New US TV Comedy Show – US Centers for Disease Control & Its Disease Estimates

To help you remember to make sure anyone you dislike should be pressured into getting the ‘flu shot, read this:

Piers Morgan Very Sick Days After USA TV Flu Shot Stunt Backfires – Piers Told “Don’t Ever Take A Flu Shot Again”

Having been caught claiming without foundation that its estimates show flu causes 36,000 US deaths annually [when a gross fabrication] it looks like the US Centers for Disease Control has changed tack.  The CDC seems to have stopped pushing in the media overall deaths from its news releases to bolster its claim Americans need flu vaccine and moved on to use less easily publicly checkable figures.  That includes cherry-picking alleged child deaths “reported to the CDC” and claiming they were from flu – 169 deaths in a population of 314 million souls.

In comparison:

Conventional Medicine – #1 Leading Cause of Death In USA

USA’s 4th Leading Cause of Death – Pharma’s Drugs.

The CDC was officially castigated by the US Senate in an official report CDC Off Centeras an agency which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“  but which was managing to spend US$11 billion in US tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.

Check out the smiling faces paid for by US tax dollars $$$$$ of CDC Director Thomas Frieden, MD, MPH and Anne Schuchat, MD, director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases in this summary news report of the recent CDC flu “news”:

CDC: Flu vaccine prevented 6.6 million illnesses last season Healio.com

And here are the US CDC’s figures:

Estimated Influenza Illnesses and Hospitalizations Averted by Influenza Vaccination — United States, 2012–13 Influenza Season December 13, 2013 /  CDC. MMWR2013;62(49):997-1000

And this to remind you what a great purchase you make when you get a flu shot especially if you were given it “free”:

Australia Bans Flu Vaccine – Child In Coma – Many Hospitalised

Children Get Narcolepsy From Flu Vaccine – Confirmed in British Medical Journal

Most UK Medics Refusing Flu Vaccines – UK’s New Chief Medical Officer Resorts To Bullying

US Drug Company Released Deadly Virus In EU In Vaccine

New Flu Risk From Vaccine – “a very effective way to spread flu” – New Nasal Spray Vaccine

Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic

“Children to Die” – Latest Flu Scaremongering

UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers

World Pandemic Health News Round-Up

Swine ‘Flu Jokes

“Don’t give children flu jab” says chief medical officer

US Docs “Children to Die” In Flu Non-Pandemic

EU Takes Emergency Measures Over Glaxo’s ‘Flu Vaccine – Causes Narcolepsy in Children

New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

CBS News Investigation – Forced Swine Flu Vaccination Under Obama’s “National Emergency” Based on Wildly Exaggerated Statistics

Australian Government Dumps On Sick Kids Injured by ‘Flu Vaccine

Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths

Flu Vaccine Cripples Healthy US Cheerleader for Life

EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

Now UK Recalls Another Novartis Flu Vaccine – Agrippal – Recall Follows EU and Canadian Bans of Agriflu and Fluad Flu Vaccines

EU Flu Vaccine Bans Still Unreported – Medics Sick After Vaccine Refuse More

New York Times – Flu Vaccine Does Not Work – Yet More Research Says

US Centers for Disease Control Caught Misleading About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn]?

An astute reader has noticed the following seemingly grossly false claims by the US Centers for Disease Control [‘CDC’] – which looks a little like vastly exaggerating the threat measles as a disease poses?

According to the US CDC there are 100 times or 20 million more cases of measles than the WHO reports for the entire world.  And according to the US CDC there are 100 times more deaths from measles [or 162,000 more deaths] than would be expected if relying on figures for a developed country cited by other governments [like the UK Department of Health].

Is this credible? For examples of how governments fake disease statistics to be orders of magnitude higher than the real numbers see Numberwang! Governments Fake Flu and Measles Death Estimates

So how reliable are these figures?

US CDC Figures:

Worldwide, there are estimated to be 20 million cases and 164,000 deaths each year.”

Overview of Measles Disease

Or put another way, the US CDC are alleging the case fatality rate worldwide for measles is 1 person dies in every 122 unvaccinated individuals who catch the disease.

Compare World Health Organisation [WHO] Figures:

Total 2012 worldwide reported measles cases = 226,722.

SOURCE: WHO published Measles reported cases Last update: 20-Oct-2013 (data as of 16-Oct-2013).

Compare Measles Case Fatality Rates England 1960:

The UK Department of Health gave out these figures:

“Death after measles – 1 in 25000″ [sic] “to 1 in 5000 depending on age
Miller CL. Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83. British Medical Journal. 1985; 290:443-4.”

[And the Miller paper the UK’s DoH cites is based on 1960s figures – and case fatality rates have fallen dramatically since the 1960s]

Compare Case Fatality Rates England 1993-2008:

Data from the Health Protection Agency shows there have been 76,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 and no deaths in adults or healthy children from acute measles. There was one death in a 14 year old on immunosuppressant drugs for a lung condition and one in an immunocompromised child [according to the HPA] since 1992.  That gives a chance of nil deaths per annum in healthy children since 1992 over the entire population of England and Wales – which is roughly 55 million – give or take – such as for annual fluctuations etc.  Alternatively the measles case fatality rate is nil for healthy children or 1 in 38,000 when the seriously immunocompromised are included.

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.”

…….

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  “

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

According to the Office for National Statistics, the 2008 death is now doubted to have been a measles death.

So the point for anxious parents in the UK being brow-beaten to vaccinate their children is – the chance of their child developing an autistic condition is 1 in 60 and the chance of their child dying from measles if they catch measles if not vaccinated is nil for healthy children [or 1 in 38,000 if the relatively very few very very sick individuals are included].

But of course that is the measles case fatality rate – the rate in individuals who contract the infection.  A large proportion may not catch measles either because they are immune or because they just did not become infected.

The risk of mortality to all children who have not previously contracted measles is what parents need to know – that is the risk to every child and not just those who catch measles – and in developed nations that is far lower.  Only a proportion of the population contract the disease.  [So watch out for measles case fatality rates as they give a distorted idea of the true risk.]

People are extremely bad at assessing risk and overcompensate for negative outcomes.  And in the UK around 600,000 individuals die every year.  British children and adults are at risk from road and other accidents, all sorts of other illnesses, old age and many other causes.  With no deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles and three deaths in very sick individuals since 1992 in England or Wales, the risk of anyone in a year dying from measles has fallen to well below 1 in 55 million overall population figure.

LATEST: Far East Killer Vaccine – 100k+ Deaths Diverting $ From Clean Water Programmes

The proposal to vaccinate 25 million babies in India annually may prevent 175 deaths from Hib meningitis in 5 years.  The lives of 175 children are important.  In resource impoverished areas, money spent on vaccinating 25 million babies could be spent on programmes for providing safe water.  These programmes will save many hundreds of thousand lives.  Leaving such considerations aside, the incidence of invasive Hib disease is low in India which also makes it difficult to justify introducing Hib vaccination. Additionally, the WHO has also been promoting a new form of Hib vaccine which has caused deaths in a large number of children. The WHO vaccine has also increased the price of DPT 30 fold.

In India 21 have so far died, in a limited experiment with the vaccine, and last week the Vietnam Government Drug Regulatory authority stopped the new form of vaccine – a Pentavalent vaccine – being used in Vietnam after 9 deaths.

The new vaccine was introduced because vaccine uptake for the previous vaccine has been poor.  The new vaccine is a combination vaccine; a Pentavalent vaccine.  This vaccine combines Hib and Hepatitis B vaccine with the widely used DPT vaccine. The vaccine is not licensed for use in the West but is promoted in Asia.

A large WHO sponsored study, meticulously done over 2 years (Minz study) found an incidence of Hib meningitis of  7/100000 children under-five.  The figure for a saving of 175 deaths in 5 years is suggested by a mortality of 10%.

Previously reported on CHS:

New Lethal & Unnecessary Vaccine For India & Far East – Which Kills – Promoted On Manufactured Justification

Another Lethal Vaccine Coming Soon To Your Baby – Pushed by Drug Industry – As Vietnam Suspends Five-in-One DTP, Hib & Hep B Vaccine Following 9 Deaths – But 32 Deaths Also In India, Pakistan, Bhutan & Sri Lanka

The present paper and its commentary were published this week in the Indian Journal of Medical Research in this context.

The article by Padmanabhan Ramachandran and colleagues available here suggests:

1.       Hib was found to be the predominant cause of bacterial meningitis in young children.  Hib meningitis was responsible for 58% to 74% of children with abnormalities in the CSF  (brain fluid)

2.       41% in Vellore are immunized against Hib and that is why the proportion of Hib was 58% here compared to 74% elsewhere.

3.       Hib accounted for 70% of bacteriologically confirmed meningitis.

An invited commentary accompanying the article is entitled

Making a case for universal Hib immunization in India: over interpreting the data.”

1.       It shows that the Hib antigen was detected only in 8.75 per cent of patients with an abnormal CSF cytology and not 74% or 58% as suggested in the article.

2.   There were only 7 cases of Hib meningitis in Vellore and one was vaccinated. The incidence of meningitis among those vaccinated in Vellore was not statistically different from those unvaccinated.

3. The Latex agglutination Test (LATS) used by the study to detect cause of meningitis, picks up 93% cases of Hib but only 39% Neisseria meningitides. Thus LATS cannot be used to look at the relative incidence of different causes of meningitis.

Conflict of Interests

The commentary says that one of the authors has a declared conflict of interest. Quoting Als-Nielsen and colleagues the reviewer says such conflict of interests has little impact on the results or data reported but it influenced the interpretation of the results and the conclusions drawn. “The fact that the data are not impacted by conflicts of interest provides persuasive reason to publish the figures from large trials such as this, regardless of the declared conflicts of interests. Publication allows data to be put out in the public domain. It can be interpreted by the scientific community, separately from the interpretations of the authors. Discerning readers and decision makers can use the data provided for health policy, based on sound cost–benefit calculations”

2013 MEASLES NEWS: The UK’s Fake Welsh Measles Epidemic – Only 8 Cases Confirmed For March – 302 Wrongly Diagnosed and “Notified” By Docs

[ED: CHECK OUT UPDATE MEASLES UK 2013 – Health Officials in Tail-Spin Over Vastly Hyped Claims of Welsh Measles Epidemic – BBC Removes False Claims from Website – ADDED 12 May 2013 @ 0400 UTC/00:00 EST/05:00 GMT]

[ED: CHECK OUT COMMENTS AT END FOR LATEST FIGURES FOR APRIL AND DISCUSSION – ADDED 4 May 2013 @ 10:30 UTC/05:30 EST/11:30 GMT]

UPDATE 13/5/13 – April figures:

We stated on May 3, when this article was posted

.. if the figures for April are wildly different, you will know for sure someone is not telling it as it is.”

We were 100% right.

Public Health Wales own figures of confirmed measles cases to the end of March 2013 were 8 for the whole of Wales:

All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections – CDSC Wales monthly report – Report date: Tue 02 Apr 2013 – Data to end of week: 2013 Week 13

See Table on Page 18 “2013 – Reports of Measles virus by LHB/LA of residence by month (table 2 of 2)”

The figures HPW published in their monthly report to the end of February were also 8 confirmed cases.  By Sunday 14th April the figures reported for March in the weekly reports issued during April totalled 15 for the period to 31 March.  By Tuesday 7th May the March figure was stated to be 22.

Public Health Wales own information also states:

Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.”  Measles Public Health Wales Health Protection Division – [accessed & added to CHS 12 May 2013].

But Public Health Wales claimed vastly more laboratory confirmed measles cases than existed in confirmations from their own laboratory and England combined.

To put the following into context in the first three weeks of 1959 there were 41,000 cases reported in England and Wales.  In the British Medical Journal doctors described measles as “mild”: British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

This is what was put out on British news by Public Health Wales during April 2013:

Chronology of claims of confirmed cases – source ITV News:

Wed 03 Apr 2013 – Last week the number of confirmed cases stood 432 [ED: sic].

That was the number claimed to the end of March.

Fri 05 Apr 2013 – The number of confirmed measles cases in the Swansea area has risen by 47 this week, according to the latest figures from Public Health Wales.  It now stands at 588 – a slight increase from the 541 cases confirmed earlier this week.

And that was just for the Swansea area – one city and surrounding area – not the whole of Wales.

Thu 18 Apr 2013 – Public Health Wales will release the latest figures for the ongoing measles outbreak today. On Tuesday the number of confirmed cases had risen to 765.

Fri 19 Apr 2013 – There are now over 800 confirmed cases in Wales.

