor of medicine with considerable expertise and experience in drug safety issues. As you can see here, Goldacre’s response was abuse and bullying, using his Twitter followers to join in.
Dr Ben Goldacre’s activities are considered by some who are in a position to know to do more to help the drug industry make medicine more unsafe than it already is whilst claiming to be doing the opposite. Goldacre gave a passable appearance of failing to answer properly the criticisms on the blog where they were made. This CHS post concerns the background to the matter: Congratulations To Dr Ben Goldacre & AllTrials On Undermining Drug Safety Worldwide
This is what Dr Ben Goldacre in league with Simon Singh wrote on Twitter with the “followers” who then also ganged up to add to the bullying and abuse by posting more comments in a similar vein:
The world premiere of “Man made epidemic” OPENS this Saturday 25th June at the Curzon Cinema in Soho London at 12:30.
Doors open at 12:15. If you would like to buy tickets, please write an email to : info@man-made-epidemic.com
A Q&A will take place after the screeening from 14:00 – 15:00. Address Curzon Soho: 99 Shaftsbury Avenue, London W1D 5DY.
About The Movie
Natalie Beer
Filmmaker Natalie Beer sets off on a journey around the world speaking to leading doctors, scientists and families to find out the truth about the autism epidemic and whether or not vaccines have a role to play.
The film explores the common misconception that autism is solely genetic and looks into scientists concerns over recent years about environmental factors such as medication and pesticides which continue to leave our children with physical and neurological damage.
The Team
The people behind “Man Made Epidemic” are an international team who have worked together for nearly two years to make this film happen.
Natalie Beer Director / Producer
Natalie Beer was born in Hamburg, Germany on June 12th 1979 to a Belgian mother and a German father. After her film studies at Goldsmiths College University of London from 1999 -2002, she began working as an Assistant director. Natalie has worked on several international Hollywood productions as an AD. In 2008 she started directing and producing her first documentary „Running for Life“, a documentary about Ethiopian Marathon runners. Her second documentary „Waiting area“, about obstetric fistula in Ethiopia she co directed and produced with German actress Nora Tschirner.
Waiting area won a Democracy and Human rights award in Nürnberg, Germany in 2013.
Documentaries:
„Running for Life“ 2008, Director and Producer
„Waiting area“ 2012, Director and Producer
„Man made epidemic“ 2016, Director and Producer
Lothar Moll
Executive Producer
Lothar Moll has been an entrepreneur for 35 years and has built up companies whose global activity is based on the principles of the responsible use of materials and resources and of the development of consciousness. He works in the area of building biology in the manufacturing of construction products, has been granted a number of patents, and also developed the technique of active intuition. In his seminars, he teaches skills in active intuition – primarily to managers and decision-makers in industry.
Lothar Moll is active in two other film companies with films about open discussions of vaccinations and mobile communications technologies.
Lucy Martens Director of Photography
Lucy Martens was born in Hamburg, Gemany on 14th of May 1980 to a British mother and a German father.
Lucy studied in London at the Roehampton University and has a Bachelor in Film & History.
As a director and camerawoman for “Out of the Ashes” (BBC Storyvillle) Lucy won the British Documentary Award “The Griersons” for Best Newcomer Documentary in 2011.
Lucy is DoP for the documentary “The Speed Sisters”, which has been picked for this year’s Documentary and Story Lab at the Sundance Institute.
She was director of Photography of “Peace Unveiled”, one part of the four part PBS series “Women in War & Peace”, which won the Edward R. Murrow Award for Best TV documentary on International Affairs in 2011. Her work has been broadcast on BBC Storyville, PBS, ARTE, Canal Plus & ABC Asia.
DOCUMENTARIES:
BBC3 – The rise of female violence, 60min (UK, 2015) DoP
BBC3 – The muslim beauty pageant, 60min (UK, 2014) DoP
“The Sacred & The Profane” (South Dakota, USA) Director & DoP
“The Speed Sisters” (Palestine) DoP
“Afghan Voices” (Afghanistan) DoP
“The Making of Buzkashi Boys” (Kabul, Afghanistan) DoP
“Women War & Peace: Peace Unveiled” (Afghanistan) DoP
“Out of the Ashes – The rise of the Afghan Cricket team” (Afghanistan) Director & DoP
“Voices From Inside, Israelis Speak” (West Bank/Israel) Director & DoP
Simon Modery
Editor
Simon Modery is a London-based freelance film editor. Originally from Germany, he studied Media Design (MA) and Filmmaking (Diploma) in Heidelberg and London.
