The Scandal of Vaccines and Drug Industry Profits.

No big article – just these thoughts:

But for vaccines, which can harm, 21st Century treatments would exist now saving millions of third world kids.  75%  still die – despite vaccines being claimed to be effective – which for the third world 75% clearly are not.

This is the kind of unnoticed damage the drug industry is doing to healthcare today.

7 Responses

  1. And when it goes wrong sing very loudly we still can`t hear you..

    MMR Victim Refused Compensation For Not Being Disabled Enough

    http://vactruth.com/2011/09/02/mmr-victim-refused-compensation-for-not-being-disabled-enough/

    It has now been proven that the ‘Vaccine Damage Payments Unit’ (VDPU) not only cherry pick who they award compensation to, depending on the level of disability but also change their rules to suit their needs, as they go along.

    Katie Stephen has been left permanently and profoundly deaf in her left ear as a result of receiving the now banned MMR vaccine Pluserix. Despite her injury however, Katie has been refused compensation for her disability because the VDPU deems her to be less than 60% disabled.

    Katie Stephen was a healthy baby girl when she was injected with the MMR triple vaccine. Ten days later she was vomiting, delirious, screamed continually and was feverish with an inflamed left tympanic membrane and a sore throat, all signs that Katie may have been suffering from encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) a condition known to cause deafness.I asked Mrs. Stephen, Katie’s mother, just how her daughters disability had affected her. Mrs. Stephen told me that her daughter had endured many difficulties during her lifetime, these include not being able to play with, or understand, many toys and having to give up the violin because it is played on the left side of the head and Katie could not hear the sounds, She told me that Katie was often bullied and felt very left out because she could not always understand what was going on, often finding many situations just too distressing to cope with. She said:

    “Katie, as with most people who suffer from SSD (Single Sided Deafness) cannot determine the direction of a sound and this was a great hazard when she was smaller and she needed constant supervision and support for much longer than most children would do. In certain environments where a lot of noise is generated and the acoustics are bad, such as in swimming pools, pleasure parks, funfairs, cinemas and gymnasiums, larger cities etc, Katie becomes effectively stone deaf. She cannot attend discos or loud concerts and has on many occasions had to leave functions where the sound levels were loud and distressed her. This of course also led to social isolation at a time when most of her peers were disco mad.”

    She concluded with these words:

    “When she was small I could always ensure by always being there, that she presented herself to the best of her abilities and that she was always safe from either danger or criticisms/embarrassment, but that’s not so easy now she’s grown up. She lives everyday with the fact she’s different and just living each day requires double effort in every respect for Katie.”

    So what constitutes 60% disability and who makes up these ridiculous guidelines in the first place?

    A vaccine injury is a vaccine injury, period! This means that a person, in this case a child, has been damaged by a vaccine, sanctioned by their government and authorized as safe. Katie was given a vaccine that left her with a permanent life long disability. The definition of the word ‘disability’, means that a person has a physical or mental condition which seriously inhibits their ability to interact with others and enjoy life to the full? Katie has adapted her world to fit the requirements of the hearing world. She has had to make huge sacrifices such as forgoing a normal teenage life, enjoying parties, trips to the fairground and cinema: is this not disability enough to satisfy the VDPU?

    Apparently not! They appear to have no problem accepting that the MMR vaccine caused Katie’s disability, as they stated this in their letter to Katie regarding their decision. They said:

    It has been accepted that, on the balance of probability, vaccination has caused/contributed to Katie Stephen’s disablement.
    The overall evidence suggests that the MMR vaccine given, which contained the Urabe strain of attenuated mumps virus was biologically capable of causing sensori-neural deafness. This vaccine was subsequently removed from use.
    Katie was well when given her vaccination on09/12/1991and on22/12/1991had an inflamed tympanic membrane. Health Visitor records confirmed hearing loss on left side at 18 month assessment, when previous tests were normal. Katie was diagnosed with sensori-neural deafness in 1996.
    On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not, that the sensori-neural deafness of the left ear was caused by the MMR vaccine.
    So, no problem there then but then they add:

    “However, it has not been accepted that disablement resulting from vaccination is severe (ie. at least 60%)”

    So what does the VDPU actually say on their website? I read the list of requirements and rules with utter disbelief, talk about have it all your own way:

    VACCINE DAMAGE UNIT

    If you’re severely disabled as a result of a vaccination against certain diseases, you may be able to get a Vaccine Damage Payment. This is a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000. Find out more about Vaccine Damage Payment including how to claim.