Thu 25 Apr 2013 –  Earlier this week the number of confirmed cases of the virus stood at 886 – a rise of 78 new cases since last Thursday.

Sat 27 Apr 2013 – latest figures from Public Health Wales revealed the number of confirmed cases of measles reached 942.

Tue 30 Apr 2013 – The number of measles cases continues to rise and has now reached 1,011, according to figures released today by Public Health Wales.

None of this was true.  Public Health Wales never did have the numbers of cases they were claiming as confirmed.

By 2nd May it was reported confirmed cases for Wales were 370 with 850 tested and with 1,170 notified.  Suddenly the numbers of cases claimed by Public Health Wales as confirmed had fallen by nearly two thirds: MMR vaccination drive targets 43,000 children as measles epidemic spreads Press Association The Guardian, Thursday 2 May 2013.

It is claimed recently some laboratory tests had been sent to England for testing and that the figures were not in Public Health Wales’ own reports.  However, when the February and March figures were published by Health Protection Wales, no qualification to that effect appeared either on the HPW’s website and it does not appear in the reports,  so was thus not being applied to the February and March figures by Public Health Wales.   It appears a more recent claim added to HPW’s website on 9th May.

UPDATE 17 MAY

If HPW’s 9th May claim is correct [that their figures do not include tests carried out in England of Welsh notifications] the one case in Swansea is likely to have been bolstered by one confirmation from an English laboratory – making two confirmed cases in March in Swansea when HPW’s figures for notifications were 181 cases in Swansea and on 26th March HPW claimed 432 cases in the whole of Wales.

It can be seen that less than half of confirmations come from England – as more recent figures issued by HPW show.

The number of tests from England can be seen from HPW’s 2nd May news release stating: “The number of laboratory confirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested.” … “Across the whole of Wales the total is 1,170.”   as their latest report published 15th May shows 209 confirmed cases in April. So less than half the tests – 161 appear to have been carried out in England.

And as reported here, their figures to 31st March showed 8 confirmed cases to the end of March for all Wales – 1 in Swansea and two more in the Swansea area.

——-  ******* ——-

NOW FOLLOWS THE ORIGINAL 3RD MAY CHS ARTICLE AS PUBLISHED HERE:

Big Headline – but a very short posting to the links to the official figures just published by Public Health Wales.  You will not believe your eyes – so download them and see for yourself. Links to the full official statistics reports below from Public Health Wales.

If you take any notice of the British press you will know that the “epicenter” of this British epidemic of epic earthquake proportions – is Swansea in Wales UK.  That is where all the fuss is about.

Guess how many cases of measles there really were – no – not the huge numbers  the British media reported.

Public Health Wales figures to the end of March recorded just ONE laboratory confirmed case out of 183 notified cases in March – that is 18,200% over-diagnosed – or put another way – 0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles.  And hey, lots of them have not been vaccinated and they still have not caught measles.  How about that.

[ED’s REQUEST TO READERS: – repost link to this on Facebook, blogs, websites, Twitter, newspaper online comments please & email your families and friends – people are being scammed by health officials and the media – (added: 5/May/2013)

http://wp.me/pfSi7-1Qh].

For the entire period 1 January to March 31, 2013 for the whole of Wales Public Health Wales own reports recorded there were just 26 laboratory confirmed cases out of 446 notifications: 10 in January, 8 in February.  And in March just eight cases out of 302 notifications for the whole of Wales

That is a percentage rate of over-diagnosis and over-notification in March of 3774% or just 0.027 of notified cases were actually measles – and it is medical professionals who do the diagnosing and notifying.  Kind of knocks your faith in the ability of doctors to diagnose a basic childhood illness.  And we must not forget the poor man who died – but no one knows what he died of and three doctors did not diagnose it as measles.

But the British media lapped it up – after all – it was a death and you know how they love to wave the shroud to sell their papers in an ever-dwindling market.  Journalism – a dying profession in more ways than one.

Photos – 7th April 2013 – British Media Report on Massive queues as emergency immunisation centres open in Swansea:

[click on photo for enlarged image in new window]

Swansea1 (10)Swansea1 (5)Swansea1 (12)

And the media hype is exactly the same kind of tosh from public health officials that we saw over SARS, then bird ‘flu, then swine ‘flu.

Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.

Don’t bother buying newspapers or believing the garbage news from the BBC and other TV “journalists”.  These people are just irresponsible.  You cannot trust what they write or broadcast:

An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery.”

You can rely on good old CHS because we let you check out the figures here all by yourself.  Compare these two separate official reports – one is laboratory confirmed cases and the other is notifications:

All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections – CDSC Wales monthly report – Report date: Tue 02 Apr 2013 – Data to end of week: 2013 Week 13

See Table on Page 18 “2013 – Reports of Measles virus by LHB/LA of residence by month (table 2 of 2)”

And compare with this:

All Wales surveillance of notifiable communicable diseases – CDSC Wales monthly report – Report date: Tue 02 Apr 2013 – Data to end of week: 2013 Week 13

See Table on Page 4 “2013 – Notifications of Measles by LHB/LA of residence by month (table 2 of 2)”

BUT: the really interesting bit will be the figures for April. When there is a big panic on stirred up in 66 million people of the UK by just a handful of health officials and the completely useless easily manipulated British media, doctors will be notifying the spots on their tablecloths as measles.  So if the figures for April are wildly different, you will know for sure someone is not telling it as it is.

Let’s wait for the April figures. 

And in ten years time might we be amused by a confession like:

Oh dear, how the janitor when cleaning up accidentally spilled measles virus into all of those negative samples by accident before I tested them, and he did not tell me til yesterday.

So the one case in Swansea from 181 notifications is likely to have been bolstered by another confirmation from an English laboratory – making two confirmed cases in March in Swansea when HPW were claiming 181 cases notified and claiming to the public there were 432 cases in the whole of Wales.

Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine

A peer reviewed medical paper cited in the CHS article Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics confirms that “Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income”: Englehandt SF, Halsey NA, Eddins DL, Hinman AR. Measles mortality in the United States 1971-1975. Am J Public Health 1980;70:1166–1169.

In simple terms that means as people become better off year on year, measles mortality could be expected to keep on falling.

The following graph supporting that conclusion already appears on CHS covering the 20th Century – from 1901 to 1999: see Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW]

<big>Measles Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999

The red trendline is exponential.  It is created using the trendline function in professional commercially available software.  As can be seen 2007 is the year when the trendline cuts below a chance of there being one death per annum in England and Wales, based on a population of 55 million.

What a straight line exponential trendline on a logarithmic graph demonstrates is that the fall in measles mortality over the 100 years of the last century has been exponential.

In simple terms this means the rate of fall in mortality has been like throwing something off a cliff and watching it go faster and faster and get smaller and smaller as time passes until you can hardly see it at all.

And particularly, the fact that an exponential trendline results in a straightline is an immensely strong indication that measles mortality would continue to fall exponentially irrespective of the introduction of vaccines.

If we look at the standard “analogue” plotted graph, as in the example immediately below, we might be able to use our judgement and decide in our opinion the vaccine made little or no difference:

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

Measles Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999 - Analog Scale

But is there any way we might be able to tell more precisely whether vaccines had any effect?  Or to put it another way, what is the position for the trend ignoring when any measles vaccine was in routine use?

So here is the same ONS data but plotted only up to 1967 – before the introduction of the measles vaccine – and with the trendline plotted forward to where the chance of mortality falls below 1 in 55 million. 

Putting it simply this graph immediately below shows the rate of decline of mortality prior to 1968 and what might be the position after 1967 if things carried on as they were.  So data for the years 1968 to 1999 are excluded. 

Or the more complicated explanation: by eliminating data after 1967 from the graph the trendline should show the trend unaffected by any potential effect [confounding] by a measles virus containing vaccine affecting the natural rate of decrease in measles mortality associated with natural measles infection.  It is intended to show the likely trend from 1967 for the future, on the assumption the same rate of fall before 1968 applied after 1967.  [And we can check because we have the entire data set pre 1968 and post 1967 to do the comparison.]

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW].
Measles Mortality ONS Data 1901-1967

Again, we still see that the year 2007 is the point at which the probability of mortality from measles infection falls below one in 55 million per annum.  This is just as the graph for the data from 1901-1999 does.  This seems to suggest strongly that not only did measles mortality fall exponentially before the introduction of the single measles vaccine, it continued to fall exponentially and at the same rate after – even with the position up to 1999 it might seem.

Data from the Health Protection Agency shows there have been 76,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 and no deaths in adults or healthy children from acute measles. There was one death in a 14 year old on immunosuppressant drugs for a lung condition and one in an immunocompromised child [according to the HPA] since 1992.  That gives a chance of nil deaths per annum in healthy children since 1992 over the entire population of England and Wales – which is roughly 55 million – give or take – such as for annual fluctuations etc and 0.1 deaths per annum in immunocompromised children.

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.”

…….

“In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  “

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

According to the Office for National Statistics, the 2008 death is now doubted to have been a measles death.

Regardless of these two deaths in over 20 years, the trendline on both graphs presents a fairly reliable picture showing the chance of measles mortality falling below 1 in 55 million per annum, if there were no vaccination. And we can see that by 2007 actual mortality is in line with the trend shown by the graphs.

As UK measles vaccine coverage was well below 55% in the 1970′s and early 1980s what these graphs show is not unexpected.  It is claimed now that the level of vaccination coverage required to achieve the theoretical concept of herd immunity is 95%.  So any lower rate of vaccination clearly was not achieving that so according to that theory, the disease would still circulate and it clearly did.

The average UK mortality between 1968 [when the single measles vaccine was introduced into the UK] and 1987 was 20 and not hundreds and was falling over that entire period at the same rate exponentially as it had been before 1968.  So we can be reasonably sure mortality would certainly be expected to be well below that level as time passed – and that is what these graphs and the trendlines confirm.

Trendlines do not predict but give an indication of what might be the position.  In the case of the comparison between the trend for data to 1967 and compared to the trend to 1999 can we have a reasonable degree of confidence 2007 is likely to be the year the chance of a death in England and Wales would fall below 1 [ie below 100%] if there were no measles vaccines.

What we can also say with some confidence is that measles mortality would eventually have dropped to such a low level if there were no vaccines – all else being equal.

So what is the position after 1999?  If the introduction of the vaccines had any effect that effect would be to accelerate the fall which already existed – but as can be seen – we do not appear to see that clearly from the trend for the period to 1999 compared to the trend for the period to 1967.

Here is Health Protection Agency data covering the period from 1948 to 2008.  This data plotted identically shows exactly the same thing as the 1901-1999 and 1901-1967 data with one difference:

[CLICK ON GRAPH TO ENLARGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW].

<big>Measles Deaths 1948-2008 Source Health Protection Agency UK

The trendline for the HPA data drops below a chance of 1 in 55 million by 2000.  This is not like the 1999 data in the other graph which does this by 2007.  So on a very simple approach that might be interpreted as indicating the vaccine might have had some effect in accelerating a reduction in what is admittedly an already very low and continuing to fall rate of mortality. That of course might not necessarily be the case but it can at least be a working hypothesis.

It is of course impossible to prepare a logarithmic graph with zero values [there is no zero for a log graph].  For years which the HPA data had zero deaths it was necessary to substitute a value to plot logarithmically.  0.1 was used for this purpose.

With mortality as low as it was in the 1980s, one question which this data does raise therefore is whether it would be better for public health to have had an effective treatment for measles instead of or in addition to mass vaccination programmes – say like a measles pill. 

It looks an attractive proposition, potentially taking away the problem of mass population disease control and providing a means to save third world lives.  Third world children die despite the existence of vaccines and there is no effective treatment to save their lives.  So western nations have been extremely selfish in failing to address that omission.

What we must always bear in mind when considering graphs of this kind which do not rely on reported cases – incidence – is that reported cases prior to 1994 in the UK are wholly unreliable as an indication of true levels of incidence of a disease.  Doctors over-diagnose and have over-diagnosed measles by 74 times – for every real case there can and have been 73 non measles cases reported as measles: the data supporting this is set out here – Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics

In times of panic especially any rash might be reported as suspected measles and that is likely to be happening now in South Wales, UK.

Putting it simply this graph shows the rate of decline of mortality prior to 1968 and what might be the position after 1967 if things carried on as they were.

Science Illiterates, Quackbuster & “Skeptic” Thugs and Bullies Get Kicking “Down-Under”

The anti-safety vaccine lobby galloping in red tunics and full cry with hounds let loose and running blind fell off the precipice and crashed into a bloodied pile in the deep Gorge of Stupidity down under in Australia.  You can read about it here: Will the real Australian sceptics please step forward?