In 2008 – together with Ross Ashcroft and Megan Campbell – Simon Modery was key in founding the production company “Motherlode Ltd.”. The company produced branded content and advertising for clients like Barclays, Musto and Anthemis Group before moving on to feature length productions.
Their first film, the 2012 release “Four Horsemen” is an international festival success. Since its premiere at IDFA, Amsterdam, it has screened at 42 festivals and won “Best International Documentary” at the “Galway Documentary Festival” and at the “New Horizons” festival in Teheran. Following the success of Four Horsemen, Simon went on working on several other films including “Tripoli Awakes” and “Still the Enemy Within”.
Apart from his freelance work as editor, Simon also works in the educational field. He is a tutor at the London Film Academy and teaches AVID user-interface and workflow for NBC News.
David Hason
Music Composer
is an international film composer, record producer, arranger, performance artist and multi instrumentalist, currently based in Berlin, Germany.
He studied composition and orchestration for film/TV/games at Berklee College of Music, US-MA.
(Deutsches Fleisch, ZDF; Esther Niko – what If)
In the two videos below you can watch and listen to Dr. Peter Gøtzsche who leads the Nordic Cochrane Centers in Copenhagen, Denmark. Two hundred thousand Americans, he says, die every year from taking pharmaceutical drugs, the third-leading cause of death — half of whom while simply following their doctors’ orders.
Gøtzsche said that large pharmaceutical companies were no different than organized crime or the mafia. The companies buy off influential lawmakers, ministers of health and medical academics — effectively silencing criticism by anyone with significant influence.
When zealots and charlatans tell you that the science is vaccines are safe and effective, the example of polio vaccines show they do not know what they are talking about [or are lying to you?]. This CHS article is about: serious injury and death caused by the original and current polio vaccines; the lie that polio vaccines eradicated “polio”; how polio vaccines are causing cancer today.
What was called “polio” in the 1940s and 1950s is not what is called “polio” today. So one thread here is about eradicating a disease not with a vaccine but by calling it something else. The problem did not go away. An article in the British Medical Journal concluded “The only way to eradicate paralytic poliomyelitis is to stop vaccinating.“: Feature Polio. Polio eradication: a complex end gameBMJ2012; 344 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2398(Published 02 April 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e2398
Recent research indicates the vaccine was and is a big problem.
Polio vaccine causes non polio acute flaccid paralysis [or NPAFP] which is clinically identical to polio but twice as deadly – redefining a disease does not eradicate the problem – the problem remains but has a different name. In other words, research shows that children are getting paralysis and dying just by getting the polio vaccine – it is just not called polio [which is also one way of faking the effectiveness of a vaccine which causes temporary and longer term paralysis and death and so is not preventing it]:
One of the problems with “science” in biological sciences is that organisms are unbelievably complex. When “life” or biological “scientists” claim to “know“, 1) they don’t and 2) they can’t. Just because it is believed the “science” says that doing one thing can bring about one change, does not mean it is known what cascades of other harms caused by that change can be known. A single cell is complex beyond the full comprehension of even those who call themselves “scientists” who tinker with them. Even single cells are well beyond the capability of anyone to devise scientific theories to predict reliably what will happen when changes are made. Multiply that complexity for the trillions of cells and other complex structures within the human body and you start to get an idea.
It has been known for some long time now that the SV40 virus [polyomavirus simian virus 40 (SV40)] which was for a long time part of the polio vaccine continues to cause cancers and deaths today. This CHS article brings you details of a peer reviewed scientific paper which reviews the scientific evidence. The full extent of the death toll over many decades is not known. No one knows exactly how many people have been killed by cancers caused by the “life-saving” polio vaccine. It is without doubt very likely to be many hundreds or even thousands of times greater than the numbers of lives allegedly saved from the [redefined] “polio” by the polio vaccine.