    What counts as ‘severely disabled’

    Disablement is worked out as a percentage, and ‘severe disablement’ means at least 60 per cent disabled. This could be a mental or physical disablement.

    For example, total loss of sight or hearing is usually counted as 100 per cent..

    Effect on other benefits

    Your Vaccine Damage Payment can affect other benefits and entitlements like:

    Income Support
    Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
    Working Tax Credit
    Child Tax Credit
    Pension Credit
    Housing Benefit
    Council Tax Benefit
    Employment and Support Allowance
    The effect the payment will have depends on a number of things. This includes the payment being put into a trust and the payments being made from it.

    You should let the office that deals with your benefit or tax credit claim know if you’ve got a Vaccine Damage Payment. They will then be able give you more information.

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Disabledpeople/DG_10018714

    So basically if you have a limited income and receive any of the above benefits and theUKgovernment introduces a dangerous and life threatening vaccine such as Pluserix into the children’s vaccine schedule, which then injures or even kills your baby, the VDPU may pay you compensation but you could loose your home as a result!!!

    In the UK Housing Benefit can pay the full rent and Council Tax for a family if they are on limited income. These families can also receive a combination of the above benefits on top. Effectively this means that a family already needing to be financially supported by the government agencies will be further penalized if their child is severely disabled as a result of a vaccine that they have sanctioned.

    Not only has this but the VDPU use the ‘Industrial Injury criteria’ to measure how disabled your child is and whether or not they meet the 60% disability criteria. In another letter they wrote:

    “The severity of disablement in individual cases is assessed on the same basis as that for the Industrial Injuries Disablement Scheme, which is widely accepted as a test of severity.”

    Now, how can a baby injured by a vaccine, that the government has authorized as a safe vaccine, be compared to an individual who has had an injury in the work place? The whole system is totally corrupt!!

    Now if this all is not bad enough, this is where it all becomes really interesting. I will begin by giving a brief history of the vaccine Pluserix.

    Short History of MMR Vaccine Pluserix

    The Pluserix MMR vaccine was originally introduced to the UKin 1988. Unlike Merck’s MMR vaccine MMR11, Pluserix, manufactured by Glaxo Smith Kline contained the Urabe mumps strain of the mumps virus. Due to the growing concerns about the vaccines safety Pluserix was later removed from the market in 1992. Interestingly, however, Pluserix was first manufactured as Trivirix in Canada who withdrew the vaccine from use the same year as it was introduced to the UK vaccine schedule in 1988, Despite knowing this, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization still went ahead and introduced the vaccine into the UK with it’s new name Pluserix , that same year. Maybe, GSK and the UK government naively believed that by giving the vaccine a new name, it would be second time lucky for this ill fated vaccine? Sadly and tragically history repeated itself and on September 14th1992 Trivirix/Pluserix was withdrawn from use in theUK.

    In September 1992 the New Zealandgovernment also withdrew Pluserix. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr15.html

    It has been revealed that many children who had been given Pluserix, suffered severe side effects including, mumps, meningitis and encephalitis. It is a recognized fact that encephalitis can lead to deafness. Effectively, Katie was damaged by a vaccine that was known to the government in 1988 to be unsafe but this government decided to vaccinate children as young as 13 months old with it anyway. Not only that but when Pluserix was advertised to GP’s in the medical journals, it was not advertised with the ‘black triangle’ status symbol. All new vaccines and drugs should have what is known as the ‘Black Triangle’ status.