Yep, the mixed bag of various cranks and the kinds of nutters who follow the seemingly mathematically challenged “scientist” Dr David “Orac” Gorski did what they are best at.

Unhappy about Ms Meryl Dorey’s excellent work in Australia telling people the truth about how ineffective and unsafe vaccines can be for children and others, they started a legal case to attack her new venture “The Real Australian Sceptics“. 

They claimed “Australian Skeptics” was their trademark [and so ignorant they even cannot spell “sceptic”] but just like their spelling failed to take into account what a trademark is and that they don’t have one.  In a remarkable piece of “dumb-assed” cussedness they got themselves and their legal case trashed comprehensively.

Clearly one must be sceptical about “skeptics” [and probably a whole lot more than just that].

And is “thugs and bullies” an appropriate term?  The Bolen Report spelt that out in technicolour recently. 

You can read about it here: Australian Skeptics Dragged into Court over Rape, Mutilation,  and Death Threats Against the Australian Vaccination Network Leadership… Opinion by Consumer Advocate  Tim Bolen  Sunday, October 14th,  2012.

Such nice people.

Bill Gates Polio Eradication Plans – To Cause The Polio Equivalent of 235 Years of Cases Of A Twice As Deadly Disease

Bill Gates outlined his plans for polio eradication on the UK’s BBC television last night as the invited guest to deliver the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture.  Instead of feting Gates, the BBC’s journalists should have been spelling out what Bill Gates’s plans mean and the concern the aim of polio eradication is impossible in any event. 

In 2006 Science ran articles reporting how experts involved in attempted eradication had become highly skeptical about and doubted the ability ever to eradicate polio: Polio eradication: is it time to give up? Science May 12, 2006 Roberts, Leslie

But Gates ploughs on regardless whilst his plans will result in causing thousands of cases of a twice as deadly indistinguishable disease, called non polio accute flaccid paralysis [NPAFP].  This will be the result of the especially intensive vaccination campaigns which it seems will continue until not one case of polio is reported: New Paper – Polio Vaccine – Disease Caused by Vaccine Twice As Fatal – Polio Eradication Impossible

To get an idea of the figures take the 47,500 NPAFP cases just in India against the 205 cases total worldwide of polio.  Bill Gates wants to cause the current NPAFP equivalent of 235 years of polio cases but for a disease, NPAFP which is twice as fatal as polio.  Third world children and their families will pay the price with Bill tucked up comfortably in Seattle USA with his billions.

And last night the BBC were sucking up big-time to the world’s second richest man when what Gates’ plans mean and why he is really doing this deserves full investigation and reporting.  Clearly, the BBC’s independence and reputation for reliable reporting is no more and long gone.

W.H.O. AND OTHER EXPERTS BELIEVE POLIO ERADICATION IMPOSSIBLE

The polio vaccination campaign experts who believe eradication impossible include Isao Arita, a WHO expert from Japan, Donald A. Henderson, the director of the smallpox program, polio expert Konstantin Chumakov of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vadim Agol of the Russian Academy of Medical Science’s Chumakov Institute for Poliomyelitis. Arita in 1990 started directing the polio eradication campaign in the Western Pacific in 1997 and who predicated his faith in medicine’s ability to triumph over viruses.

Dr Puliyel’s paper implies that polio eradication is impossible because an artificial virus from a lab could leak out and circulate: New Paper – Polio Vaccine – Disease Caused by Vaccine Twice As Fatal – Polio Eradication Impossible

Whilst such leaks are possible and have happened with other viruses, there are other issues about man-made polio viruses affecting the feasibility of eradication and the continued circulation of the polio virus. Leaks from a laboratory of an artificial virus are not the main or only issue affecting the feasibility of polio eradication.

Additionally, we do not know how much polio virus there is in silent circulation – with asymptomatic non clinical cases.

In other words, the virus may never be eliminated – we do not see the clinical cases. The only cases of polio which are reported are paralytic ones – the reporting system is for paralytic polio cases – cases where paralysis is clearly evident – and very short temporary paralysis cases where the individual rapidly recovers may never be noted as polio or reported.

…. the confirmation in 2000 that vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) can circulate and cause polio outbreaks, making the use of OPV after interruption of wild poliovirus transmission incompatible with a polio-free world. A comprehensive strategy has been developed to minimize the risks …. appropriate long-term biocontainment of poliovirus stocks (whether for vaccine production, diagnosis, or research), the controlled reintroduction of any live poliovirus vaccine (i.e., from an OPV stockpile), and appropriate use of the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). ….. there is wide agreement that no strategy would entirely eliminate the potential risks to a polio-free world.

Aylward et al, Risk Management in a Polio-Free World, Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2006. ]

Was Polio the Problem In the First Place

We cannot be sure now whether the paralysis cases of the 1940s and 1950s pandemics were caused by polio virus. In other words, is the elimination of a polio virus relevant to eliminating childhood paralysis cases at all? This is an issue which was being discussed in the 1950s and still appears to be a live issue: “The history of the etiology of poliomyelitis is a history of errors.” J.F. Eggers, Medicine, 1954:

If Not Poliovirus, Then What Is Causing Today’s Cases of Flaccid Paralysis?

Will The Poliovirus Eradication Program Rid the World of Childhood Paralysis? With So Little Poliovirus Detected Around the World, What Is Causing Today’s Outbreaks of Acute Flaccid Paralysis? By Neenyah Ostrom April 20, 2001

The “slow” explosive rise and peaks of the graphs of the supposed 1940s & 50s polio pandemics covering a 20 year period do not fit the known pattern of other infectious diseases – compare the graphs shown here: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

… with this from the US CDC:

Additionally, a number of the first vaccination campaigns of the vaccine era are associated with increases in childhood paralysis including diphtheria and pertussis [whooping cough] campaigns; Pertussis Vaccination and Serious Central Nervous System Disorders: Early Case Series Evidence and Public Reaction

[BLUE TEXT ADDED 30 JAN 2012]

Bill Gates – Buying Immortality In History – By Beating An Already Beaten Disease & Killing Kids

Bill Gates is on a mission to buy himself historical immortality as a philanthropist eradicating the world’s diseases. But the world’s supposedly independent media have failed to tackle what is seriously wrong with this picture.  Gates is using an already beaten disease and his billions to gain for himself the credit in history for its eradication.  Some children who are not at risk of polio will likely die from a disease which is twice as fatal [NPAFP] as a result of the ensuing vaccination campaigns.

Polio has been on its way out for decades with most of the world already polio free and only three countries with 205 cases between them last year.  India, already polio free, has seen over 47,000 cases of NPAFP [non polio acute flaccid paralysis] rising in direct proportion to the number of doses of polio vaccine given. To get an idea of what the Bill Gates proposals will mean with intensive vaccination campaigns to eradicate the last cases of polio is that this will cause the NPAFP equivalent of 235 years of polio cases and Bill will be imposing this on third world children from the comfort of Seattle, USA and his billions of dollars.  There will inevitably be deaths. [BLUE TEXT ADDED 30 Jan 2013].

The polio eradication plans have been condemned in a peer reviewed medical journal with eradication being impossible to achieve, the campaigns causing a disease NPAFP which is twice as fatal, being unethical and not worth the cost to hard-pressed third world economies for the limited benefitsNew Paper – Polio Vaccine – Disease Caused by Vaccine Twice As Fatal – Third World Duped – Scarce Money Wasted – Polio Eradication Impossible – April 7, 2012.

It has been believed by W.H.O. and other experts over at least 10 years that polio eradication is not possible – see this CHS post made 30 Jan 2013 with references: Bill Gates Polio Eradication Plans – To Cause The Polio Equivalent of 235 Years of Cases Of A Twice As Deadly Disease.

But no one seems to dare to challenge the world’s second richest man: a man who ceded his Chairmanship of Microsoft following a long complex European Union investigation into the illegal business practices of Microsoft under his Chairmanship which saw sanctions and a US$326 million fine: Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine Brussels, 24 March 2004. 

But tomorrow Gates is giving the BBC’s annual Dimbleby lecture.  This will set out Bill’s vision of how he is to use his billions of dollars to defeat polio seemingly singlehandedly: [Bill Gates: The world can defeat polio 28 January 2013 Fergus Walsh].

Additionally, laying the credit for the fall in polio solely on vaccination campaigns, none of the media mention key factors in the reduction in polio worldwide.  These include Improved economic conditions and natural attentuation of disease.  With these major scientific confounders it is impossible to credit vaccines with defeating such diseases alone or at all.  If vaccines have provided any contribution it is a comparatively much smaller one.

Attenuation is the process by which diseases steadily diminish all by themselves and die out.  It is a well-known phenomenon in medicine:  Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics

Improved economic conditions bring the biggest contribution – cleaner water followed by improved nutrition:  How UNICEF Harms Third World Children And Misleads About Their Deaths January 21, 2013.

A significant problem with the existence of an illness like NPAFP is that it raises the question of whether the 1940s and 1950s polio pandemics upon which present-day vaccination campaigns are based were in fact caused by polio or whether the pandemics were of something else.  Those pandemics did not follow the regular repeating cyclical pattern of epidemics and pandemics of other infectious diseases, and were over before the polio vaccine was first introduced, as these US CDC graphs show:

Instead of reporting the facts and issues we see the BBC and world’s media simpering to Gates over his supposed philanthropy:-

Bill Gates: My Plan to Fix The World’s Biggest Problems Wall Street Journal January 25, 2013,Bill Gates

Bill Gates close to completely eradicating polio Washington Post-26 Jan 2013

‘I have no use for money’: Bill Gates plans to use his billions to eradicate polio UK Daily Mail Damian Ghigliotty  21 January 2013

Bill Gates interview: I have no use for money. This is God’s work Neil Tweedie UK The Telegraph 18 Jan 2013

Not only are people around the world not trusting the established for profit media, but this distrust means people are turning to more reliable sources for news. 

Here is a remarkable piece of brown nosing by the BBC’s medical correspondent Fergus Walsh [Bill Gates: The world can defeat polio 28 January 2013 Fergus Walsh, BBC].  It is the only UK media report mentioning the critical peer reviewed journal paper by Dr Puliyel.  

The Puliyel paper Polio programme – let us declare victory and move on is justifiably critical of unethical and dangerous polio campaigns.  But the BBC’s Fergus Walsh fails to mention the main criticisms and their justification. And he misrepresents the only one he does mention

Walsh mentions the criticism that polio vaccine causes the twice as fatal disease NPAFP but fails entirely to mention the critical and strong evidence of the vaccine being the cause of the fatal disease NPAFP – that NPAFP cases rise in direct proportion to the numbers of doses of polio vaccine given.  Walsh also fails to mention the criticism that the vaccine caused 47,000 cases when India is polio free – having zero cases of polio.

Walsh instead claims, without any source or attribution for his claim, that NPAFP can be caused by many other things.  And Walsh says nothing else about any of the other criticisms in the peer reviewed paper by Dr Puliyel – which is also cited on the US National Library of Medicine’s database pubmed.

But then the BBC is not a reliable source of news – as the world has seen recently over the gross sexual abuse of children by ‘Sir’ Jimmy Savile which took place over many decades under the noses of many BBC managers. Not only did no one at the BBC do anything about it, when they had the chance to report the news, the BBC stopped the broadcast going out.

If Bill Gates has business interests or investments in the drug industry, the one place we will never hear of them – if there are any – is from the UK’s BBC.  But if anyone does know if Bill has any such interests or investments or does not and can prove it either way, please do let everyone know.

Whilst Gates company Microsoft was engaging in illegal practices harming the development of healthy necessary competion, his company’s software has been causing vast problems for businesses around the world over decades with an unparalleled history of crashes and bugs.  Gates, having gotten rich on the back of that, now claims he has no need for the money and is doing God’s work.  Which begs the question – why he did not ensure the money was put into developing better software which did not cause so much economic harm – that would be philanthropic – but is Bill Gates really a philanthropist doing “God’s work” or something else, like the work of another less “user friendly” immortal?

British Press Association Publishes Known-To-Be-False UK Government Flu Death Figures – In A Story To Promote Known-To-Be-Ineffective ‘Flu Vaccines To UK Elderly

An irresponsible scaremongering UK Press Association story published today in the British Media falsely claims a grossly inflated known-to-be-false invented figure for UK ‘flu deaths of 4700.  This was in a story intended to promote ‘flu vaccines to the elderly when numerous repeated peer reviewed papers show the vaccines are ineffective and when the risk of ‘flu death is often nil and other times tiny.  The story falsely claimed:

Around 4,700 people die every year in England after getting flu, a Department of Health spokeswoman said. People in at-risk groups are 11 times more likely to die than someone who is not in an at-risk group.”

Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab Press Association 3rd November 2012. 

In many years the true figure is there are no deaths.  A four year average around the time of the supposed swine flu pandemic was 33 deaths per annum. If in winter 300 people die in an aircrash or 50 die in a motorway vehicle accident, the UK Department of Health will treat the deaths as if from flu and add them to the figures, claiming they are flu deaths.  CHS covered this back in 2010:  UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers

So how is it the British Press allow the British public to be conned by the British government every year like this?

How do we know the figures are false?   The bizarre way they are calculated was explained in 2009 by the out-going Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Liam Donaldson in a letter published on Christmas Eve in the British Medical Journal: Mortality from pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza in England: public health surveillance study BMJ 24th December 2009.

There are around 600,000 deaths in the UK annually from all causes.  So the risk of a ‘flu death is extremely small for a UK population of 66 million.  But in a calculated fashion clearly promoting known ineffective drug industry products British health officials every year use British tax funds to put out these false and invented figures for their friends in the drug industry to benefit financially and some British citizens are certainly injured every year by the vaccines.

How do we know the vaccine is ineffective?  Because study after study from the mainstream medical international research organisation The Cochrane Collaboration has demonstrated it countless times.  Again, CHS covered this here with a list of the papers and weblinks to them: New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

The PA story with the false figures was republished by a number of national UK newspapers and a large number of local newspapers.  None of the papers questioned the figures even though they are known to be false and provably so.

This is a measure of how little we can trust the information published and broadcast by professional news media when they get stories from government sources.  The media do not check or  question the information and the public are then tricked when the press should act as a protection against such blatant corruption within Government.

This is when we also know that the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency coldly and deliberately suppress data about serious vaccine adverse reactions: New Research Shows How Gardasil and Cervarix Vaccines Can Silently Kill Your Daughters And Sons.   In other words, our health officials are promoting known-to-be ineffective drug industry products whilst suppressing information about how many people are killed or seriously injured by them.  And the media are complicit in putting out false information which could lead to elderly people being killed or injured by an ineffective vaccine.

The PA story with the false scaremongering shroud-waving figures has been covered by national media BBC, The Independent, The Guardian:-

Take-up of flu jab drops The Guardian – Press Association – Saturday 3 November 2012

Fewer pensioners and at-risk patients are receiving the flu jab than last year The Independent – Ella Pickover – Saturday 03 November 2012

The Telegraph also ran the story but omitted the false claim about 4700 deaths annually:-

Flu campaign relaunched as vaccine uptake stalls – Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor 03 Nov 2012

Here are examples from the first three pages of a Google search of the numerous news outlets which have repeated the PA story:

  1. Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab « Express & Star

    19 hours ago – Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab. Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it.

  2. The Independent | Health News | Latest Health and Hospital Related

    November 2012 10:34 AM. With winter fast approaching, many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it

  3. Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab – Yahoo! News UK

    uk.news.yahoo.com/fewer-risk-patients-flu-jab-001034403.html

    19 hours ago – get flu jab’ on Yahoo! News UK. Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it.

  4. Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab – Staffordshire Newsletter

    17 hours ago – Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it. The number of pensioners who have

  5. icNewcastle – Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab

    icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/…/tm_headline=fewer-at-risk-patients-ge…

    18 hours ago – Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it. The number of pensioners who have

  6. icCheshireOnline – Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab

    iccheshireonline.icnetwork.co.uk/…/tm_headline=fewer-at-risk-patien…

    18 hours ago – Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it. – News from across the UK.

  7. Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab

    16 hours ago – Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it. The number of pensioners who have

  1. MKNews | News | UK-World-News

    patients get flu jab · Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab. Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it.

  2. Fifth have no savings safety net – Press Association

    19 hours ago – among vulnerable people have fallen. Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it.

  3. Kingston Guardian: Local news, sport, leisure, jobs, homes & cars in

    rates among vulnerable people have fallen many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it vidic may be

  4. UK News Headlines – Yahoo! News UK

    uk.news.yahoo.com/uk/

    Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it

  5. Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab

    Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it. The number of pensioners who have received the

  6. UK news archive from 2012-11-03, page 15

    4 hours ago – Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it. The number of pensioners who have

  7. Breaking News: Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab

    localuknews.co.uk/…/breaking-news-fewer-at-risk-patients-get-flu-ja…

    Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it

  8. National – Leyland Guardian

    Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab. Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it.

  9. Local & National – Belfast Telegraph

    at-risk patients get flu jab. Saturday, 3 November 2012. Many people who risk becoming seriously ill if they get the flu have not yet been vaccinated against it.

New Research Shows How Gardasil and Cervarix Vaccines Can Silently Kill Your Daughters And Sons

How have vaccines been silently killing children and adults without seeming to leave any trace?   Many unexplained infant deaths have occurred over decades following vaccination but the vaccines are never blamed by health officials as the cause.

New research into Gardasil and Cervarix HPV vaccines just published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs by researchers at the University of British Columbia, Canada reveals what appears to be evidence of the smoking gun – traces indicating the vaccines have been triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies.  Below we publish the abstract of the new research with a link for you to download and read the full paper.

Autopsy results of two young women who died from seemingly unknown causes following vaccination with the HPV vaccine Gardasil revealed no anatomical, microbiological nor toxicological findings that might have explained their deaths.  The two young women suffered from cerebral vasculitis-type symptoms following vaccination with the HPV vaccine Gardasil.  Post-mortem brain tissue specimens from their brains were analysed for various immunoinflammatory markers.

Results from this research suggest that HPV vaccines containing particular substances [antigens HPV-16L1] pose an inherent risk for triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies.  Cervarix also contains these substances.

So should you risk your daughter’s life and health by exposing her to the HPV vaccine?   The vaccine itself is pointless for 12-13 year old British school girls.  The chance of death from cervical cancer before age 20 is ZERO [see Cancer Research UK statistics – Cervical cancer mortality Statistics By age] – download stats as a table].   The evidence of duration of protection is 5 years [assuming the vaccine works as claimed – which is unproven and will not be known for 40 years].

The research shows that many of the symptoms reported to vaccine safety surveillance databases following HPV vaccination are indicative of cerebral vasculitis, but are unrecognized as such (i.e., intense persistent migraines, syncope, seizures, tremors and tingling, myalgia, locomotor abnormalities, psychotic symptoms and cognitive deficits).

CHS has separately obtained evidence showing that British Health officials in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] published analyses of adverse reactions to GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in such a way that the conditions underlying the reported symptoms of 4700 adverse reactions in 4.2 million British schoolgirls could never be identified.  This looks like “cooking the books” to ensure no information would be made public which might suggest the vaccine is dangerous – thereby ensuring the lives and health of British school children was put at risk in this mass experiment on these schoolgirls.  British health officials have now from this September abandoned GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in favour of Gardasil claiming the change is all due to tendering competition.  That of course cannot be correct because the Department of Health was previously heavily criticised for allowing only a single source to supply a vaccine when that resulted in supply difficulties.  So leaving a single source for the HPV vaccine would similarly repeat the previously heavily criticised arrangements.

To diagnose an underlying condition it is fundamental that all the symptoms be considered together.  What the MHRA officials did was to split up the symptoms each girl suffered to report the symptoms separately under five categories which bore no relation to the potential underlying conditions suffered by these children.  A large number of the reported individual symptoms are symptoms of an encephalopathy – which is a general medical term for a brain disease or injury.  But it will never be known from the MHRA’s published analyses because 1) all the symptoms were split up and 2) not a single reported adverse reaction was the subject of clinical investigation despite Cervarix being a new vaccine whose full adverse effects were unknown.

98 in every 100 adverse drug reactions are known to be under-reported and symptoms of some vaccine adverse reactions do not appear for months or years so the real rate of adverse reactions from the mildest to the most severe could well have been as high as 1 in every 10 girls receiving the vaccine.

So can we trust government and health officials with anything including when it comes to keeping our children safe from harms they insist the children are exposed to?  No.  So nothing new there then.  Same old same old crooked government behaviours.  Which is the bigger risk to your children?  World terrorism or your own government?  Yes that’s right – government wins that contest by a massive margin.  It is unbelievably rare for any of your children to be at risk from terrorist attack.  It is vastly more common for your children to be at risk from all manner of government health and other agencies.

And why does our headline refer to sons?  It is being suggested the same vaccines be given to boys also.  Breathtakingly health officials are coming for your sons too.   It is more bizarre than the plot of a Batman movie.

For previous CHS articles about HPV vaccine and the widespread harms they have been causing please see the following:

Abstract:  Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine: Causal or Coincidental?

Lucija Tomljenovic1* and Christopher A Shaw1,2,3
1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Canada
2Program in Experimental Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada
3Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract:

Background: The proper understanding of a true risk from vaccines is crucial for avoiding unnecessary adverse  reactions (ADRs). However, to this date no solid tests or criteria have been established to determine whether adverse events are causally linked to vaccinations.

Objectives: This research was carried out to determine whether or not some serious autoimmune and neurological ADRs following HPV vaccination are causal or merely coincidental and to validate a biomarker-based immunohistochemical (IHC) protocol for assessing causality in case of vaccination-suspected serious adverse neurological outcomes.

Methods: Post-mortem brain tissue specimens from two young women who suffered from cerebral vasculitis-type symptoms following vaccination with the HPV vaccine Gardasil were analysed by IHC for various immunoinflammatory markers. Brain sections were also stained for antibodies recognizing HPV-16L1 and HPV-18L1 antigen which are present in Gardasil.

Results: In both cases, the autopsy revealed no anatomical, microbiological nor toxicological findings that might have explained the death of the individuals. In contrast, our IHC analysis showed evidence of an autoimmune vasculitis potentially triggered by the cross-reactive HPV-16L1 antibodies binding to the wall of cerebral blood vessels in all examined brain samples. We also detected the presence of HPV-16L1 particles within the cerebral vasculature with some HPV-16L1 particles adhering to the blood vessel walls. HPV-18L1 antibodies did not bind to cerebral blood vessels nor any other neural tissues. IHC also showed increased T-cell signalling and marked activation of the classical antibody-dependent complement pathway in cerebral vascular tissues from both cases. This pattern of complement activation in the absence of an active brain infection indicates an abnormal triggering of the immune response in which the immune attack is directed towards self-tissue.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that HPV vaccines containing HPV-16L1 antigens pose an inherent risk for triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies.

Practice implications: Cerebral vasculitis is a serious disease which typically results in fatal outcomes when undiagnosed and left untreated. The fact that many of the symptoms reported to vaccine safety surveillance databases following HPV vaccination are indicative of cerebral vasculitis, but are unrecognized as such (i.e., intense persistent migraines, syncope, seizures, tremors and tingling, myalgia, locomotor abnormalities, psychotic symptoms and cognitive deficits), is a serious concern in light of the present findings. It thus appears that in some cases vaccination may be the triggering factor of fatal autoimmune/neurological events. Physicians should be aware of this association.

Access entire article here.

*Corresponding author: Lucija Tomljenovic, Neural Dynamics Research Group, 828 W. 10th Ave.,Vancouver, BC, Canada, V5Z 1L8, Tel: 604-875-4111 (ext. 68375); Fax: 604-876-4376; E-mail: lucijat77@gmail.com

Received September 13, 2012; Accepted October 02, 2012; Published October 04, 2012

Citation: Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA (2012) Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination: Causal or Coincidental? Pharmaceut Reg Affairs S12:001. doi:10.4172/2167-7689.S12-001

Copyright: © 2012 Tomljenovic L, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Drug, Food & GM Industries Eradicating Your Access to Vitamins and Other Safe Health Foods

Here CHS presents a news release today from the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine on the continuing efforts in the USA to deny freedom to obtain health giving and sometimes life-saving vitamins and other healthy foods. It reports a recent study showing that the vitamins and food supplements are so safe the risk of mortality is lower than risks of death from a lightning strike and obviously vastly less risky than pharmaceutical drug reactions.  The risk of dying from preventable medical injuries in hospitals is 350,000 times greater [in percentage terms that is a 35 million percent greater risk].

Here is the main graphic summarising.  Look in the bottom left corner to see how vastly safer herbal remedies vitamins and food supplements are:

[CLICK ON IMAGE BELOW TO OPEN LARGER IMAGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW AND TO PRINT IMAGE ON ITS OWN]

Societal vs Individual Risk of Death in Europe

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n31-figure1-lg.jpg

You can subscribe to the journal for free email updates [see end for link]. It carries good informative journal papers and news.

The efforts of the drug and food industries to elimimate competition, including lobbying to legislate vitamins and food supplements out of existence, continue in the USA following legislation introduced in the EU. Vitamins and food supplements have been proven safe over decades, sometimes centuries and in the case of clean water since the beginning of life on earth. But EU legislation has led to the bizarre situation that it is illegal to advertise that water can help prevent dehydration.  These kinds of developments have been reported by CHS here:

EU bans food claim that water prevents dehydration – Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Orwellian World of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” Is Here for Health and Food

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 16, 2012

Restrictions on Food Supplements are Based on Misinformation

An alert from Europe to the rest of the world

by Gert Schuitemaker, PhD

Introduction: “It can’t happen here” qualifies for top placement on the all-time list of famous last words. The United States still has, for now, over-the-counter access to nutritional supplements. But no one who reads newspapers, watches televised news, or leafs through a magazine can miss the preponderance of negative reporting on vitamins. As OMNS continues to counter such misinformation (this issue is the 145th), we take a look at the real “risks” of dietary supplements. Readers may wish to keep in mind what Dr. Abram Hoffer famously said: “All attacks on supplement safety are really attacks on supplement efficacy.” If supplements are vilified, they can be made prescription. If they are prescription, costs will go up and access will vanish. – Andrew W. Saul, Editor

(OMNS Oct 16, 2012) A recent study explains that the risk of mortality from taking food supplements is far lower than other risks like smoking, pharmaceutical adverse drug reactions, cancer, and even dying from a lightning strike. [1] This important new information is relevant to recent food regulations in the European Union (EU) that are supposed to make commercially sold food supplements safer. The study shows the belief that food supplements are dangerous is mistaken.

The Codex Alimentarius was established In 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and later the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an international standard, with guidelines and codes of practice for the sale of food products, including food supplements.[2] In the natural health community, the Codex is considered a threat to freedom of choice and purchase of food supplements because it stipulates what doses of supplements can be sold and what wording may be used in advertising and packaging.

The Codex has not been adopted by the United States, but within the EU, it was signed into law in 2002 with the adoption of the European Food Supplements Directive. This set of regulations restricts the free choice of consumers when purchasing food supplements. To more fully appreciate this issue, it should be understood that compared to the United States, the EU is highly socialized and regulated. Acceptance of such rigid legislation by policy makers and politicians is easier in Europe than on the other side of the Atlantic. But giant food corporations are lobbying for similar limitations in the USA. Thus, the Codex Alimentarius and the EU legislation are considered a likely template for exporting this type of food regulation to the rest in the world.

This type of food legislation is designed to protect every citizen of the EU from suspected risks, even those imagined to be related to taking food supplements. Thus, if a dietary supplement does not have “scientific evidence that it is not harmful,” it is treated as harmful until proven otherwise. . On first thought, many of us would expect that the government has a moral obligation and an implied mandate to research such risks and impose such precautionary laws. However, this paralyzing “dangerous until proven safe” logic recently drove the EU committee in charge to deny claims that water treats dehydration and prunes treat constipation, because there was not enough scientific evidence to make these claims! [1]

Threat to freedom of health

The implementation of the European Food Supplements Directive is imminent. As of December 14, 2012, health claims made on food supplements must be authorized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), based on a very rigid and restrictive set of rules. Of the 4000 claims submitted so far, only about 220 have been accepted. For example, the regulations forbid the use of terms such as ‘energy’ for coenzyme Q10, ‘antioxidant’ for quercetine, and ‘probioticals’ for probioticals on supplement labels. The reason is that the law considers these terms to be unfounded claims of health benefits.

This EU legislation is in opposition to the wishes of consumers who want to take responsibility for their own health. Citizens worldwide fighting for freedom of choice should take note, because the template for global implementation has been set in motion with nothing to stop its assault on your health freedom. In response to this insidious threat, the Alliance for Natural Health International compiled a chart that quantifies the risk of mortality from various causes within the EU.[1]

[CLICK ON IMAGE BELOW TO OPEN LARGER IMAGE IN NEW TAB/WINDOW AND TO PRINT IMAGE ON ITS OWN]

Societal vs Individual Risk of Death in Europe

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n31-figure1-lg.jpg

Figure 1. Risk of death from various causes in the EU. First, note the position of the bubbles in the quadrants. The X-axis (horizontal) indicates the risk of mortality for an individual (per million people) when the individual is exposed to the risk. The Y-axis (vertical) indicates the overall risk of mortality per million EU residents. A.The upper right quadrant shows mortality risks that apply to a relatively large proportion of the population, for example cancer or preventable medical injury, and that are also relatively large for individuals when exposed. B. The bottom right quadrant shows that a relatively small proportion of the total EU-population dies from the risk, for example railway work, but an individual has a relatively large risk of mortality from exposure. C. The bottom left quadrant shows a relatively small risk of mortality for the overall EU-population, and that an individual also has a small risk of mortality from exposure. D. The upper left quadrant shows a theoretical risk which is relatively large for the overall population, but is small for an individual when exposed. In reality this cannot occur because if individual risk of death is small, then overall the risk must also be small. The size of each bubble represents the relative risk for individual exposure. Note: the log scale is used to allow the data to be meaningfully presented on one graph, but this implies that the differences in risk are exponentially greater than shown by the bubble positions. Figure adapted from ANHI [1].

Results of the ANHI risk study

  • Result 1. Smoking and illicit drug use have equally large bubbles (upper right quadrant). This means an equal and relatively large risk of mortality from smoking and drug use for the individual smoker and individual drug user (about 2,500 per million [1:400]). But the overall risk for drug use is much lower because fewer people use illicit drugs than smoke (risk from illicit drug use: ~10 per 1 million EU inhabitants [1: 100,000]; from smoking: ~1,000 per million [1 : 1,000]).
  • Result 2. Lightning and use of food supplements (lower left quadrant) both represent an extremely small risk. The risk of mortality from food supplement use by individuals is 1 in 100 million, and for being struck by lightning is 80 in 100 million. So the risk of mortality as a result of a food supplement use is 80 times smaller than from lightning.
  • Result 3. Comparison of the use of food supplements (lower left quadrant) vs. preventable medical injuries in hospitals (upper right quadrant). The relative size of the bubbles shows that the risk of mortality from food supplements is much lower than the risk of mortality from preventable medical injuries in hospitals. Reading from the X-axis, it is apparent that the risk of mortality to individuals from food supplements is extremely small (1 in 100 million), but the risk of mortality from preventable medical injuries in hospitals is thousands of times greater (5,000 per million or 0.5%). Reading from the Y-axis, it is apparent that the overall risk of mortality in the EU from food supplements is even lower (6 in 1 billion or 1 in 170 million) and from preventable injuries during a stay in the hospital about 700 per million [1 in 1400].
  • Result 4. – Comparison of risk for individual (represented by bubble size and the location on the X-axis):
Use of food supplements Compared to preventable medical injuries in hospitals 1:351,220
Compared to smoking 1:173,000
Compared to cancer 1:173,000
Compared to pharmaceutical adverse drug reactions 1:123,125
Compared to lightning 1:26
Use of herbal remedies Compared to preventable medical injuries in hospitals 1:206,600

Conclusion

Taking your daily food supplement in the EU is one of your safest daily activities. Even getting fatally struck by lightning is a bigger risk. The risk of dying from preventable medical injuries in hospitals is 350,000 times greater. The European authorities meant to impose precautionary legislation to protect the EU citizen against the risks they imagined, but in fact their prejudice favoring large food corporations is shown by the risk chart. Food supplements are very, very safe. The Codex Alimentarius is considered by many as an imminent threat to the freedom to take the food supplements of citizens of the US. Unfortunately, like the food legislation in the EU, it is currently being considered as a template for legislation worldwide [3]. This most definitely includes America.

(Dr. Gert Schuitemaker trained as a pharmacist and then completed his PhD in medicine at University of Maastricht. He is the founder of the Ortho Institute in the Netherlands, which publishes Orthomoleculair magazine for health professionals and Fit mit Voeding (“Fit With Nutrition”) for the public. Dr. Schuitemaker has published several books and more than 300 articles.)

For further information:

The Alliance for Natural Health International is a non-governmental organization promoting natural and sustainable approaches to healthcare. ANHl campaigns across a wide range of healthcare fields, including the use of herbal products and essential nutrients in adequate doses. http://www.anh-europe.org and http://www.anh-usa.org

References:

1. http://www.anh-europe.org/news/anh-exclusive-lightning-more-dangerous-than-herbs-or-vitamins.

2. http://www.codexalimentarius.org/.

3. Schwitters B. Health Claims Censored. The case against the European Health Claim Regulation. De Facto Publications, 2012.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

Find a Doctor

To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Dean Elledge, D.D.S., M.S. (USA)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Janson, M.D. (USA)
Robert E. Jenkins, D.C. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org Readers may write in with their comments and questions for consideration for publication and as topic suggestions. However, OMNS is unable to respond to individual emails.

This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.

To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html

USA’s 4th Leading Cause of Death – Pharma’s Drugs

Republished from Infomail 22/Jun/12 from NY USA charity AHRP [Alliance for Human Research Protection – www.ahrp.org]

“Prescription drug therapy stands as one of the most significant perils to health resulting from human activity.”  Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. In any given month, 48% of US consumers ingested a prescription drug, and 11% ingested five or more prescription drugs. Americans suffer from an estimated 45-50 million adverse effects, from prescription drugs–of which 2.5 million to 4 million are serious, disabling or fatal.
[QuarterWatch, May 2012 http://www.ismp.org/quarterwatch/pdfs/2011Q4.pdf]

The FDA does not even monitor its own adverse event report database, MedWatch. Neither government agencies charged with setting healthcare policies, nor major stakeholders in medicine, are monitoring drug safety to identify which prescribed drugs are causing most serious harm. No one in authority is doing anything to prevent the escalating number of preventable human casualties.

Only one in seven patented drugs offers a clinical benefit over existing, safer, and cheaper alternatives–and only 1% can be said to be “life-saving.” [http://www.pharmamyths.net/]

Since May, 2008, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, an independent nonprofit organization, has been monitoring FDA’s MedWatch database, publishing quarterly reports (QuarterWatch).  The latest report found that in 2011, the FDA received 179,855 reports of serious, disabling, and fatal adverse drug events in the United States. This is an increase of 9.4% from 2010. http://www.ismp.org/quarterwatch/pdfs/2011Q4.pdf

Pharmaceutical company reports about deaths were found to be “nearly useless” in that they are vague, failed to report critical patient information, such as cause of death or age of patient.  Generic drug manufacturers rarely file adverse drug reports.

The authors—Thomas Moore, Curt Furberg, MD, PhD, and Michael Cohen, RPh, MS, ScD—point out that the most valuable barometer of drug safety risk is found in reports submitted directly to the FDA by physicians and patients. Unfortunately, the FDA estimates that serious adverse drug event reports submitted by physicians and patients constitute less than 1% of actual serious injuries. In 2011, physicians and patients submitted 21,002 adverse event reports to the FDA. These reports represent at least 2.5 million actual serious prescription drug injuries, including 128,000 deaths.

In 2011, the five leading drugs ranked by the number of direct adverse event reports from physicians or patients: anticoagulant drugs, Pradaxa and Coumadin linked to hemorrhage; antibiotic Levaquin linked to tendonitis, fatal allergic reaction, nerve damage resulting in pain, burning or numbness, and central nervous system abnormalities including depression, confusion; anti-cancer drug Carboplatin linked to bone marrow suppression; antihypertensive Lisinopril (Prinivil, Zestril) linked to dizziness, nausea, anxiety, insomnia, swelling, difficulty breathing.

The other valuable source of information documenting drug safety risk, are litigation-related adverse event reports submitted to the FDA.  The five drugs most frequently cited in litigation were patent-protected: the anti-nausea drug metroclopramide linked to tardive dyskenisia; the contraceptive drugs Yaz and Yasmin linked to blood clots and stroke; the anti-diabetes drug Avandia linked to heart attacks; the anti-smoking drug Chantix linked to suicide and homicide; and the acne drug Accutane linked to suicide.

Fifty-eight drugs carry FDA-mandated warning labels about the risk of suicide and suicidal behaviors. The most frequently identified drug posing a suicide risk in 2011, was SEROQUEL, with 197 reported cases.

Since the Iraq war many troop deployments are only approved if medications are prescribed. The Los Angeles Times reported that service personnel can be given 180-days worth of pills to take to combat zones, with nothing to stop them trading medicines or grabbing handfuls of pills to dull a stressful day in the battlefield: Military’s Rising Psychiatric Drug Prescriptions May be Linked to Suicides, Homicides by Kim Murphy, The Los Angeles Times, Aptil 7, 2012.

For the full details of this edited version of the AHRP Infomail read more here:

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/856/9/

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/854/9/

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/855/9/

Merck Scientists Accuse Company of Mumps Vaccine Fraud that Endangers Public Health – “Protocol 007”

Republished from Age of Autism

By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill

[CHS ED: 1) This is relevant to many countries outside the USA – Merck’s MMR II is used around the world.  2) This also means the world would probably have been better off with no mumps vaccine.  Read on for why.]

At its core, the 55-page whistleblower lawsuit unsealed Friday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia makes one stunning allegation – that pharmaceutical giant Merck traded children’s health to protect monopoly profits, and engaged in a systematic, elaborate, and ongoing fraud to do so.

If the charges – which Merck denies – are true, a 12-month-old child getting a recommended shot containing the mumps vaccine at their pediatrician’s office this morning would not be adequately protected from the disease, and could face serious health complications down the road as a result.

The alleged fraud: a multi-year effort to hide the fact that the mumps vaccine is no longer anywhere near as effective as Merck claims. The project was widely known and approved within the company’s vaccine division and even had a name, Protocol 007, according to the two former Merck scientists who filed the suit more than two years ago under the federal whistleblower statute. Virologists Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski claim they witnessed the fraud firsthand when they worked at the Merck vaccine laboratory in West Point, Pennsylvania, between 1999 and 2002, and were pressured to participate.

They describe a supervisor manually changing test results that showed the vaccine wasn’t working; hurriedly destroying garbage-bags full of evidence to keep the fraud from being exposed; and lying to FDA regulators who came to the lab after being alerted by the whistleblowers. A top Merck vaccine official told Krahling the matter was a “business decision,” the suit says, and he was twice told the company would make sure he went to jail if he told federal regulators the truth.

The alleged fraud occurred because, in order to maintain its license for the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine, known as the MMRII, Merck needed to show that the mumps vaccine was still as potent as when originally approved in 1967 as a single vaccine, able to induce immunity in 95 percent of those vaccinated. That number, according to vaccine authorities, is crucial because it leads to “herd immunity,” protective against outbreaks even among unvaccinated people. The problem with the mumps vaccine lay in the fact that by the late 1990s, after decades of producing it with the original strain of mumps virus, the vaccine’s effectiveness had steadily declined, the suit says.

Merck is the only company licensed in the United States to produce the individual mumps vaccine, as well as the MMRII and a newer shot called the MMRV or ProQuad, which also contains the chickenpox vaccine. That gives Merck an effective monopoly on the product line, which by our estimate has brought the company as much as $10 billion in business since 2000. The complaint conservatively estimates MMRII purchases by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at $750 million.

If tests showed the mumps vaccine is ineffective — or far less so than promised — the door would be opened to any number of adverse events for Merck, from federal regulators pulling the licenses for all of its mumps-vaccine-containing products, to intensified competition from other manufacturers if they became aware of the problem.

What’s more, weak efficacy could be triggering real-time, real-world health problems here and abroad, where a version of the MMRII is also used. Mumps outbreaks unexpectedly occurred in the United States in 2006 and in 2009-10, reflecting the three-year cycle in which younger children become exposed. A total of 6,500 cases were reported in a highly vaccinated population in the Midwest in 2006, according to the suit, and another 5,000 cases in 2009; in the years leading up to the first outbreak, the annual average had been 265 cases.

If that pattern holds true, another outbreak might be due as early as this summer.

Additionally, poor vaccine efficacy has the effect of pushing some cases of mumps to a later age, when mumps is a more dangerous disease that can induce sterility in males. One intriguing implication is that no vaccine at all might have been better than the one Merck currently produces.

The suit claims that as a result of the fraud, the U.S. government has been cheated out of millions of dollars paid by the CDC to buy the vaccine for its immunization program. It says the agency, and other government bodies, were wrongly deprived of the knowledge they needed to make proper use of taxpayer money and sound medical decisions. (The CDC predicted several years ago that mumps would be eradicated in the United States by 2010, an outcome predicated on the idea that the vaccine worked.)

The suit describes Merck’s allegedly no-holds-barred effort to protect its market position. “Merck set out to conduct testing of its mumps vaccine that would support its original efficacy finding. In performing this testing, Merck’s objective was to report efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy. The only way Merck could accomplish this was through manipulating its testing procedures and falsifying the test results. … Krahling and Wlochowski participated on the Merck team that conducted this testing and witnessed firsthand the fraud in which Merck engaged to reach its desired results. Merck internally referred to the testing as Protocol 007.”

The suit says testing began in 1999, led by Senior Investigator David Krah and his second-in-command, Mary Yagodich. Merck’s Executive Director of Vaccine Research, Alan Shaw, approved the testing methodology, the suit says. Krahling said he complained about the fraud to Emilio Emini, Vice President of Merck’s Vaccine Research Division, and brought “actual testing samples and plaque counting sheets to demonstrate to Emini the fraudulent data that Krah was directing. Emini agreed that Krahling had falsified the data,” the suit said, but defended some aspects of the work.

“Emini promised to conduct an ‘internal audit’ of the mumps testing. … Emini ordered Krahling not to call the FDA. Immediately after the meeting [an Human Resources representative] approached Krahling and again threatened that he would be put in jail if he contacted the FDA.” Shortly thereafter, Krahling was transferred to another lab, and soon left the company; Wlochowski was also transferred and left the next year. (In 2005, Emini became Executive Vice President of Vaccine Research and Development at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. He is now Senior Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of Vaccine Research at Pfizer.)

The suit describes how Merck scientists allegedly engaged in a number of techniques in order to claim that the vaccine remained effective, from essentially testing the vaccine against itself – using the weakened vaccine virus rather than the more virulent “wild” type to which children are exposed in the real world — to adding animal antibodies that increased potency in lab tests; to, when all else failed, simply changing the data accurately recorded by Krahling, Wlochowski, and other virologists.

While many of the details of the alleged fraud are technical, one internal Merck document clearly describes the nature of the mission, according to the suit. It was titled: “Objective: Identify a mumps neutralization assay format [testing procedure] that permits measurement of a greater than or equal to 95% seroconversion rate in MMRII vaccines.”

Merck responded Friday that the suit is “completely without merit” and said the company will “vigorously defend” itself – presumably by quickly filing a motion to have the suit dismissed. Merck pointedly noted that, to date, the U.S. Department of Justice has not joined the suit.

Under the federal whistleblower statute, anyone can bring a whistleblower suit alleging that a business they worked for defrauded the United States government and, by extension, taxpayers. Such a suit remains sealed while the company has a chance to review it, and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys decide whether to join as plaintiffs, throwing the government’s weight behind the whistleblower’s claim that it was defrauded.

In this case the DOJ did not reach its decision on whether to join as a plaintiff quickly or definitively. The lengthy period between the filing of the suit by Krah and Wlochowski, on April 27, 2010, and the department’s decision not to intervene for the time being, on April 27, 2012, required the DOJ to request multiple six-month extensions, according to the civil docket for the case, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In its statement declining to intervene, the department asked that if either side wants to settle or dismiss the case, “the court solicit the written consent of the United States before ruling or granting its approval.”

The mumps component of the combination measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has long been a source of controversy.  Merck was first to market in the category introducing a vaccine named MMR in 1971, using a strain of mumps taken from the throat of a Merck scientist’s daughter named “Jeryl Lynn.” (In 1979, Merck replaced the MMR’s rubella component due to safety concerns and named the reformulated vaccine MMRII). Starting in 1986, the first serious competitors to Merck’s vaccine began to emerge based on a different mumps component: the so-called Urabe strain, which was first licensed by Japan’s Biken Institute in 1979. Urabe-based vaccines were licensed in countries all over the world, including Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom, to name just a few. For many years, however, Merck was able maintained its advantage in the category by outpacing the performance of Urabe-based MMR vaccines.

Merck’s main advantage came from its superior safety reputation. One of the most troublesome adverse events for MMR vaccines, aseptic meningitis, is a serious and potentially fatal side effect of vaccination. According to a major textbook on vaccines, “the Urabe strain has been linked with aseptic meningitis wherever adverse reactions have been studied.” By contrast, according to another review cited in the complaint, “aseptic meningitis, the Achilles heel of mumps vaccines, has never been documented to be caused by Jeryl Lynn.” In country after country, introduction of Urabe-based MMR vaccines have spawned outbreaks of aseptic meningitis and prompted withdrawal of the suspect MMR vaccine. In several of these cases, Merck’s MMRII has been the primary beneficiary.

Some researchers have argued, however, that the superior safety profile of MMRII comes at the expense of reduced efficacy. According to the authors above, “a mathematical model using the Urabe or Jeryl Lynn strains, suggested that … the greater apparent safety … associated with the Jeryl Lynn strain is offset by the potentially greater effectiveness associated with the Urabe strain.”

In light of these competitive threats to its highly successful MMRII franchise, it’s not surprising that asking Merck scientists to oversee testing of the efficacy of its own mumps vaccine would create a conflict of interest, not to mention an incentive to cheat on the test, if the underlying efficacy of the vaccine was weak.

The DOJ’s decision also points to another unavoidable but potentially troubling conflict of interest – the department is part of the same branch of government as the FDA and CDC. Under the Department of Health and Human Services, those agencies approve, recommend, and monitor vaccines, and they have repeatedly certified mumps-containing vaccines as effective. Allowing an alleged fraud to go on under their noses, involving a vaccine to which they are strongly committed, might not be something they would care to acknoweldge.

The fate of the lawsuit notwithstanding, serious new questions about children’s health are now in the public domain. It will be worth watching whether regulators or legislators here or abroad ask Merck for convincing, current evidence that the mumps vaccine is working as promised, and that the public’s health remains protected.

Dan Olmsted is Editor and Mark Blaxill is Editor at Large of AgeofAutism.com. They are co-authors of The Age of Autism – Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic, published in 2010 by Thomas Dunne Books.

30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards

[ED: Readers should note that a paper presented at a scientific conference is a citable reference for publication purposes.  That applies to Dr Lucija Tomljenovic’s paper discussed in this article.]

An extraordinary new paper published by a courageous doctor and investigative medical researcher has dug the dirt on 30 years of secret official transcripts of meetings of UK government vaccine committees and the supposedly independent medical “experts” sitting on them with their drug industry connections.

If you want to get an idea of who is responsible for your child’s condition resulting from a vaccine adverse reaction then this is the paper to read. What you have to ask yourself is if the people on these committees are honest and honourable and acting in the best interests of British children, how is it this has been going on for at least 30 years?

This is what everyone has always known but could never prove before now. Pass this information on to others so they can see what goes on in Government health committees behind locked doors.

We quote here from the author’s summary and the paper:

Deliberately concealing information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.

The 45 page paper with detailed evidence can be downloaded here: The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds? Lucija Tomljenovic, Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.  It was presented at and forms part of the proceedings of The 2011 BSEM Scientific Conference now published online here: The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention BSEM Scientific Conference, March 2011.  [ED: BSEM HAVE REORGANISED THEIR WEBSITE AND THIS PAGE NO LONGER EXISTS THERE – Note Added 8 May 2014]

There are other papers also found at that link which you will find an excellent read.

The author, Dr Lucija Tomljenovic writes:

Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained. As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) [2] but also, their own Code of Practice.

[ED: THE UK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPEARS TO HAVE CHANGED ALL THE LINKS TO THEIR DOCUMENTS BY ARCHIVING THEM WITH THE UK NATIONAL ARCHIVE – IF READERS WOULD LIKE TO ATTEMPT TO FIND THE CORRECT LINKS ON THE UK NATIONAL ARCHIVE AND POST THEM IN A COMMENT HERE THAT WOULD BE WELCOME – Note Added 9 May 2014]

Dr Lucija Tomljenovic continues:

The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”, and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions Minutes 1986-1992).

In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;

4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;

5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;

6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;

7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;

Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice.

Read the paper here for the full evidence to back up these conclusions in its 45 pages.  An excellent piece of investigative research:

The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?

And don’t forget to read more from the proceedings of The 2011 BSEM Scientific Conference now published online here:

The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention – BSEM Scientific Conference, March 2011.

BSEM Scientific Conference, March 2011.  [ED: BSEM HAVE REORGANISED THEIR WEBSITE AND THIS PAGE NO LONGER EXISTS THERE – Note Added 8 May 2014]

Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Here it is – official – the official EU text telling us we cannot advertise that water prevents dehydration and the concomitant effects of dehydration.

____________________

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA)

EFSA Journal 2011;9(2):1982  [7 pp.].  doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.1982

Article

Abstract

Following an application from Prof. Dr. Moritz Hagenmeyer and Prof. Dr. Andreas Hahn, submitted pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Germany, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to disease risk reduction. The food, water, which is the subject of the health claim, is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as claims which state that the consumption of a food “significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease”. Thus, for reduction of disease risk claims, the beneficial physiological effect results from the reduction of a risk factor for the development of a human disease. The Panel notes that dehydration was identified as the disease by the applicant. Dehydration is a condition of body water depletion. The Panel notes that the proposed risk factors, “water loss in tissues” or “reduced water content in tissues”, are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

Summary

Following an application from Prof. Dr. Moritz Hagenmeyer and Prof. Dr. Andreas Hahn, submitted pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Germany, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.

The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to disease risk reduction.

The food that is the subject of the health claim is water. The Panel considers that water is sufficiently characterised.

The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general population.

The Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 defines reduction of disease risk claims as claims which state that the consumption of a food “significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease”. Thus, for reduction of disease risk claims, the beneficial physiological effect (which the Regulation requires to be shown for the claim to be permitted) results from the reduction of a risk factor for the development of a human disease.

The Panel notes that dehydration was identified as the disease by the applicant. Dehydration is a condition of body water depletion. Upon request for clarification on the risk factor, the applicant proposed “water loss in tissues” or “reduced water content in tissues” as risk factors, the reduction of which was proposed to lead to a reduction of the risk of development of dehydration. The Panel notes that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease (dehydration).

The Panel considers that the proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

Keywords

Water, dehydration, performance, health claims

Panel Members

Carlo Agostoni, Jean-Louis Bresson, Susan Fairweather-Tait, Albert Flynn, Ines Golly, Hannu Korhonen, Pagona Lagiou, Martinus Løvik, Rosangela Marchelli, Ambroise Martin, Bevan Moseley, Monika Neuhäuser-Berthold, Hildegard Przyrembel, Seppo Salminen, Yolanda Sanz, Sean (J.J.) Strain, Stephan Strobel, Inge Tetens, Daniel Tomé, Hendrik van Loveren and Hans Verhagen.

Acknowledgment

The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Claims: Carlo Agostoni, Jean-Louis Bresson, Susan Fairweather-Tait, Albert Flynn, Ines Golly, Marina Heinonen, Hannu Korhonen, Martinus Løvik, Ambroise Martin, Hildegard Przyrembel, Seppo Salminen, Yolanda Sanz, Sean (J.J.) Strain, Inge Tetens, Hendrik van Loveren and Hans Verhagen for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion.

Contact

nda@efsa.europa.eu

Type:

Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel

On request from:

Competent Authority of Germany following an application by Prof. Dr. Moritz Hagenmeyer and Prof. Dr. Andreas Hahn

Question number:

EFSA-Q-2008-05014

Adopted:

28 January 2011

Published:

16 February 2011

Affiliation:

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

US National Public Radio – “Worries About Autism Link Still Hang Over Vaccines”

According to the latest NPR-Thomson Reuters Health Poll conducted for US National Public Radio 46% of Americans polled were concerned about a fear of side effects of vaccines and 47% of respondents had concerns about uncertainty about long-term health effects.  Autism remains a top worry, with 21 percent of respondents saying they believe autism is linked to vaccines. About 7 percent believe in a link between vaccines and diabetes.

Among households with children under 18, 30 percent were concerned about the safety or value of vaccines.

Read more here:

Worries About Autism Link Still Hang Over Vaccines – by Scott Hensley – US National Public Radio – September 29, 2011

Schoolgirls Are Given Toxic HPV Vaccine – Gardasil – Serious Adverse Reactions

Why are so many schoolgirls suffering serious health problems after they get Gardasil the HPV [human pappillomavirus vaccine] with some dying? It looks like international safety organisation SaneVax has found one of the reasons.  Contamination with an internationally known and recognised biohazard – toxic genetically modified recombinant DNA – it is recognised this can cause mutation and worse. 

For details read the report reposted below from Natural News Thursday, September 15, 2011 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com

Why do the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines Healthcare and Products Regulatory Agency authorise these dangerous vaccines and then hide the adverse reactions which then occur?  When are their officials going to be sent to jail?  When are drug company Board Directors going to be sent to jail?  You cannot get the real news in the press or on TV.  You cannot trust them to do their job or tell you the facts.  But there are independent sources on the web which will tell you.

The following CHS reports also provide further background reading in addition to Mike Adams’ report in full below on the SaneVax laboratory test results of Gardasil revealing the presence of known biohazard recombinant DNA:

Gardasil Victims – In Memoriam – Healthy Young Women – Aged 15 to 21

Gardasil – HPV Vaccine – The Injured Continue To Pile Up

FDA Halts HPV Vaccine Roll-Out – SaneVax News Release

SANEVax – Our Daughters Should Not Be Experiments for The Drug Industry

HPV Vaccine Questioned Internationally

_________________________________

[Source SaneVax/NaturalNews.com]

In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. There, they found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to be contaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon.

This means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard — the rDNA of HPV. In conducting the tests, Dr. Sin Hang Lee found rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, which were described as “firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.”

That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it’s toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard — something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.

As SANE Vax explains in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced “acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours” of being injected with an HPV vaccine. (http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-dis…)

rDNA found in Gardasil is genetically engineered

The rDNA that was found to be contaminating Gardasil is not “natural” rDNA from the HPV virus itself. Rather, it is a genetically engineered form of HPV genetic code that is added to the vaccines during their manufacture.

As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:

“Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not ‘natural’ DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) — genetically engineered — to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”

Innocent girls being injected with genetically engineered HPV rDNA

What all this means is that through Gardasil vaccines, innocent young girls are being injected with the recombinant DNA of HPV, and that this biohazardous substance persists in their blood. The implications of this are rather scary, as Dr. Lee explains:

“Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”

The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants.

SaneVax source documents:-

1.     SANE Vax Inc. Letter to FDA Requesting Investigation into Gardasil Contamination

2.    Policy on the use of Bio-hazardous Agents and Recombinant DNA in Research and Teaching Laboratories at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

3.     Gardasil Patient Product Insert 

4.     EMEA Scientific Discussion on Gardasil    

5.     VAERS Data

Watch this astounding video of Merck scientist Dr. Hilleman openly admitting that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer:

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAA…

It’s called “Merck vaccine scientist admits presence of SV40 and AIDS in vaccines – Dr. Maurice Hilleman” and was partially narrated by Dr. Len Horowitz. You can view the full transcript of this extraordinary interview at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_D…

If you thought vaccines were safe, think again. Get informed. Learn the truth, and please share this story so that others may also be informed.

Listen up, folks: Why do you think the vaccine industry pushed so hard for total financial immunity under the government’s vaccine injury compensation plan? Because they knew that if the truth ever got out about how many cases of cancer, autism and even death were truly caused by vaccines, they would be financially wiped out!

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.

Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Gorski & His Internet Bullies Admit Sabotage

Another priceless opportunity to expose Dr David Gorski and his band of these self styled “skeptics” and others going out of their way to actively sabotage genuine independent attempts to carry out such studies, to compile data on healthier unvaccinated children.

This shows the anti-vaccine safety lobby are people who are not “skeptics” but internet thugs and bullies out for sport at the expense of vaccine injured children.  And they really don’t like it when they get a taste of their own medicine.

The following also shows why they just don’t want the studies done. [Which should be a strange thing because they all insist the vaccines are safe and effective.  But we show below they are not.]

Gorski himself claims others engage routinely in sabotage:

this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash.”

[Of course that may not be true.  PZ Myers is welcome to comment here about that].

The following  also shows the lack of analytical, technical and scientific credibility of these people and the criticisms they throw up [with information posted elsewhere on CHS the position is damning].

Gorski’s main blog and the comments on it are found here for those interested

A survey administered by a German anti-vaccine homeopath backfires spectacularly – Posted on: August 31, 2011 3:00 AM, by Orac

The Sabotage

The survey is certainly currently being sabotaged by the direct involvement of people like Dr David Gorski and what he describes as his “minions”. Others are involved too [full quotes from Gorski et al with links appear below].

Gorski on his own blog draws his self-admitted “minions'” attention to the fact the survey is ongoing and open to continuous addition. Then one of his minions admits on his blog she posted false data on the survey and later confirms “other skeptics” are doing the same. Others join in the “fun”.  After yet again being caught out for what he is Gorski then disingenously claims his “postscript” was not intended to have that effect.

That is really low and base conduct but what is to be expected of those who claim to be “skeptics” and scientific but are in fact internet trolls and bullies, who don’t have two cents worth of science to rub together and even if they did clearly do not give the appearance of having the ability to do anything with it if they had.

One participant in this deception claims other “skeptics” are involved in this kind of foul and base behaviour. These are not “skeptics” at all but internet frauds, trolls and bullies who cannot allow any point of view to be known other than their own.

We have already demonstrated that Dr Gorski is a “brick short of a load” when it comes to analytical skills and that he appears to be mathematically challenged. This is aside from his unreasonable approach, abuse, bullying and emotional and often apoplectic tirades and rants. The fact he has “minions” and other followers does suggest something about the kinds of people who lap up his internet scribble-drivel as if it had some kind of validity. We have shown it does not.

And then we come to the sabotage.

13 The survey does indeed appear to still be ongoing at https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-healthier-far-lower-rates-of-chronic-conditions-and-autism/

Kind of tempting to mess with their results…

Posted by: Ash | August 31, 2011 11:15 AM

37 Well the “open” survey now has 7,799 participants…I think the 7,799th “child” might be “mine”. I filled out the survey on behalf of my six year old…who is unvaccinated and has 10 siblings. I entered “yes” to every question about disturbed sleep, fussiness, medical issues and developmental diagnoses.

I haven’t had so much fun messing up a “survey” since I responded to a robocall from the Tea Party Voter Choice Telephone Survey.

Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 4:04 PM

42 I just entered data on “another child” of mine on the open survey. This child is 10 years old, has four siblings and is vaccinated. My “10 year old child” has none of the problems listed on the survey and I ticked off “NO” on all the questions about behaviors, physical diagnoses and developmental diagnoses on the “survey”.

Posted by: lilady | August 31, 2011 5:12 PM

43 Should we inlcude a couple of children who died from complications to measles or whooping cough?

Posted by: KeithB | August 31, 2011 5:33 PM

88 I think the survey “researchers” have a lot more than me to worry about. The internet survey has been visited by other skeptics who have also entered false data. That’s what happens when you “attempt” a “scientific” survey on the internet and notorious anti-vax bloggers provide links to the “open internet survey”.A vaccinated versus non-vaccinated survey is unethical and this internet survey is unethical as well.

Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 1:14 PM

76 Yes, I entered data on the open survey from my one computer site and it is probably just a valid as the data from the other “participants”… and might even be “more valid”.

When you have an open internet survey with ambiguous wording anyone can “wander” over and enter data to skew the results. Now I am not accusing anyone at ChildHealthSafety for deliberately putting a bogus survey up on the internet to encourage multiple false entries and I’m not stating that the design deliberately did not meet any of the criteria for a survey…but it is less valid than the Tea Party Telephone Survey that I participated in several weeks ago…which really was a robo call randomized survey.

The folks at ChildHealthSafety have no way of knowing what percentage of the participants really have a child…no less a vaccinated or unvaccinated child and no way of knowing if any, some…or most of the participants are childless paranoid cranks who are against big government and/ or Big Pharma. Indeed, perhaps some of the participants are manipulating the publicly held stock of vaccine manufacturers.

Now I’m no computer techie, but I know enough about entering data on a public site requires you to provide a valid email address…which I did not…and surprise, surprise!!!…the data was accepted.

Yes indeed, the data I entered was probably just as valid as the data entered by the other “participants”.

So here’s the deal, unlike other participants I publicly stated that I entered data which was false and easily “verifiable” as false by the “researchers” by simply contacting the invalid email addresses.

Posted by: lilady | September 1, 2011 9:42 AM

And of course not forgetting firstly Gorski drawing attention to the survey being open:

The enjoyment I get watching that assuages my guilt for picking on homeopaths so.

NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.

Hmmmmm.

And then his disingenous denial he had any intention this might provoke his “minions” to sabotage the survey – and please note the abuse and disparagement Gorski cannot help himself including – priceless:-

63 …… this is nothing more than an Internet poll of the sort that PZ Myers over at Pharyngula routinely sends his minions over to crash.I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to give our friendly neighborhood German homeopath an “out.” His survey was badly designed enough, and his results, for autism at least, are completely within the range of error of estimates for autism prevalence. In brief, I was too amused by the fact that this “study” actually comes far closer to refuting the vaccine/autism hypothesis than providing evidence to support it. Of course, as I said before, the survey is so bad that it really doesn’t tell us much of anything, but CHS is too scientifically ignorant to realize that.

Posted by: Orac | September 1, 2011 12:01 AM

Lack of Analytical, Technical and Scientific Credibility of these People and their Criticisms

[ED: Phil,Re: Your comment 2011/09/02 at 2:05 am

Firstly, let’s look at how you started out in your comments:-

This “study” as they call it is a joke.”

Disparagement and denigration. The usual trolling behaviour which we will come back to later. Not civilised debate. Not the approach of someone genuinely wishing to engage in debate.

Secondly, we will expect to see differences between unvaccinated children and the vaccinated. You completely fail to address the fact that government health officials refuse resolutely to carry out these kinds of studies. The reason is very simple. They know that particular ingredients of vaccines cause conditions like allergy, asthma, diabetes and suchlike. In fact you do not have to go far to find this out. It is on the information sheets for patients and for medical professionals and sets out long lists of conditions which are caused by the various vaccines – and that does not include the conditions caused by multiple vaccines in single individuals – a topic never studied.

We also know that vaccine adverse reactions are heavily under reported, so any survey like this could show that.

Thirdly, you fail to acknowledge that on the assumption all of the participants make genuine responses, ie. are parents of unvaccinated children, the data can and does tell us something about them and their children. [And we will come back to the genuine responses part later in the context of the particularly nasty kinds of internet trolls who infest these areas on the web with misinformation.]

You also fail to acknowledge that it may be possible to make comparisons to vaccinated children. For example, if the differences are so huge it is difficult to ignore them. If none of the unvaccinated children had the problems the vaccinated have that would be particularly interesting.

Instead you trot out all the usual criticisms without putting them into any context. Some of the points you make are of issues directed to excluding potentially confounding factors. You do not for example put into context the extent to which such confounding factors might alter the value of the data. If there is a minimal effect but the differences shown by the data are so large that the potentially confounding effect is small then whilst the criticism may have validity it does not prevent conclusions being drawn from the data.

So your claim this study “lacks any validity or credibility” immediately is in difficulty and your other arguments with it.

So the point that “data is data” is valid, as is the point this is the data available along with some other similar studies and some peer reviewed literature supporting the matter – the one example we gave of the latter you studiously ignore – the De Stefano paper. There are others in addition to the known conditions vaccines cause which are heavily under reported.

In other words, whilst we can see you have worked hard to look reasonable in your latest post, you came here not to make a balanced assessment but simply to attack with no objectivity and certainly with partiality and prejudice – your own and those of the others like you who troll the internet and engage in that kind of behaviour – and more comments on that will appear below.

You also fail to address that the survey is intended to be an ongoing one. It could build up a large body of data and of contacts with parents for further study, albeit currently anonymous there is potential to contact participants via email. So again, you also fail to recognise there is value in this kind of study.

Your criticism that “It is based completely on inference” demonstrates a comprehensive lack of understanding of proof of cause and effect. Cause and effect is determined by inference. We infer X is a cause of Y from the evidence presented to support that proposition.

So again, you demonstrate you come here to attack from a basis of fundamental misconceptions of the subject matter you attempt to address. Your claim to be “someone that does research” therefore has to be treated with skepticism – similar to that of a teacher who responded to such a claim of a pupil with “where, in the toilets?”.

You criticise that the survey is “biased in its sampling”. Of course it is. It is surveying parents of unvaccinated children. But that is not a valid criticism. That is the purpose of the survey. It is a known and intended bias. Hidden biases that would be a different matter. The survey tells us about the participants. It is not hidden. It does not prevent comparisons. So again, you fail to understand what is meant by bias and when bias is and is not an issue.

You complain it is “anecdotal evidence”. Really? If a parent reports on the conditions a child has or does not have, how exactly is that “anecdote”? If a scientist writes up a paper recording the results he or she claims to have recorded, would you call that anecdote too?

You complain the survey “falsely implies causation”. But we have already demonstrated above that it is to be expected that unvaccinated children will have fewer of the conditions seen in vaccinated ones. You have also not commented on the De Stefano paper [and there are more we can cite].

So there is biological plausibility underlying this survey. Another point you fail to address because you came here not to engage in balanced reasoned debate but to make unbalanced out of context attacks – and at the end of the day, because you have done that what you say lacks credibility. And that is despite the strenuous efforts you appear to have gone to to appear reasonable in your latest post [no doubt through gritted teeth].

You complain the survey “lacks any validity or credibility in the methods or results of the survey”. How can that be if at the very least the data is telling us something about the participants? The survey does tell us something. It tells us a great deal. Valid criticism tells us how it might be improved. And it is ongoing, which brings us to the final point.

Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Apoplectic Dr David Gorski Excels Again

It is too priceless an opportunity to let it pass. The obsessive blogger Dr David Gorski [aka ORAC] has gone into apoplectic overdrive [again] over the CHS article here:  New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism

It is not every day we can rip into the science free zone of Orac’s brain [aka pharma’s very own Homer Simpson of the blogosphere, Dr David Gorski – David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You].  But aside from the difficulty locating it, [his brain, if there is one] that is only because we don’t usually have the time – no other reason.

In Gorski’s latest rant Gorski’s apoplexy [standard issue for him] is in evidence. So not a reliable source to start with but it gets worse. Wot a nutter.  Apologies to our usual readers for the lower than usual standards.  These have been suspended for this post to write it in Gorskieese, Gorski’s style of scribble-drivel.

His near 2500 words we can encapsulate in a few quotes.

First the abusive rhetoric and derision which is the main basis for all his arguments [ie. bullying – so he obviously has a personal issue over self-esteem].

a study that’s just so mind-numbingly, brain-meltingly awful”

“the sheer intensity of its burning stupid”

“a starving cheetah ripping into its prey look downright restrained”

“anti-vaccine loons” “anti-vaxers”

“… they’ve been clamoring for what they like to call a “vaxed-unvaxed study.”

“Now they’re at it again”

“anti-vaccine propaganda”

“now this “study” will no doubt join the Generation Rescue “study” in the annals of crap vaccine/autism science, to circulate around Whale.to (where it belongs) and be dredged up as “evidence” periodically.”

Then we get the “scientific” criticisms [Ha] buried in Gorskidrivel:-

the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn’t tell anything from it at all”

“an anonymous Internet survey that anyone can fill out? Let’s … have an actual control group, namely vaccinated children.”

“Generation Rescue did a crappy and arbitrary job of it”

“a poorly designed phone survey”

“entirely unvaccinated children.”

“Less than 10% said they preferred conventional medicine.”

“the parents who filled it out were a self-selected, biased sample, the vast majority of whom favor alternative medicine”

“99.69% of the respondents report being happy that they did not vaccinate their children”

So wee Davy Gorski, if you don’t like it, its about time we had a well funded independent objective and impartial study done. Stop complaining when independents take a crack at it. Its their taxes which are being spent wasted on the vast amount of useless medical research [genetics is a prime candidate along with cancer and psychiatry – the latter being the least successful branch of medicine in history].

And don’t fob the public off with the usual unscientic junk studies put out in drug industry funded medical journals to claim everything apart from Gorski’s brand of medicine is valid – people are voting with their feet – GorskiCare kills people and injures them in droves in the USA with adverse drug reactions and botched procedures

Then Gorski spews out in a rant the usual complete tosh to justify the nonsensical claim that:

…. such a study is neither feasible nor ethical”

But this is the real hoot. These children might really have asthma but because they don’t have any symptoms their parents don’t know. Ha ha ha ha ha ha …..:-

a lot of these children could have subclinical or mildly clinical disease that goes undiagnosed because they never take their children to a real doctor”

“One of the most common presentations of asthma is cough alone” …. “milder cases of asthma can be difficult to diagnose in children”.

“what the parents report probably doesn’t tell us much. Neither does the claim that far fewer of these children had allergies.”

What the Mighty Officials of GorskiCare did not tell you is that asthma and allergy have increased so dramatically in the 25 or so years since the late 1980s drive for vaccination that his profession in the UK were instructed just a handful of years ago to go out and look for as many cases as possible. The Mighty Officials then wanted to use the increased statistics to claim the science shows it was all greater awareness and better diagnosis. LOL.

And then Gorski reveals he has had an analytical skills total bypass from birth and his math education was wasted. He says:

Apparently, basic math isn’t a homeopath’s strong suit ….. if 20% of autistic children equals four, then there could only be 20 autistic children, but the survey suggests that there were twice that many in unvaccinated children.”

Really David? Let’s see what he bases this on and show that Gorski’s math is sadly a long way from his strong point [if he has one].

The numbers cited are entirely in keeping with the text:

  • there were 44 children reported as having an autistic condition
  • over 80% of parents reported the autistic conditions in children were mild and of the Asperger type.
  • only 4 were reported as having severe autism

What does that tell us?

  • Over 80% means 35 of the 44, leaving 9 or less cases.
  • 4 of the 9 were reported as having severe autism.
  • That leaves 5 cases where 1) either the parents did not say what kind of autistic condition their child had or 2)there were less than 5 cases of severe autism in those 5 or both.
  • Let’s say it was 5 cases and the parents did not say. At over 80% the probability is of those 5 cases 4 were mild, leaving 1 which might be the more severe autism.

So Gorski, 4 cases of severe autism or even 4 +1 is not 20% but that is still consistent with “over 80%” of parents reporting mild autistic conditions.  We hope that is not too hard for you to understand.

And here is another hoot:

a prevalence of 0.57%, even if this survey were accurate, would be within the range of estimated prevalences found in various studies.”

0.57% is 1 in 175. But wait a mo’. In the USA the figure is nearly twice that at 1 in 100. In the UK the figure is three times that at 1 in 64.

And in the UK 30% of autistic conditions are the more severe autism – in the US we understand the number is higher.

Yet for the unvaccinated this survey suggests the number [4 cases or less than 10%] is 300% lower or 1 in 2000 cases which is close to the pre vaccine era of 4 in 10,000. And the affected children had higher exposure to mercury or heavy metals.

And David, these figures reflect the kinds of differences seen in the Generation Rescue telephone survey you decry don’t they [see end for details]?

And this GorskiDrivel is a hoot too:-

autism prevalence is so obviously not appreciably different in the unvaccinated in this survey compared to reported prevalence numbers”

When Gorski in the same passage notes that:-

depending on the age range it ranges from 0.37% to a whopping 2.36%, ….. 3,075 were for children under two years old, … autism might very well have not been diagnosed … the reported prevalence was 0.37%, while in the 11-12 year range the prevalence was highest, at 2.36%.”

But at the same time ignores that in the 15-16 year age group the figure is 0.62%.

But that does not stop the science free zone between Gorski’s ears from concluding so stupidly it burns:

The prevalence of autism in unvaccinated children in this survey does closely match reported numbers for overall population prevalence in populations where the vast majority of children are vaccinated.”

This result is an unmitigated disaster for Bachmair and his groupies …

But hang on Gorski old boy, didn’t you just say a mere few million drivel points earlier hidden in abuse and rhetoric that:

the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn’t tell anything from it at all”

We told you he is a nutter. That demonstrates it – the stupid it burns.

And what is Gorski and his band of amateur night pseudo-scientists going to do. Yep you guessed it they are going to sabotage this genuine effort to get data that everyone has been clamouring for for years.

How do we know? GorskiCare’s postscript to his blog:-

NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.”

Here are the results of the Generation Rescue Survey mentioned above:-

Cal-Oregon Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Survey

All vaccinated boys, compared to unvaccinated boys:

  • – Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.55)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.24)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism (RR 1.61)

Older vaccinated boys, ages 11-17 (about half the boys surveyed), compared to older unvaccinated boys:

  • – Vaccinated boys were 158% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.58)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 317% more likely to have ADHD (RR 4.17)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 112% more likely to have autism (RR 2.12)

(Note: older children may be a more reliable indicator because many children are not diagnosed until they are 6-8 years old, and we captured data beginning at age 4.)

All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR), compared to unvaccinated boys:

  • – Vaccinated boys were 185% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.85)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 279% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.79)
  • – Vaccinated boys were 146% more likely to have autism (RR 2.46)

All vaccinated boys and girls, compared to unvaccinated boys and girls:

  • – Vaccinated boys and girls were 120% more likely to have asthma (RR 2.20)
  • – No correlation established for juvenile diabetes

All vaccinated girls, compared to unvaccinated girls:

  • – No meaningful differences in prevalence were noted for NDs (which may be due to the smaller sample size of the study because girls represent about 20% of cases.)