Abstract: The polyomavirus simian virus 40 (SV40) is a known oncogenic DNA virus which induces primary brain and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and lymphomas in laboratory animals. Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen. A meta-analysis of molecular, pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Experimental data strongly suggest that SV40 may be functionally important in the development of some of those human malignancies. Therefore, the major types of tumors induced by SV40 in laboratory animals are the same as those human malignancies found to contain SV40 markers. The Institute of Medicine recently concluded that “the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions.” This review analyzes the accumulating data that indicate that SV40 is a pathogen which has a possible etiologic role in human malignancies. Future research directions are considered.
And if you want to find more on cancer and SV40 virus here are some further references [in addition to those cited in the above-referenced and quoted paper]:
Sweet, B. H.; Hilleman, M. R. (November 1960). “The vacuolating virus, S.V. 40”. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine105 (2): 420–427.
Eddy, B. E.; Borman, G. S.; Grubbs, G. E.; Young, R. D. (May 1962). “Identification of the oncogenic substance in rhesus monkey kidney cell culture as simian virus 40”. Virology17: 65–75.
Fiers, W; Contreras, R; Haegemann, G; Rogiers, R; Van De Voorde, A; Van Heuverswyn, H; Van Herreweghe, J; Volckaert, G; Ysebaert, M (May 1978). “Complete nucleotide sequence of SV40 DNA”. Nature273 (5658): 113–20.
Yamamoto, Hiroshi; Shimojo, H (August 1971). “Multiplicity reactivation of human adenovirus type 12 and simian virus 40 irradiated by ultraviolet light”. Virology45 (2): 529–31.
Hall, J. D. (1982). “Repair of psoralen-induced crosslinks in cells multiply infected with SV40”. Molecular & General Genetics188 (1): 135–8.
Michod, Richard E.; Bernstein, Harris; Nedelcu, Aurora M. (2008). “Adaptive value of sex in microbial pathogens”. Infection, Genetics and Evolution8 (3): 267–85.
Poulin, D. L.; Decaprio, J. A. (2006). “Is There a Role for SV40 in Human Cancer?”. Journal of Clinical Oncology24 (26): 4356–65.
Lowe, D. B.; Shearer, M. H.; Jumper, C. A.; Kennedy, R. C. (2007). “SV40 association with human malignancies and mechanisms of tumor immunity by large tumor antigen”. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences64 (7–8): 803–14.
Shah, K. V. (2007). “SV40 and human cancer: A review of recent data”. International Journal of Cancer. Journal International Du Cancer120 (2): 215–23.
Moens, U; Van Ghelue, M; Johannessen, M (2007). “Oncogenic potentials of the human polyomavirus regulatory proteins”. Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS64 (13): 1656–78.
Barbanti-Brodano, G; Sabbioni, S; Martini, F; Negrini, M; Corallini, A; Tognon, M (2004). “Simian virus 40 infection in humans and association with human diseases: results and hypotheses”. Virology318 (1): 1–9.
Engels, E. A.; Chen, J; Hartge, P; Cerhan, J. R.; Davis, S; Severson, R. K.; Cozen, W; Viscidi, R. P. (2005). “Antibody Responses to Simian Virus 40 T Antigen: A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma”. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention14 (2): 521–4.
Engels, Eric A.; Katki, Hormuzd A.; Nielsen, Nete M.; Winther, Jeanette F.; Hjalgrim, Henrik; Gjerris, Flemming; Rosenberg, Philip S.; Frisch, Morten (2003). “Cancer Incidence in Denmark Following Exposure to Poliovirus Vaccine Contaminated with Simian Virus 40”. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute95 (7): 532–9.
Pershouse, M. A.; Heivly, S; Girtsman, T (2006). “The role of SV40 in malignant mesothelioma and other human malignancies”. Inhalation toxicology18 (12): 995–1000.
Baggott, Mary Tim, ed. (2007). Nature, the Physician, and the Family: Selected Writings of Herbert Ratner, M.D. AuthorHouse. pp. xv–xvii. ISBN978-1-4184-7510-9.
Bookchin, Debbie; Schumacher, Jim (2004). The Virus and the Vaccine. St. Martin’s Press. pp. 226–28.
Lothar Moll
Lucy Martens
Simon Modery
David Hason
THE INSTITUTE FOR NEARLY GENUINE RESEARCH
GENERATION RESCUE
INSIDE VACCINES
THE AGE OF AUTISM
____________________Child Health Safety_________________ 
You must be logged in to post a comment.