    The black triangle is a standard symbol added to the vaccine or drug’s product information during the early stages of use. It is used to warn doctors that they are using a new product to encourage vigilance and reporting of all suspected adverse reactions during the early stages. If a doctor, nurse or pharmacist suspects an adverse reaction has occurred when they have been using a black triangle product, they should report it to the Committee on Safety of Medicines immediately, by using the Yellow Card spontaneous reporting scheme. This system is designed to pick up unexpected problems or rare side effects.

    It was this system which led to the withdrawal of two brands of MMR vaccine, which used a particular strain (Urabe) mumps virus in their manufacturing process. Post marketing surveillance determined an unacceptable risk of vaccine-related encephalitis, which in turn led to MMR vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain to be discontinued in 1992.

    When asked who is responsible for giving drugs and vaccines the black triangle status, the MHRA replied that it was the pharmaceutical industry. This means that GSK did not comply with the guidelines set out to ensure the publics safety regarding this vaccine.

    It is totally unacceptable that Katie has been treated in this way. It is about time this whole situation was resolved and Katie received the compensation she deserves. She was vaccinated with a vaccine that was dangerous, unsafe and should never have been authorized in the first place. Not only this but the drugs company who manufactured this vaccine did not comply with safety regulations required for all new drugs and vaccines. It does not matter what degree of disability this child suffered, she was injured by this vaccine. For goodness sake, if it was a car taken off the road for causing a small child to be injured there would be a public outrage.

    I would like to thank Wendy Stephen Katie’s mother for providing me with the documents and letters to enable me to expose this issue.

  2. Thank you Angus it is the personal stories that are far more powerful than any pseudo arguments from the vaccine lobby that have such a black and white view of the world.

    A question you may be able to help out with is – Was there ever a time that a high titer measles vaccine was introduced into the UK or the USA or was there a time when the titers were ‘increased’ for the want of a better word ? If so was there any effect ? Including withdrawing that vaccine ?

  3. Institute of Medicine Review of Vaccines 2011

    The following studies were rejected by the Institute of Medicine in investigating MMR and Autism: some on serious methodological grounds others on poor study design / implementation.

    “The committee reviewed 22 studies to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration of MMR vaccine.

    Chen et al., 2004 (Fombonne co authored)
    Dales et al., 2001 (California paper)
    Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 (Fombonne again)
    Fombonne et al., 2006 (Fombonne again)
    Geier and Geier, 2004 (Thimerosal)
    Honda et al., 2005; (* This is the Honda / Rutter paper)
    Kaye et al., 2001 (Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance)
    Makela et al., 2002 (Finland Study)
    Mrozek-Budzyn and Kieltyka, 2008 (Poland)
    Steffenburg et al., 2003 (Sweden)
    Takahashi et al., 2001 (Japan)
    Takahashi et al., 2003 (Japan)

    were not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because they provided data from a passive surveillance system lacking an unvaccinated comparison population or an ecological comparison study lacking individual level data.”

    DeStefano et al., 2004 (CDC Atlanta)
    Richler et al., 2006 (University of Michigan)
    Schultz et al., 2008 (Paracetemol)
    Taylor et al., 2002 (Brent Taylor , Elizabeth Miller North London)
    Uchiyama et al., 2007 (Japan)

    Five controlled studies had very serious methodological limitations
    that precluded their inclusion in this assessment.

    Taylor et al. (2002) inadequately described the data analysis used to compare autism compounded by serious bowel problems or regression (cases) with autism free of such problems (controls).

    DeStefano et al. (2004) and Uchiyama et al. (2007) did not provide sufficient data on whether autism onset or diagnosis preceded or followed MMR vaccination.

    The study by Richler et al. (2006) had the potential for recall bias since the age at autism onset was determined using parental interviews, and their data analysis appeared to ignore pair-matching of cases and controls, which could have biased their findings toward the null.

    Schultz (2008) conducted an Internet-based case-control study and excluded many participants due to missing survey data, which increased the potential for selection and information bias.”

    The IoM found the following five studies …

    Taylor et al., 1999 ( Brent Taylor co -authors Farrington, Miller North Thames as above Taylor 2002 rejected)

    Farrington et al., 2001 ( co authors Miller, Taylor using data from 1999)

    Madsen et al., 2002 ( Denmark)

    Mrozek-Budzyn et al., 2010 (Poland rejected see below)

    Smeeth et al., 2004 ( Fombonne co author)

    ————————————————————-

    What is left is only 3 unique studies.

    North London
    South London
    Denmark

    Notes

    1. Mrozek-Budzyn et al., 2010

    “This study was rated as having serious limitations because it did not provide information on medical conditions among the controls and relied on medical record abstraction for immunization dates
    and autism diagnosis dates.” IoM

    2. Farrington 2001 used same data as Farrington 1999

    using the same population and methods as Taylor et al. (co author Farrington)

    3. Only 3 / 22 unique studies are left standing after being filtered for
    what might be called ‘poor or limited science”. Madsen Smeeth Taylor

    4. Madsen studied Danish population with differing MMR vaccine and vaccine schedule.

    5. Farrington / Taylor and Smeeth studies cosmopolitan / urban London with differing demographic populations than the rest of London.

    6. Smeeth reports interestingly …

    “The study did find a positive association between MMR vaccination and first parental concerns in the first six months following vaccination.”

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/1/2

    6. Major studies from California / Sweden / Japan and Finland have been rejected.

    7. Many authors had previous studies rejected most notably Fombonne 3 paper, Taylor, Miller 1 paper

    8. The Honda / Rutter paper did not make it through the first culling of studies and stands rejected for evidence for or against a relationship between vaccination and brain injury.

    9. Criticisms of the Madsen study which the IoM should have taken into account –

    Dr. S. Suissa of McGill University

    “Madsen et al. observed an adjusted rate ratio of autistic
    disorder after vaccination of 0.92 relative to no vaccination,
    when the crude rate ratio (my computation) was 1.45 (95%
    confidence interval 1.08-1.95).

    Moreover, the rate by time since vaccination increases to a high of 27.3 two years after vaccination (rate ratio 2.5) and decreases thereafter to 11.4 per 100,000 per year (Figure 1).

    It is stated that adjustment for age eliminated these rate
    increases, but the corresponding data are unusual.

    Indeed, the rates of autistic disorder by age at vaccination, although
    not the age at follow-up, are 18.9, 14.8, 24.6, 26.9 and 12.0
    per 100,000 per year respectively for ages 35 months.

    These rates are all above the overall rate of 11.0 for the reference group of no vaccination, over all ages. It is then somewhat implausible for the adjusted rate ratio to fall below 1, unless the risk profile by age in the unvaccinated is vastly different than in the vaccinated (effect-modification).

    In this case, the adjustment for age could have been artificial. It would be useful then to present rates on subjects 24-29 months since vaccination and on the unvaccinated (crude rate ratio 2.5) stratified by age.

    Otherwise, one could be tempted to conclude that the figure
    is in fact suggestive of an association between MMR
    vaccination and the risk of autism.”

  4. The argument against the MMR vaccine is a no-brainer. When you realise the chances of death are infinitessimal, against the advantages of catching measles , mumps and rubella, the extraordinary thing is that any Parent allows this vaccination. The answer of course is that they are not told of the facts.MMR diseases each kill one or less persons out of 60 million in the UK annually. Mumps one in 9 years. Rubellla death is so rare there are no figures for it.

    Want to risk autism or any ongoing harm to your child’s Immune System?What about the fact these mild diseases are good for your child? Had you heard contracting wild measles will halve a girl’s chance of later developing breast cancer? [See below]

    Wise doctors recommend Parents take their unvaccinated children to a party where the host’s child has the natural disease.

    Why not pass this on to everyone you know? It won’t be long before Doctors are totally discredited, and the idea of vaccination goes the way of the other bizarre medical practices, such as blood-letting using leeches, or the [still continued] injections of mercury which gave doctors the nickname of “Quacks” – a derivative of quicksilver.
    But we must publicise these facts as widely as possible.

    These points below rom Anita Petek-Dimmer, Founder of “Aegis” in Switzerland.

    “Today we know that childhood diseases have a strengthening and healing effect on the children and help maintain health during adulthood. This fact has always been known to older generations.

    This is clearest with measles.
    Chronic tendencies, such as recurring respiratory infections

    1, often heal after measles.
    Chronic health problems disappear, such as psoriasis or chronic kidney problems. The children’s hospital in Basle (Switzerland) used to get children with chronic kidney infections to contract measles intentionally in order to heal them, up until the 1960s.

    2. Children susceptible to infections are healthier and stronger after contracting measles; the need for medical treatment clearly decreases.

    3. Children in the Third World countries are less likely to contract malaria and parasites after measles

    4. The risk to suffer breast cancer decreases to less than half.

    5. MS is also much lower in people who had measles

    6.Hay fever is more rare in children who have older siblings and had measles than in those who were vaccinated against measles

    7.A large African study showed that children who have had measles are 50% less at risk from allergies than those vaccinated

    8,9. Furthermore it is shown that experiencing measles protects from diseases of the immune system, skin diseases as well as degenerative cartilage, bone and tumourous diseases

    10.English and American researchers also found that adult women are less likely to contract ovarian cancer if they had measles, mumps, but especially rubella during childhood.

    These are just rays of light. In detail, the protective effects after childhood diseases are far greater. Parents who accompanied their child through a childhood disease and who noticed the change will know what I am talking about.”

  5. Notation re Open Opinion, on September 4, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Taylor et al., 1999 ( Brent Taylor co -authors Farrington, Miller North Thames as above Taylor 2002 rejected)

    Farrington et al., 2001 ( co authors Miller, Taylor using data from 1999)

    ———————————————————————————————-

    I was surprised to find that Brent Taylor, of the above studies, had questioned and written to Professor Zuckerman Dean Royal Free Hospital on the 23rd July 1998. Making a clear complaint of the ‘ethics’ surrounding the Lancet 12 research.

    Taylor B. Correspondence to A. Zuckerman re: REC approval of protocol no. 172-96. 1998-07-23: http://www.circare.org/autism/taylor_zuckerman_19980723.pdf

    I would have thought that this sort of activity should have been declared in any subsequent research or commentary. As a member of the general public I would be certainly interested that research in this issue was free from any associative / personal or professional ‘bias’.

  6. Further to the above post I note –

    “You used to hear Wakefield’s people talking about how they would win the Nobel Prize for this,” remembers Brent Taylor, the Royal Free’s head of community child health, who frequently clashed with the pair. “The atmosphere here was extraordinary.”

    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full#xref-ref-28-1

    I believe the general public would interpret “frequently clashed” as indicating some personal / professional antagonism between the researchers.

    Science requires objectivity.

  7. Parents should concentrate on winning this case where it can be won.
    The Government and the Medical Profession,have been negligent in not making it widely known that :
    Measles accounts for ONE death pa in the UK.
    Mumps for ONE death in 9 years.
    Rubella has no death statistics, because it is even rarer.

    Since damage is known to be caused by the MMR vaccine, and quite probably Autism is one result, the Government cannot deny a responsibility for ensuring all Parents have these facts, before they make any vaccine decision.

    Government has deliberately reneged on this responsibility, because they have been persuaded to keep quiet about it.There is no other explanation except possibly gross criminal negligence, and incompetence. Unlikely. They have Armies of Civil Servants to advise them

    What Parent would ever agree to their child being vaccinated with MMR, if they had these facts before them? That is the acid test.

    What Parent would agree, if they knew that in fact childhood diseases were highly beneficial. They result in far fewer diseases through life, and far less cancers. If you google “Aegis Anita”, you will read the evidence. For instance, cases of breast cancer are less than 50% likely amongst women who had childhood measles

    To me this looks like the need to approach a Solicitor on a “No Win No Fee” basis, in a Class Action.There are £ millions to be made on a successful prosecution, and any prosecuting Barrister would be made for life, plus his/her Chambers would be inundated with further clients.

    The beauty of this approach is that the negligence laid out above applies to every Plaintiff, as the Government has been equally negligent towards every Parent who has ever had their child vaccinated, by never declaring the risks via the GPs or through publicity in Surgeries and CABs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: