WARNING TO PARENTS – Protect Your Child From Another Clearly Dangerous Vaccine – HPV [Gardasil & Cervarix] – And The Common Corruption in Government Public Health Agencies

Here you can see at a glance why this vaccine should be withdrawn worldwide and ask yourself why do health officials promote such dangerous, ineffective, unaffordable and unnecessary vaccine programmes.  CHS has previously reported on this vaccine:

SaneVax is an international non-profit organization working with representatives in over 25 countries. SaneVax believes vaccines should be scientifically proven safe, affordable, necessary and effective.  The SaneVax Team say they cannot support HPV vaccination programs for the following reasons:

#1 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT SAFE

  • HPV vaccines account for nearly 25% of the reports on the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. VAERS was established in 1990. HPV vaccines were introduced 16 years later in mid-2006.  And there are over 80 other vaccines approved for use in the United States.  Since the introduction of HPV vaccines [including Gardasil and Cervarix]:

    • reports of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis [ADEM] have increased over 1,000%;
    • infertility reports increased 790%;
    • reports of blindness increased 188%;
    • spontaneous abortions by 270%.
  • when 24,000 girls were injected with HPV vaccines during ‘demonstration projects’ an estimated 5% (1200) were left with chronic health problems and/or autoimmune disorders;
  • Japan withdrew the government recommendation for the administration of HPV vaccines after only 6 weeks when reports of adverse events after Gardasil were 26 times higher than the annual flu shot;
    • reports after Cervarix were 52 times higher than the annual flu shot;
    • 24.9% of the adverse events reported were considered serious.
  • Denmark reports that 24% of the adverse events reported after HPV vaccinations were considered serious.
  • adverse events reports in Italy are ten times higher than most other vaccines – at a rate of 219/100,000. The cervical cancer rate in Italy is 7.7/100,000.

#2 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT AFFORDABLE

  • HPV vaccination programs do not eliminate the need for pap screening, they simply add the price of 3 injections to already overburdened healthcare systems around the globe.
  • There is an already proven safe and effective method of controlling cervical cancer in most developed countries – pap screening and good gynecological follow-up. Countries without this practice in place would be money ahead to spend their healthcare budget developing the infrastructure to provide this type of care.
  • Cervical cancer causes 2.3 deaths/100,000 women in the United States. The cost of 3 doses of HPV vaccine for 100,000 women is an estimated $30,000,000 ($100/dose) to try and eliminate less than 3 deaths which could have been avoided with pap screening and good gynecological follow-up. How many medical professionals could be trained and/or medical facilities built with that same 30 million dollars?

#3 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT NECESSARY

  • The human papillomavirus has never been proven to cause cancer by itself. Other risk factors must also be present in order to prompt the development of cancer.
  • According to the World Health Organization, only 0.15% of all people exposed to any high-risk strain of HPV will ever develop cervical cancer. The vast majority of HPV ‘infections’ are benign and cause no medical problem whatsoever.
  • HPV type prevalence varies greatly from one region to the next. Are the HPV types targeted by current vaccines the same ones prevalent in your country?
  • There is no excuse for exposing the female population of the world to the risks involved with HPV vaccination when there is an already proven safe, affordable, necessary and effective means of controlling cervical cancer.

#4 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE

  • According to the World Health Organization, only 1% of CIN1 progresses to the next stage, only 1.5% of CIN2 progresses. Only 12% of CIN3 lesions, which are actually considered a pre-cursors to cancer. Nevertheless, the FDA allowed the manufacturers of HPV vaccines to use these often self-reversing abnormal lesions as endpoints to judge the efficacy of their products.
  • The other endpoint used to predict efficacy was antibody titers. No one has determined what level of antibodies is necessary to prevent HPV infections. It is simply assumed that the higher the antibody titer level, the better the potential protection.
  • HPV vaccines have not been clinically proven to prevent a single case of cancer.
  • There is no guarantee that eliminating one risk factor for the development of cervical cancer will have any impact on the disease incidence or mortality rate.
  • It will take more than 20 years to determine whether or not HPV vaccines perform as advertised.
  • There is no guarantee that any suppressed oncogenic HPV type will not mutate over the next 20 years and become more dangerous.

22 Years Later Corrupt UK Drug Regulator The MHRA Eventually Changes “not recommended” to “must not be used” – but just for the one dangerous drug

That the UK’s drug regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is corrupt is not difficult to demonstrate, as just this one previous CHS article demonstrates: UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million

The following article by Bob Fiddaman is another dramatic example of the risks supposed drug safety regulators pose to children around the world and is reposted with permission:

Not Recommended Tuesday, July 15, 2014 Bob Fiddaman, FIDDAMAN BLOG

People that know me pretty much know that the words ‘not recommended’ mean absolutely nothing to me.

When used on drug information leaflets, ‘not recommended’ serves as a reminder to prescribing physicians that the drug they are about to prescribe to the patient is not recommended for them, be it because they don’t have an illness that the drug is indicated to treat or that it could be potentially dangerous.

Last week British tabloid, The Mirror, ran with an article about pensioner Ron Sheppard.  Sheppard had been campaigning for almost 22 years to force changes to the way a steroid [Depo-Medrone] was used on millions of patients. And now, writes The Mirror,

drug company Pfizer has applied to UK drug regulators to change the drug labelling.

It is likely to be switched from “not recommended” for use in epidurals to “must not be used”.”

22 years on and now Pfizer decide that the drug must not be used in epidurals. It would appear that Pfizer know the difference between “not recommended” and “must not be used”, either that or they fear future lawsuits.

“Not recommended” is simply not good enough, particularly when it comes to children being prescribed antidepressants.

Would it be practical for the likes of antidepressant manufacturers to change the patient information leaflets for antidepressants from ‘Not recommended for children’ to ‘Must not be used in children’?

The defence of the pharmaceutical industry has, for many years, been this ‘not recommended’ nonsense.

“It specifically states that our product is not recommended for use in children”, is a line thrown around when pharmaceutical products have been implicated in child/teen suicides. Hidden in their defence, however, are facts that they have promoted the use of antidepressants in children – reps, armed with cash incentives or other lavish gifts have, for decades, persuaded doctors that  “not recommended” are just two words that have to appear on leaflets for legal reasons. A rep from Glaxo would have told doctors that Paxil was safe to use in kids…it was the other SSRi’s that were unsafe. A rep from Lundbeck would have told doctors that Celexa was safe to use and that it was other SSRis that were dangerous.

That’s how marketing works and it was those two words that allowed pharmaceutical companies to get away with it for decades.

If a rep had visited a doctor and offered him cash incentives to prescribe a drug that said “must not be used”, would the outcome have been the same?

“Not recommended” can be written off as a legal requirement, it can be a discussion starter with a pharma rep and doctor, it can be twisted to convince the doctor that it’s okay to prescribe adult drugs to children or drugs with a link to birth defects to pregnant mothers.

It’s time to change all of that.

The following “must not be used” in children, adolescents and pregnant mothers.

Citalopram
Fluvoxamine
Escitalopram
Paroxetine
Sertraline
Fluoxetine

They “must not be used” to treat illnesses other than those indicated on the leaflet.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why this has never been done.

‘Not recommended’ has helped the pharmaceutical industry get away with murder and, at the same time, earned them billions of dollars. Money over life.

Just a small example here.

Bob Fiddaman.

Counties sue narcotics makers, alleging ‘campaign of deception’ – Los Angeles Times

Shortlink to this post: http://wp.me/pfSi7-2fl

5888752_sTwo California counties sued five of the world’s largest narcotics manufacturers on Wednesday, accusing the companies of causing the nation’s prescription drug epidemic by waging a “campaign of deception” aimed at boosting sales of potent painkillers such as OxyContin.

Officials from Orange and Santa Clara counties — both hit hard by overdose deaths, emergency room visits and escalating medical costs associated with prescription narcotics — contend the drug makers violated California laws against false advertising, unfair business practices and creating a public nuisance.

In sweeping language reminiscent of the legal attack against the tobacco industry, the lawsuit alleges the drug companies have reaped blockbuster profits by manipulating doctors into believing the benefits of narcotic painkillers outweighed the risks, despite “a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary.” The effort “opened the floodgates” for such drugs and “the result has been catastrophic,” the lawsuit contends.

Click below to read the full story:

Counties sue narcotics makers, alleging ‘campaign of deception’ – Los Angeles Times.

We are constantly being told that vaccines are approved by governments who have thoroughly tested them for both safety and effectiveness. Yet the same government regulators who approve vaccinations have also approved these drugs which are now the basis of a lawsuit in Los Angeles. How much can we trust what these officials tell us? Are vaccine safety and efficacy trials just more ‘tobacco science’? When will we see lawsuits by counties in the US and elsewhere due to the terrible toll caused by vaccine injuries and deaths? The answer is, we believe – it’s only a matter of time.

Congressman “CDC Should Be Investigated” – US Centers for Disease Control Vaccine Safety Corruption Compared to Bernie Madoff

Congressman Bill Posey Has Strong Words for Government Agency. Concludes: “I think the CDC Should Be Investigated.”

U.S. Congressman Compares Corruption in CDC’s Vaccine Safety Studies to SEC’s Handling of Bernie Madoff Scandal

“Vaccines Saved Us” – Intellectual Dishonesty At Its Most Naked

If there’s one thing about the drug industry backed vaccine movement CHS has learned over the last several years, it’s that it’s almost completely immune to evidence, science, and reason.

No matter how much evidence is arrayed against it, there are those among its spokespeople who always find a way to spin, distort, or misrepresent the evidence to combat it and not have to give up the concept that vaccines don’t cause autism. “Its a mystery” but bizarrely the one thing they are are sure of “its not vaccines“, even when this has been confirmed in the past by leading health officials and agencies through gritted teeth when publicly embarrassed by media attention: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines.

Not that this is any news to readers of this blog, but it bears repeating often. It also bears repeating and emphasizing examples of just the sort of disingenuous and even outright deceptive techniques used by promoters of vaccine pseudoscience to sow fear and doubt among parents. These arguments may seem persuasive to those who have little knowledge about science or epidemiology. Sometimes they even seemed somewhat persuasive to us; that is, at least until we actually took the time to look into them.

One example of such a myth is the claim that “vaccines save millions of lives” also sometimes going under the claim that “vaccines are safe and effective.”  Now this is something health officials and health departments started, with their shroud-waving tactics threatening parents their children would die without vaccines.  But what has happened instead is children develop autistic conditions in their millions with the amazing figure of around 1 family in every 25 in the USA with an affected child.  That is vastly higher than pretty much anything else put together including the diseases the vaccines are alleged to protect against.

These people ignore completely and disparage evidence like that on sites which have large sets of graphs showing that the death rates of several vaccine-preventable diseases, including whooping cough, diptheria, measles, and polio were falling before the vaccines for each disease were introduced. Pretending to be scientific the vaccine movement disparage and criticise articles having quotes like the one from Andrew Weil in his book Health and Healing:

Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.

A well-known US stand-up comedian, television host, political commentator, satirist, author, and actor, Bill Maher has said similar things about vaccines.  The vaccine movement complain that “vaccines didn’t save us” is a gambit and has become a staple of vaccine safety websites. They complain vehemently when for example, people they describe as “ignorant bloggers” write:

The mythology surrounding vaccines is still pervasive, the majority of the population still believes, in faith like fashion, that vaccines are the first line of defense against disease. The true story is that nutrition and psychological/emotional health are the first line of defense against disease.

Vaccines are a concoction of chemical adjuvants and preservatives coupled with virus fragments and have clearly been implicated in the astounding rise in neurological disorders around the world, yet the ‘popular’ media has embedded itself as a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical cartel and simply does not report in any responsible way the real situation.

Gorski and the vaccine movement call it the “toxins” gambit.  At risk of exposure for absolute intellectual dishonesty, they are forced to concede that of course, it is true that better sanitation is a good thing.  They concede it has decreased the rate of transmission of some diseases.  Sanitation can do this, with many infectious diseases being transmitted person-to-person through the air from aerosolized drops of saliva from coughs and sneezes or from being deposited on objects that people touch frequently, like doorknobs and suchlike.

They claim “vaccines didn’t save us” is a mere strategy and a distortion. They allege the best way to demonstrate this is to go on to the very first website that currently shows up on a Google search for “vaccines didn’t save us.” And guess what?  You will end up here on CHS.

And who is the main crank spreading the claim it is a lie?  None other than the internet’s crankiest of medical crank doctor bloggers, Dr David Gorski over at Science Blogs dot com and as ORAC on his “Respectful Insolence” blog.  He originally directed his comments to another site’s page entitled Proof That Vaccines Didn’t Save Us, claiming it’s “one of the most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of anti-vaccine propaganda” that he’s ever seen. 

Well of course for Dr David Gorski, he almost always seems to say that or something like it.  No matter what he previously commented on, the one he comments on next is the “most“, its “breathtakingly“, or “spectacularly” intellectually dishonest, pretty much no matter what he writes about. 

The formula Gorski uses in his inane prattling is lapped up by his devoted followers, who like small dogs around his ankles jump up and down yapping for attention in subservient comments on his posts.

We say this not because Gorski uses a common distortion, but rather because he ups the ante every time with his primeval urges to make generous use of hyperbole, adding them with abandon to his disparaging writings.

Gorski’s distortions are hidden in plain sight, too, which is why he should have props for sheer chutzpah.

Actually, we have to give Gorski some backhanded kudos for how he always manages to devise some disparagement to represent the classic vaccine movement lies.  This he combines with some very clever cherry picking. We won’t take them all on in this post. Maybe we’ll take some of them on in a future post. In the meantime, what we will do is to take on some main ones because they represent a common vaccine movement theme against sites with graphs very similar to the one found in posts like this.

In fact, let’s look at Gorski’s attack on the late Ian Sinclair’s website.  He tells you to notice that there are six graphs, four of which are for vaccine-preventable diseases for which widespread vaccination was undertaken, two for which it was not. He will then say all of them show decreasing death rates from various diseases. And he will exclaim “Wow! It seems like slam dunk evidence, doesn’t it? Vaccines didn’t save us! After all, death rates were declining years before the vaccine, and they were declining for the diseases that didn’t even need a vaccine!

So having taken the main proposition which any sensible person would, Gorski then goes about trying to show you how deceitful, and cunning and manipulative are your own eyes.  He writes to persuade you to conclude from what is plain from decades and often a century or two of vaccination statistics, that you are wrong.  You cannot, nay, you must not believe it. 

Crazily, these kinds of graphs have only been brought into play because Gorski and people like Gorski have been frightening parents for a good century or two that their children will die and vaccines will save them from that.  So he and others are engaged in trying to move the goalposts to clear up the mess they made with what in other circumstances Gorski might describe as their own “most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of vaccine propaganda that” Gorski “has ever seen“. [Don’t ya love it!]

Death rates.

This is how he follows on with a deceptively simple: “Here’s the problem.” Wow, David will say and he has in fact gone on to say: “It’s not surprising that death rates were declining before introduction of the vaccines. Medicine was improving.” Of course you will not realise that the data goes back two hundred years because David does not tell you, and that is way before socialised medicine ever came on the scene and way before the vast majority of working people could afford it [and believe us, a large proportion in the USA, long without socialised medicine, still cannot].  And yet the steady dramatic falls in disease mortality continued.

Now here is the real deceit.  Gorski never once mentions “attenuation“, which is well-known in medicine and it is the steady decline in severity of diseases over time, as shown by all these graphs.  His claim is to completely pretend natural attenuation of diseases does not exist and that it is all about “medicine improving“. 

Now would you agree that is or is not intellectual dishonesty?  Do you think it is right for a medical professional, a trained medical doctor, to abuse medical knowledge to make a claim a competent medical expert simply should not make?

David goes on:

More importantly, supportive care was improving. For example, take the case of polio. Before the introduction of the iron lung and its widespread use, for example, if a polio patient developed paralysis of the respiratory muscles, he would almost certainly die. The iron lung allowed such patients to live. Some even survived in an iron lung for decades.” 

Well, you will think, that is pretty convincing.  Everyone has heard of polio and iron lungs.  But what David fails to tell you is that was for a short period around the 1950s and that he has completely airbrushed out the prior 150 years.  He ignores the 1850s or the 1900s when large parts of western economies had working people living tightly packed in slums without adequate sanitation, nutrition or clean water, ripe for the spread of infectious diseases. 

Have you seen the film “Angela’s ashes“? If not, watch it and you will soon get some idea about how bad slums and living conditions were.  And that is not showing the worst either.  But you will realise what misleading garbage is written on blatant propaganda attack sites like Science Blogs dot com by Gorski and his buddies. 

Gorski fails to acknowledge or even accept [despite mountains of historical evidence outweighing his own cherry-picked bias] that as living conditions improved deaths from disease dropped dramatically before medicine even had much of a chance to play even a small role. 

In the UK the National Health Service only came into existence in 1948.  Before then ordinary working people got by without Gorski’s alleged “supportive care”.  His ridiculous claim it was “improving” is also pointless save to deceive.  When you haven’t got “it” in the first place, improvements in “it” are just as worthless.  But Gorski ploughs on having sucked the gullible into his scribbled rants.

But so as not to lose you and any credibility completely Gorski concedes “No doubt improved nutrition also played a role as well.” But with that tiny concession buried in thousands of Gorski’s inanities he rapidly moves on: “However, if you want to get an idea of the impact of vaccines on infectious disease, take a look at this graph  from the CDC of measles incidence, not death rates“:

CDC Measles Incidence Graph

Now here’s the problem” as Gorski would say.  [In fact he won’t and he did not for this part, so we need to]. First, he cherry picks starting in 1950.  That bizarrely leaves out the massive decline over the prior 150 years.  So no: 1) the vaccine was certainly not responsible for the massive decline in mortality and 2) that decline was still continuing after the vaccines were introduced and 3) it took place before “improved” medicine was commonly available to many [but still not all] in the West.

But Dr David Gorski leaves out even more.  So if you have not realised before, let’s help you now.    What else has Dr Gorski left out?  Notice the graph seems to show measles cases dramatically falling?  What you may not have noticed is that he has palmed the card and dealt you a crooked hand from the deck of cards he has hidden under the table.

Now here’s the problem“.  Without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all he flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths to change the game completely.  So in one move, a “sleight of hand” just like a three-card trickster who cheats you of your money, he has changed the entire proposition from saving us all from death to saving us from getting what might often be a mild dose of measles, [with no risk of 1 in 25 families having a child with autism as a result of vaccination as US leading health officials have admitted].  And he has done this without telling you, without batting an eyelid and likely without you noticing at all.  He just flips to a graph of measles cases and not deaths.   It is not the same argument and is not comparable.  But you probably did not notice, but David certainly did.

Well “what’s wrong with that“, you might ask.  Plenty.  Want to know why?  Let’s explain it, straight  – with no Gorskiesque deceit in sight.

When Gorski’s graph shows a fall in cases, it is not showing a fall in cases.  It is showing a fall in the numbers of diagnoses of measles which have been reported.

When doctors say they are diagnosing what they really mean is they are guessing pretty much all the time.

The problem with statistics on cases and not deaths is they depend upon lots of doctors’ guesses.  Doctors’ guesses also follow fads, fashions and trends.  And Gorski also fails to point out that symptoms are not like those in textbooks.  Some diseases have symptoms which look a lot like other diseases.  Some patients will have some but not all symptoms.  Some symptoms are milder in some patients than others.  So a diagnosis a patient has one disease and not another is often a guess. And it is often wrong.

What Gorski does not tell you is the practice of medicine is not science.  In fact he will tell you he “follows the science“.  He seems such a zealot he would probably prefer to throw himself under a train before admitting medical practice is not a science.

When doctors believe there could be a measles epidemic they can diagnose 73 out of 74 patients as having measles when they don’t have measles.  That is a real figure obtained from official data. You can find details here [at the end of the “Introduction” and before the “Contents”].

This also works in reverse.  When doctors have information a child has been vaccinated they will tend to rule out the vaccinated disease as a possibility and guess [diagnose] a different disease.  That is what the educated guessing process doctors call “diagnosis” is all about.

So when there are real measles cases, and doctors think the symptoms they see are not likely to be measles, they don’t diagnose measles. 

Did Gorski tell you any of this?  Nope.  But we are.  In fact all doctors in the USA were told that in 1967 measles was to be eradicated in just that year alone with the measles vaccine.  This was in a formally published statement “EPIDEMIOLOGIC BASIS FOR ERADICATION OF MEASLES IN 1967 A Statement By the Public Health Service” by David J. Sencer, M.D., H. Bruce Dull, M.D., Alexander D. Langmuir, M.D. PHR Vol. 82, No. 3, March 1967 253

So you can be sure that in the USA from the moment the first vaccine was licensed in 1963, the hype would have already started.  Thus, on the one hand the graph Gorski presented you has figures for diagnoses [guesses] showing a dramatic decline of measles cases from the very moment the vaccine was first licensed in the USA.  And on the other hand the moment doctors think it cannot be measles, they stop diagnosing measles and guess something else instead. So when there are real measles cases they will not be diagnosed.

So Gorski’s graph is totally misleading.  But glossing over it all he goes on to argue by analogy claiming “Similar results were seen most recently from several other vaccines, including the Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine, as the CDC points out:

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.”

And then you might ask, what is wrong with that?  Again, plenty.  The clue is in the word “estimated” in “the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993“?

To put it bluntly, one too many a health official including one too many in the US CDC make up grossly exaggerated estimates to make it look like they are doing their job.  Paying their mortgage depends on it.  So on the one hand they want to make it look like disease is everywhere and on the other that they are controlling and fixing the problem. 

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 tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.

Flu death estimates are a classic example.  The US CDC claims there are an estimated 36,000 annual flu deaths so they can promote flu vaccines and prove later how successful they have been.  Their problem is the UK were doing the same thing, but got caught and the Chief Medical Officer had to “fess up”.  You can read the details here.  Flu deaths in the UK averaged no more than 33 annually despite Department of Health claims estimating 12,000 people die annually: 360 times higher than actual deaths.  If a plane fell out of the sky over the UK, the way the Department of Health calculated flu deaths, these would have been included in their flu deaths figure.  Read it for yourself and see here.

Now, do you think Dr David Gorski is being intellectually honest?

Gorski’s graph claims a fall in measles cases from the moment the first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963.  The widespread use of measles vaccine in the US in a mass public vaccination programme started in 1967 which was nearly 5 years later. And the early vaccines were withdrawn because they were ineffective or caused high rates of adverse reactions.  The 1963 licensed inactivated (“killed”) vaccine was withdrawn in  1967 because it did not protect against measles virus infection – it just did not work but it took nearly 5 years to find out. Additionally, it was not until 1968 that what was claimed a more effective safer vaccine was introduced.  This was the attenuated strain vaccine (Edmonston-Enders). These further attenuated vaccines caused fewer reactions than the original Edmonston B vaccine.  The 1963 licensed live attenuated vaccine (Edmonston B strain) was withdrawn in 1975 because of a high frequency of adverse reactions.  A further attenuated vaccine (Schwarz) was first introduced in 1965 but is also no longer used: Measles Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases The Pink Book: Course Textbook – 12th Edition Second Printing (May 2012)

As you can see, the US authorities kept a useless vaccine in use for 5 years seemingly without realising it.  They kept a harmful vaccine in use for at least 10 years before replacing it.  So this gives you an idea of how difficult it is for parents to prove a vaccine is useless or one harmed their child when the US CDC pretends for 10 years a vaccine they later withdrew as dangerous is OK to give US kids.  And it also tells you, you cannot trust government and you cannot trust health officials.

And you may also not realise it but these were dangerous, unethical and illegal mass experiments on children, US children, directed by health officials of what is now the US Centers for Disease Control.  And the CDC is still doing illegal and dangerous experiments on US children with vaccines, but telling the public and media the vaccines are safe and effective.  Nothing has changed.  Has the US CDC ever used any of its annual US$11 billion budget in developing an effective treatment for measles?  Nope.  There is no effective treatment.  The CDC is a one trick pony.  And if they did develop an effective treatment like a measles pill, and a pill for other diseases, they might be out of a job.

Does Dr David Gorski warn you?  Nope.  He instead does the opposite with misinformation put out in a distasteful manner on his blogs.  [And he is supposed to be a professional medical doctor with high ethical standards, just like the CDC’s health officials.]

So you can see how Gorski simply laps up information he gets off the internet from unreliable and dangerous websites like that operated by the US Centers for Disease Control without exercising any critical faculties over dangerous and false health information given out by US health officials which ends up with US kids getting harmed [and possibly killed].  It is typical of the genre.  But he will attack and disparage others from the relative safety of his own blogs and he does so routinely.  Go over to his blogs and read for yourself.  Make your own mind up whether Dr Gorski is fair and open minded or is he something else?  Ask yourself are his blog posts fair and balanced or bullying and harassing those whose legitimate views he wants to censor from common knowledge in favour of his drug industry supporting version of the “truth“.  Overall ask yourself is he and Science Blogs dot com a source to be trusted?

The answer to that has to be a Big Fat “NO”.

And for how many other “vaccinatable diseases” have the records of reported cases diminished not because the vaccine works but because medical professionals do not diagnose the cases?  Remember, in many cases symptoms can be mild and/or look like another disease.  In the UK claims were being made for whooping cough being practically eradicated when the reality was the cases were not being reported: Easily Missed? Whooping cough Harnden, A BMJ 2009;338:b1772. Research Whooping cough in school age children with persistent cough: prospective cohort study in primary care Harnden, A BMJ 2006;333:174

Polio is another because not only are cases unlikely to be reported but cases not involving any symptom of paralysis are hardly likely to be noticed let alone reported and the UK form for reporting is for cases involving temporary or permanent paralysis and not non paralytic polio.

One thing you can say for sure about a death, is the patient is dead.  And another is death is the most extreme consequence of a disease.  A measure of how less dangerous a disease has become is from the rate at which mortality falls over time, so you can be certain all other kinds of adverse consequences will similarly be far less serious.  But Gorski never tells you that nor that statistics on reported cases are wholly unreliable.  That is not what Gorski or the US CDC want you to know or even guess at.  The more tax dollars the CDC can spend on vaccines, the more certain they are of staying in a job.  But then, they do have mortgages to pay don’t they, so we guess it must be OK to pay for them with your child’s health or the next child’s autism or asthma or diabetes [and so on and so forth].

All of the foregoing is why people don’t believe allopathic doctors like Gorski or government health officials and experts.  Because one too many are deceiving you, misleading you and acting against your best health interests and those of your children.  And if you want a great example, go over to Dr David Gorski’s various blog sites and read the nasty cranky stuff he writes, full of deceptions and misleading information.

Why You Must Not Sign A “Refusal To Vaccinate” Form – [At least, if you want to keep your kids that is]

CHS reproduces this post from the For Ohioans website February 9, 2014.

[UPDATE: For Ohioans is now Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines [PAMV]. The article and further advice is now found on that site here:

**(Details for parents and vaccine-aware health care providers.)**
 **(Details for employees and students**)

CONTACT PAMV: Email: sayno2flushots@gmail.com]

______________________________

The following is not legal advice. It is merely sharing ideas, understandings and suggestions regarding ways of dealing with vaccine recommendations by the CDC and vaccine mandates by the STATE.

The “Refusal to Vaccinate” form was created by the American Academy of Pediatric’s ‘legal department’ as a response to the growing number of toxic vaccines recommended by them and the growing number of parents who are becoming educated on this issue. According to the CDC our children should now receive 37 doses of vaccine between 0-16 years. [See Vaccine Schedule]

Recently in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA a statute was implemented (AB 2109) that requires their own form filled out and submitted to get a vaccine exemption.

The following strategy now being used to overcome vaccine awareness is the most diabolical strategy possible! It is unlikely that physicians have any idea what they are asking their patients to sign . . . or to sign away. It is essentially a signed confession. So please read and understand why you can’t sign it and why it is really something other than what if appears to be.

Here are 12 reasons that no parent can sign this form unless they are interested in being statutorily charged with neglect or intentionally causing harm. Repeating more boldly:

This form, if signed, could be used to have your child(ren) removed from your custody! It is a form designed to stand up in court!

*TWELVE REASONS PARENTS CANNOT SIGN THIS FORM


#1
The form attaches a child ID # that will be identifiable in the electronic records system across the country. Everyone from the school to the NSA will be able to determine who is and who is not vaccinated.

#2
The scientific term for HPV vaccine is listed to discourage parents from making the connection to the dangerous vaccine for HPV called Gardasil. [See Open Letter From a Grandmother to Her Daughters About Gardasil]

#3
Do not place any marks in any of these boxes. The physician’s records will indicate which vaccines your child has received. It would be best to put a large X through the entire section.

#4
The CDC Vaccine Information Statement is pure unadulterated propaganda. The real information about vaccines was exposed in 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards See info about the CDC – #9.

#5
Again the parent is misled to think the truth about vaccine risks is on the CDC web site.The doctor has the vaccine package inserts right in his/her office. Why is it not offered and explained to the parent? The physicians may have read them or not. However, the physicians are certainly aware that if the parents read the ‘official risks’ put out by the drug corporations, they would refuse the vaccines. Full disclosure is almost NEVER a part of the process.

#6
“I understand the following: The risks and benefits of the recommended vaccine(s).” This of course would be agreeing to a false statement. You cannot understand the risks without reading and understanding the package inserts.

#7
Parents are falsely told that without vaccines their children could suffer dire illnesses but are not told the dire illnesses/injuries the vaccines themselves could cause . . . including death. [See 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards]

#8
This refers to the “herd immunity myth” of 1933, which has been proven unscientific over and over and over again. Simply put: if other children have been vaccinated – and the vaccines work – they won’t contract a disease from your child.

#9
Entities are listed as “strongly recommending” the vaccine schedule. Again however, parents are NOT given full disclosure as to exactly who/what the entities are and what their motivations might be. Listed on the Refusal to Vaccinate form are the following:

  • The ‘physician’ – is rewarded for administering vaccines by higher reimbursements for his fees. His vaccine “rates” are checked to determine whether or not he/she is entitled to more money. Physicians, public health workers, and drug companies have all been given immunity from any possible lawsuits that may arise as a result of vaccine-caused injury or illness. In other words, if a vaccine harms your child or causes autism you cannot sue any of them.
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF ILLINOIS – that receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc. This organization relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
  • The American Academy of Family Physicians which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF KANSAS – that also receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc.This organization also relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).


Bottom line: all of the above “entities” make more money if they vaccinate our children and even more if our children get sick from the vaccines . . . including the pediatricians themselves.

#10
This is the broadest and most nefarious part of this so-called form.

Nevertheless, I have decided at this time to decline . . . I know that failure to follow the recommendations about vaccination may endanger the health or life of my child and others . . . I therefore agree to tell all health care professionals in all settings what vaccines my child has not received because he or she may need to be isolated or may require immediate medical evaluation and tests that might not be necessary if my child had been vaccinated.”

This is not only deceptive and untruthful [see numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8] it is asking you to confess that you know you are harming your child (and others) and don’t care. It is asking you to agree to inform any/all people who consider themselves to be healthcare “professionals” (not defined) of your child’s vaccination record. You are also agreeing to permitting undefined healthcare professionals to keep your child in isolation due to unproven or unknown exposure to a myriad of undefined communicable diseases – with or without testing.

#11
This is an admission that you understand this contractual document – and its significance – ‘in its entirety’. This means that you accept the false information sited as factual, chose NOT to do what you now know to be good for your child and others (are negligent), obligate yourself to embarrass and confuse your child by tracking and reporting on the vaccines you protected your child from, and give permission for your child to be tested or removed from your care and put in isolation for any ‘supposed’ exposure to any ‘undefined’ communicable disease by anyone calling themselves a healthcare worker. [Ohio Revised Code 3701.13]

In short, the form wants you to attest to the following . . . in writing:

1. You understand you are signing a contract with performance requirements

2. You accept false information as factual and don’t care

3. You don’t care if your child or others are harmed by your decision

4. You agree to volunteer to all pretend healthcare workers your child’s vaccine record

5. You agree to allow others to test or isolate your child for unproven exposure to a disease

#12
Here is the kicker. You are asked to sign, initial and date this document in front of a witness who also dated their signature. This is called an unconscionable adhesion contract: “a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.”

Let’s think . . . how much money is made by forcing all children in America to be ‘fully’ vaccinated? Billions or is it trillions?


*For Californians

Here is the form that is being used in California as is should be filled out:  **California Personal Beliefs and Exemption Form**

Note: only the child’s name is filled out and the form refers to an attached VACCINATION NOTICE (see below). The LEGISLATORS and employees of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA have absolutely no authority to require parents go to a health care provider. They are not qualified to make that determination and have absolutely no authority (or training) to establish those parameters


*SUGGESTED RESPONSE (OR WHAT I WOULD DO)



STEP ONE

  • Inform the nurse or doctor that as the Refusal to Vaccinate form is an adhesion contract with performance requirements, you must take it home and read it more thoroughly. No one can force you to sign a contract. It is very important that you don’t allow yourself to get bullied into signing this form on the spot.
  • Ask for the vaccine package inserts to take with you. Explain that you always get a list of side effects from the pharmacist when you pick up a prescription – before your take it. Say you need those inserts to make an informed decision. If they ask you to accept a ‘handout’ say no. Just politely repeat your request. If they still say no, just let it go.
  • On your next visit to the pediatrician or family practitioner, inform him or her that you are not interested in signing the Refusal to Vaccinate form because after due consideration you have decided that it would not be in your child’s best interests . . . which it would not!

STEP TWO

*THE VACCINATION NOTICE

It is time to place our position regarding vaccines on the record (and in the record) for the physician and the school system. The physician needs to have your notice regarding vaccines on file. This also protects him or her from the vaccination-business police (like public health employees) who monitor patient records.

This notice is designed to inform your doctor or your child’s school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and make it perfectly clear that you do not consent. The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. Suggestions for implementing this notice are on page 1 and the notice itself is on page 2. Read the notice thoroughly before you fill it out and present it. It has to be something you agree with and will attest to by signing it before 2 witnesses or a notary public. Without the witnesses or notary public it is nothing more than a memo, which will most likely be ignored. If you do not agree with the notice, do not use it. People can always create their own. A notice is only a signed statement of facts that you know to be true.

Vaccination Notice

The Vaccination Notice will be an education for all parties involved.

  • Most folks don’t know their physician gets more money for vaccinating ALL children in his/her practice.
  • Most folks don’t know that all those manufacturing or administering vaccines have been granted immunity from lawsuits.
  • Most folks don’t know that by refusing to give the parent/guardian the package insert the parent is kept unaware of the real health risks associated with vaccines.

These facts are stated on the vaccine notice. Notices are used by many for many purposes. According to the http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice

The concept of notice is critical to the integrity of legal proceedings. Due process requires that legal action cannot be taken against anyone unless the requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard are observed.

This notice will stand irregardless of the myriad of vaccine mandates the untrained legislators decide to pass via statutes in the future. Be sure to keep a copy for your own records and note the date it was presented, and the party it was presented to!!


IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “NOTICE”
The vaccination notice is designed to inform your doctor, hospital or school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and that you do not consent. See Notice http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. This approach should help put an end to the endless pressure that pediatricians and school personnel inflict on vaccine-aware parents.

FILLING OUT THE “NOTICE”

  1. Items in red need to be personalized.
  2. Select son or daughter as applicable.
  3. Corporate entities need to be in all caps.
  4. The health department of each state is listed in its corporate name in all caps on Dun and Bradstreet. This information is accessible for free online.
  5. At the bottom of the notice is a space for the parent’s signature and the signature of two witnesses. Of course the dates need to be identical. An acceptable alternative to two witnesses would be to sign in front of a notary and have them stamp it for you. Use blue ink for signatures.

DELIVERING THE NOTICE
This notice requires little discussion. Just hand it to the nurse, doctor or clerk, or attach it to the Refusal to Vaccinate or the PERSONAL BELIEFS EXEMPTION TO REQUIRED IMMUNIZATIONS forms[1]. Politely explain that you are not comfortable with the vaccine risks and wish to have this notice placed in the child’s records so you don’t have to bring in a new one each time your child sees the doctor or nurse. If asked where you obtained the document, simply say from another parent, which is true. Giving more information is not required and is not advisable. Citing websites or vaccine aware organizations just motivates those in the vaccination-distribution-business to track down and discredit folks that are doing their best to bring good information to the public.

Do not answer detailed questions about your objections to any vaccine or the source of your information. Just repeat what is on the notice; “I am aware of multiple scientific peer-reviewed papers that have exposed the dangers of many vaccines.” Doctors and nurses are well armed with ‘talking points’ designed to overcome all claims you might make regarding vaccines and nearly all authors you might site. According to Russell Blaylock, MD there are lots of peer-reviewed articles on this topic for doctors and nurses to read. It is their job to seek this information. It is not your job to provide it to them. The notice just states facts and is designed to be self-explanatory.

Should the clerk, doctor, or nurse refuse to accept your notice, politely explain that their decision to accept your notice as the “agent” is not optional as it is directed to the “principal’ as well. Keep a copy for yourself and write the name of the agent, his/her position and the date on the bottom of your notice. Save the notice for your records. If there is too much resistance to placing the notice in your child’s records, send it certified mail to the physician, hospital administrator or superintendent of schools.


[1]The only info the parent should provide on these forms is name of the child and “see attached addendum”. (Sample) Anything more can be used against the parent AND the doctor, as these forms are designed to be tracked.

The Vaccination Notice

Template (updated 6-17-14)

Star Reader’s Comment – “I won’t vaccinate because Medics are not truthful about safety and then won’t take responsibility for harm caused”

The following was posted on CHS by a reader called Lucy

Having read almost all the replies here, I’d like to share my recent experience and what really peeves me off. For starters, I don’t care whether people vaccinate or don’t vaccinate, what I do care about is being deceived by the very person I am told to trust when it comes to the health of my children – my GP.

I asked my doctor and the health nurse at the same clinic “how safe are vaccinations?” They both told me “completely and totally safe”.

Now that’s a lie.

Even the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the vaccines don’t make that claim, and in fact, gives a list of what could happen.

Anyway, after several months of intense research I decided to delay the vaccinations in my 2 youngest children (I have 6) and have always been a bit unsure about them (my mother and father BOTH got polio FROM the polio vaccine in the 50′s). So I needed to get the doc to fill out a form stating I was objecting to it when the nurse started in on me.  So I listened patiently about how completely safe they were etc etc, then I produced a document and told her that if she signed it I would vaccinate my children then and there, she refused. The document said that she would be fully financially liable if my children suffered from a vaccine induced injury and required care for the rest of their lives. When she refused, I asked why, because she had just told me they were completely safe. I then told her that if she had been honest with me and listed the pros and cons of the vaccine I would have gone ahead with it, not investigated the reasons why doctors and health professionals find it necessary to deceive their patients.

And for those of you who think doctors report serious adverse reactions, what a joke. I was given medication that very nearly led me to wipe out my entire family (no history of mental illness, violence, nothing) when I told the doctor she said “we can try another one”. Maybe she was unaware that the TGA had issued a warning and watch on this medication for suicide, rage and violence. A pity I had to do my own research to find this out. Also a pity that she didn’t report it, you’d think being locked up in your room for 2 days so you couldn’t harm your family would warrant reporting.

On another separate matter, my kids were injected with the rotavirus vaccine, I discovered that the TGA had issued warning to all doctors that after a few years of study it was found that it increased the risk of a bowel problem, and for doctors to inform every parent to watch their child for specific symptoms for a period of time after the 1st and 2nd injections. The people who vaccinated my children never mentioned a word, three different doctors no less, and according to my friends, they have never been informed either. I just find it completely unacceptable and the whole vaccination/medication process a hidden procedure, where being told the truth is like a game of hide and seek.

And finally, also not a vaccination, but drug, who in their right minds, makes a drug to be given to 6 year olds that causes suicidal thoughts and violent tendencies? Has the world gone mad??

Mercury banned as vaccine ingredient by Chilean lawmakers

Mercury banned as vaccine ingredient by Chilean lawmakers Natural News Tuesday, February 11, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes

It is claimed that on January 15, 2014, the Chile Congress approved nearly unanimously a law regulating the use of Thimerosal in vaccines (84 votes in favor [with 5 abstentions]).  Bill #7036-11 eliminates mercury from most all vaccines was passed with cross party support: Chile: Congress Bans Mercury in Vaccines.

But there is a sting in this tale.  President Sebastian Pinera must sign this new Bill into law but he vacates office in March to be replaced by Michelle Bachelet.  Bachelet is a pediatrician and former public health and WHO associate.  If the new Bill is not signed into law before April, will Bachelet, in support of “the people” and the overwhelming majority of the Chilean Congress: Ibid?

Vaccine industry in panic over global effort to remove all mercury from vaccines Monday, March 11, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

US Government Knew of Serious Autism Risk From Vaccines – Data On 400,000 US Infants – Newly Revealed Freedom of Information Documents – Obtained By Health Watchdog’s Scientist

Biochemist Brian Hooker, scientific advisor to A Shot of Truth, reveals CDC knew of risks for over a decade.

We must ensure that this and other evidence of CDC malfeasance are presented to Congress and the public as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. Children’s futures are at stake.

Charlotte, NC (PRWEB) February 19, 2014

For nearly ten years, Brian Hooker has been requesting documents that are kept under tight wraps by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). His more than 100 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have resulted in copious evidence that the vaccine preservative Thimerosal, which is still used in the flu shot that is administered to pregnant women and infants, can cause autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Dr. Hooker, a PhD scientist, worked with two members of Congress to craft the letter to the CDC that recently resulted in his obtaining long-awaited data from the CDC, the significance of which is historic. According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, “proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal exposure.”

When the results of the Verstraeten study were first reported outside the CDC in 2005, there was no evidence that anyone but Dr. Verstraeten within the CDC had known of the very high 7.6-fold elevated relative risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy. But now, clear evidence exists. A newly-acquired abstract from 1999 titled, “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to Thimerosal containing vaccine in first month of life” required the approval of top CDC officials prior to its presentation at the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) conference. Thimerosal, which is 50% mercury by weight, was used in most childhood vaccines and in the RhoGAM® shot for pregnant women prior to the early 2000s.

The CDC maintains there is “no relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism rates in children,” even though the data from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database shows a very high risk. There are a number of public records to back this up, including this Congressional Record from May 1, 2003. The CDC’s refusal to acknowledge thimerosal’s risks is exemplified by a leaked statement from Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the CDC/NIH-sponsored Immunization Safety Review at IOM. Regarding vaccination, she said in 2001, “…we are not ever going to come down that it [autism] is a true side effect….” Also of note, the former director of the CDC, which purchases $4 billion worth of vaccines annually, is now president of Merck’s vaccine division.

Dr. Hooker’s fervent hope for the future: “We must ensure that this and other evidence of CDC malfeasance are presented to Congress and the public as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. Children’s futures are at stake.” A divide within the autism community has led to some activists demanding that compensation to those with vaccine-injury claims be the top priority before Congress. Dr. Hooker maintains that prevention, “protecting our most precious resource – children’s minds,” must come first. “Our elected officials must be informed about government corruption that keeps doctors and patients in the dark about vaccine risks.”

Referring to an organization that has seen its share of controversy this past year, Dr. Hooker remarked, “It is unfortunate that SafeMinds issued a press release on my information, is accepting credit for my work and has not supported a worldwide ban on Thimerosal.”

Brian Hooker, PhD, PE, has 15 years experience in the field of bioengineering and is an associate professor at Simpson University where he specializes in biology and chemistry. His over 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Hooker has a son, aged 16, who developed normally but then regressed into autism after receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Dr. Brian Hooker’s investigative research is sponsored by the Focus Autism Foundation.

The Focus Autism Foundation is dedicated to providing information to the public that exposes the cause or causes of the autism epidemic and the rise of chronic illnesses – focusing specifically on the role of vaccinations. To learn more, visit focusautisminc.org.

A Shot of Truth is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and educational website sponsored by Focus Autism.

AutismOne is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that provides education and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis. To learn more, visit autismone.org.

From news release: “Vaccine Industry Watchdog Obtains CDC Documents That Show Statistically Significant Risks of Autism Associated with Vaccine Preservative Thimerosal” Web PDF

Mercury banned as vaccine ingredient by Chilean lawmakers

Mercury banned as vaccine ingredient by Chilean lawmakers Natural News Tuesday, February 11, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes

It is claimed that on January 15, 2014, the Chile Congress approved nearly unanimously a law regulating the use of Thimerosal in vaccines (84 votes in favor [with 5 abstentions]).  Bill #7036-11 eliminates mercury from most all vaccines was passed with cross party support: Chile: Congress Bans Mercury in Vaccines.

But there is a sting in this tale.  President Sebastian Pinera must sign this new Bill into law but he vacates office in March to be replaced by Michelle Bachelet.  Bachelet is a pediatrician and former public health and WHO associate.  If the new Bill is not signed into law before April, will Bachelet, in support of “the people” and the overwhelming majority of the Chilean Congress: Ibid?

Vaccine industry in panic over global effort to remove all mercury from vaccines Monday, March 11, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

[Link to this CHS article: http://wp.me/pfSi7-23l]

Download the full paper here: Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2013 Donald W. Light, Rowan University, Harvard University; Joel Lexchin, York University; Jonathan J. Darrow, Harvard Medical School

[See also:

Abstract:
Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits.

The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created.

Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs.

The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency.

Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted.

Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients.

Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.

Dr Andrew Wakefield Not Guilty Says BBC – General Medical Council Wrong

With the UK’s national media in a feeding frenzy whipped up by the UK’s Department of Health claiming the current outbreaks of relatively few measles cases are all the fault of Dr Andrew Wakefield, the BBC appears to have slipped up and confirmed that the main plank of the General Medical Council’s case against Dr Wakefield and his two colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital, London, England in 1998 has bitten the dust. 

The main plank of the GMC’s case was that there was only one study carried out by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues on the “Lancet 12” children, that it did not have ethics approval and that it was the study reported in February 1998 in the UK’s medical journal “The Lancet”.

Whilst the BBC is meant to be independent and unbiased as a news source, it has been propping up the UK Government and Health Department’s official line for many years over the MMR/autism issue not being caused by vaccines and that Dr Wakefield was wrong. 

But who in fact is wrong?  If you cannot get your facts right over something pretty major then how can you have your facts right on that issue? 

In a report yesterday it appears to have allowed a significant chink in the UK Government’s position.  The BBC confirms there were in fact two studies carried out: one was for the Legal Aid Board but it was not the one the GMC panel Chaired by Dr Surendra Kumar decided it was.

The three defendant doctors claimed there were two studies: that the Lancet study was not the Legal Aid Board study and that the Lancet study had a different ethical approval – contrary to the GMC’s allegations.

So why has the BBC not covered this.  It is important news.  But here we see them including these significant facts as an aside in a different news report.  This shows however that the BBC’s health journalists are fully aware of the facts and have a grasp of these important details but do not report their importance and significance to the British public who pay directly to fund the BBC.  It is defrauding the British public – they are not getting what they pay vast millions of pounds sterling for.

Further, the complainant to the GMC, Mr Brian Deer, who had been paid by Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times to get “a big story” about the MMR vaccine, withheld crucial lost documents from the GMC investigation, the GMC’s lawyers, the Defendant doctor’s lawyers and everyone else including all the world’s media.  The documents date back many years showing that all the three doctors subjected to the GMC investigation did in fact have and were routinely operating under ethics approval 162/95 and not ethics approval 172/96 – which was for a different study never carried out which Dr Kumar and his GMC panel decided was carried out.

Additionally Dr Kumar’s position as GMC panel Chairman demonstrates it was a “Kangaroo Court“.  Barely two months after the decision to strike Dr Wakefield from the medical register, Dr Kumar was publicly calling for compulsory MMR vaccination. 

Compulsory MMR vaccination is an approach described in 2008 as “stalinist” by the BMA chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum who also said forcing parents to have their children innoculated was “morally and ethically dubious”: No jabs, no school says Labour MP BBC 11 May 2008.  Dr Kumar’s strongly held views on MMR vaccination were never disclosed and raised the question of whether Dr Kumar should have been debarred just from sitting on the panel under the Nolan Principles regulating standards in public life in the UK.

Here is what the BBC reported [CHS emphasis added]:

The General Medical Council found Dr Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct in 2010 and he was struck off the medical register. It did not investigate whether his findings were right or wrong but focused on the way he carried out his research.

Dr Wakefield’s study considered whether there was a link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease.

It focused on tests carried out on 12 children who had been referred to hospital for gastrointestinal problems.

Dr Wakefield was also paid to carry out another study at the same time to find out if parents who claimed their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. Some children were involved in both studies.”

Government rejects measles outbreak ‘blame’ – 13 April 2013 Last updated at 07:34

And on CHS we have shown in numerous reports with how numerous times the causation position that MMR vaccine causes autistic conditions has been proven time and again and that there is a considerable body of medical and scientific evidence to that effect.  Here are just a few examples:

Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

Ginger Taylor’s List of Research Linking Vaccines to Autism

All is of course ignored by the BBC –  cowed into submission and controlled by the UK Government – which holds the purse strings for its budgets.

Vaccines, Aluminium Adjuvants & Brain Damage – Latest Research – Summary Report – 10th Annual Scientific Conference On Aluminium

Here we provide links to Gaia Health‘s excellent and informative summary and report with links to good source reference material about the UK’s Keele University 10th annual meeting on aluminium:

Current Status of Aluminum Adjuvant Research March 26, 2013

Aluminium is highly toxic and neurotoxic in parts per billion.  It is used as an adjuvant in childhood vaccines and adjuvants are a known cause of “sensitisation”. 

The topics covered in the summary and report include:

  • Aluminum as a neurotoxin.
  • Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.
  • The in vivo data.
  • Aluminum in vaccines and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
  • Connecting pediatric vaccines with aluminum.
  • Where we go from here?

“Sensitisation” means if your child did not have an allergy before the shot, there is a very high probability it will have an allergy after.  “Sensitisation” is the process by which an environmental cause like a vaccine makes people who were not allergic before become allergic – so if you wonder where those life-threatening food allergies and other allergies come from – adjuvants in vaccines are one of the prime candidates [along with Thiomersal/Thimerosal in vaccines].

“Neurotoxic” means it kills braincells and causes nerve damage.  And in parts per billion that means for a dose of one gram to be a part in a billion means a child would have to weigh 1000 kilogrammes which is around 2.2 thousand pounds weight – a bit big for a baby.

Latest Research – Vaccines, Brain Damage & Aluminium Adjuvants In Vaccines

POST MOVED:

This post is now found here:

Vaccines, Aluminium Adjuvants & Brain Damage – Latest Research – Summary Report – 10th Annual Scientific Conference On Aluminium

90 Studies – Mercury Not Safe In Medicines and Vaccines – Toxic and Neurotoxic in parts per billion

Get wise and don’t get fooled.  Mercury and its organo-mercurial compounds like Thiomersal [aka Thimerasol] [still being used in some vaccines] is highly toxic and neurotoxic in parts per billion. 

For a dose of 1 gram on a teaspoon an infant would need to weigh 10,000 metric tonnes to fall within the US Environmental Protection Agency’s daily limit.  “Neurotoxic” means it kills braincells and causes nerve damage. 

Video: University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine – How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration

If you want quick access to around 90 citations and abstracts of papers with the “best bits” highlighted showing mercury is unsafe in medicines and vaccines you may want to bookmark and peruse Vaccination News’ lists of citations and abstracts:

Page 1 – Vaccination News Citations – Evidence for Thimerosal Risk

Page 2 – Vaccination News Citations – Evidence for Thimerosal Risk

It also causes “sensitisation” which means if your child did not have an allergy before the shot, there is a very high probability it will have an allergy after.  Thiomersal “sensitises” which means it makes people who were not allergic before become allergic – so if you wonder where those life-threatening food allergies and other allergies come from – Thiomersal/Thimerosal is one of the prime candidates [along with adjuvants in vaccines].

Beyond Conformity – Useful Vaccine Information

Don’t be fooled by Government health officials’ and their propaganda or by dodgy medical information courtesy of well-publicised-to-be crooked medical journal publishing from one too many crooked mainstream medical journals and some of their authors.

If you want bottom line analysis and well-referenced and well-sourced information, including from official data and from formally published research papers, you may want to bookmark for future reference and peruse Hilary Butler’s “Hilary’s Desk” from Beyond Conformity, New Zealand.  

Well worth reading and noting for future reference.  

Here are links to some of Hilary Butler’s recent articles from Beyond Conformity.

Part One (of four) Herald on Sunday Flu propaganda 18-Mar-2013

Part Two: What the Herald on Sunday should have shown readers 16-Mar-2013

Part Three: Dr Huang’s Shiver’s propaganda 15-Mar-2013

Part Four: The matter of New Zealand annual Flu deaths. 14-Mar-2013

Parents want the truth about the flu vaccine, Professor Phillips. 14-Mar-2013

New Zealand’s first breast milk bank. 13-Mar-2013

Prior Articles By Ms Hilary Butler with thanks to Vaccination News for the compilation:

Direct Drug marketing in New Zealand is a fact.

Gardasil, fairywands and bulldust.

FDA questioned about genetically engineered HPV DNA in Gardasil worldwide.

Whipping up fear.

Does the plot thicken?

More HPV vaccine lies

Toxic Metals found in Sweden’s Pandemrix Swine Flu vaccine

What about you?

More autism/vaccination questions

Oh my darling Portia

Paracetamol should not be used for infectious fevers – revisited

Does Nikki Turner live in Gaga land?

Windmills of my mind

Lessons from Ernest Shackleton

Antisystematosis and Plurasideaffects

Getting to the Point.

Part 1 of 3. Unanswered questions about the Hepatitis B vaccine

Part 2: Unanswered questions about the Hepatitis B vaccine

Everyone knows who dunnit…

Cognitive dissonance or “being deceived”

Insight Documentary 19 June 2011

Influenza vaccines, KOPS, and the truth

Pneumonia vaccine not only useless, but dangerous

Polio and lemmings

A few voices are waking up to the fact that …

Did Gardasil kill Jasmine?

Can vaccines become cranial and immunological cluster bombs? (Part 3 of 3)

How a baby fights infection and develops the immune system (Part 2 of 3)

Vaccines and neonatal immune development (part 1 of 3)

A reader writes in – B4 school check

World’s first Orwell “Truth Department” award goes to….

It’s all about money

Serenity’s grandmother wants answers

IMAC’s new minions

Just do it

Nikki Turner’s Science Friction

Paul Offit’s Science Friction

Pneumovax 23 – an emperor with no clothes

E.coli vaccine and other related nonsense

Who exactly is mad, Dr Holt?

It’s all your fault!

Medical error and hypocrisy

Ministry of Health seriously misled the Immunisation Select Committee

The coming adult needle cushion

Deadly choices – Paul’s porkies.

AAP’s fever and antipyretic policy statement shores up big pharma

Gardasil – in the quest for evidence.

On Breastfeeding and idiots.

So who is the fanatic?

Puppets, fanatics, nuts and sluts.

Nutrition. Again.

Rheumatic Fever and common sense.

Blog posts from previous years

Scientific Evidence Says Vaccinating With HPV Vaccine Is Ineffective, Dangerous For You And Your Daughters & Wrongly Promoted As “Anti-Cancer”

Thank God for researchers with courage who are prepared to tell the truth against the financial might of the drug industry, its manipulation and its political lobbying to market harmful ineffective drugs.

A peer reviewed well researched well referenced letter has been published in The Journal of Infectious Agents And Cancer telling the truth – yes – really – yes it has – honest to God:

Letter to the Editor HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism Lucija Tomljenovic1*, Judy Wilyman2, Eva Vanamee3, Toni Bark4 and Christopher A Shaw1 1st February 2012 [.pdf version here].  

The analysis and text is insightful and important.  The letter would be valuable alone just for the papers and evidence it cites.

Using evidence from published peer reviewed literature and official sources, the letter rips into an editorial published 20 December 2012 in the Journal. 

The letter reveals scientific and factual evidence that the data behind claims that HPV vaccines prevent cancers and save lives with no risk of serious side effects areoptimistic” and contrary to the evidence and largely are from “significant misinterpretation of available data” which is “presented to the public as factual evidence

That translates to:

drug industry and government health officials making up BS

The authors use scientific and factual evidence to indicate how they say the editorial wrongly presented the complex scientific and factual issues as a simple battle between ‘unjustified “anti-HPV vaccine activism” vs alleged absolute science and indisputable evidence of HPV vaccine safety and efficacy.  That translates into:

the use of BS evidence passed off by one too many medical journals these days as science to accuse those who use good scientific and factual evidence to question validly the drug marketing hype and BS published in journals as if it were science

We apologise to our regular readers for the colloquial nature of the translations of the published peer reviewed text.  This has been included so that “scientists” who publish the kind of BS concerned can more easily understand and distinguish the valid science and facts from their normal diet of drug industry sponsored BS junk science.  Normal service will be resumed as soon as we can.

The vaccine safety profiles are based on highly flawed safety trial designs and are contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports linking the vaccines to serious side effects including death and permanent disabilities. That translates into:

the drug industry and government health officials hiding death and serious injury with BS so they can sell ever more vaccines and turn you and your daughters into pin-cushion profit centers

The letter shows that the efforts to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated can be viewed validly as a cynical way for the drug industry to make money out of you and your daughters with hype and misrepresentation of the science and the facts.  Reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no serious health risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.

The authors show:

  • HPV vaccines have not thus far prevented a single case of cervical cancer let alone death;
  • the evidence is that HPV vaccines prevent some pre-cancerous symptoms which mostly spontaneously resolve without vaccination and it is ineffective against other kinds of HPV infections;
  • the successes claimed are against a backdrop of high misclassification and poor diagnosis where diagnoses may just be error.

They say it is not science but an optimistic assumption that HPV vaccination will reduce 70% of cervical cancers – seemingly based on exaggerated and invalid extrapolations which fail to take into account important basic scientific issues like:

  • whether they can measure what they claim to;
  • that the vaccine cannot address all HPV infections and may cause an increase in those kinds of infections;
  • whether the vaccine has any effect for women who have multiple types of HPV infections and/or pre-existing HPV infections;

Merck’s Gardasil vaccine:

  • was priority Fast Tracked by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 6-months when it failed and continues to fail to meet any of the required criteria for Fast Track approval;
  • is demonstrably neither safer nor more effective than Pap screening combined with conventional prevention;
  • it cannot improve the diagnosis of serious cervical cancer outcomes

This has meant “unwarranted confidence in the new HPV vaccines” has “led to the impression that there was no need to actually evaluate their effectiveness“.

In the USA Gardasil alone is associated with 61% of all serious adverse reactions including 63.8% of all deaths and 81.2% cases of permanent disability in females younger than 30 years of age.

The unusually high frequency and consistency of adverse reactions worldwide with nervous system-related disorders ranking the highest, strongly suggests the vaccine is the cause along with repeated reports of very similar cases of the same serious adverse reactions.  Nervous system and autoimmune disorders are most frequently reported.

[ED: and what is the justification for the rush to approve a vaccine given to young girls when the majority of cervical cancers affect women over the age of 40-50? So why not make sure it is safe?  And by the time these girls are 40-50 years old there are likely to be effective treatments anyway.]  

New Website & Reference Source On Autism, Shaken Baby Syndrome, SIDS etc – Publications of Dr F E Yazbak

We list here the current list of publications found on a new website which houses the publications of Dr F E Yazbak MD. These articles provide insightful informed expert medical analyses and assessments of medical and other evidence and cover issues such as autism, shaken baby syndrome, SIDS and other related matters. The site has specifically been created for this purpose by Sheri Nakken, RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath.  Please go to the site to check for any new or additional publications.

Dr Yazbak is an emininent physician and one of the very few medical practitioners who has taken the trouble to investigate the medical facts and evidence base regarding these issues. F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP of Falmouth, Massachusetts, was formerly the Assistant Clinical Director of the Charles V. Chapin Hospital, a specialized infectious disease hospital and the Director of Pediatrics at the Woonsocket Hospital in Rhode Island. He was also the Pediatric Director of the Child Development Study, the Brown University division of the NINDB Collaborative Study and an assistant member of the Institute of Health Sciences at the University. He practiced pediatrics and was a school physician in Northern Rhode Island for 34 years. 

Since 1998, Dr Yazbak has devoted his time to researching vaccine injury and the increased incidence and autoimmune causes of regressive autism focusing on maternal re-vaccination with live viruses.

He has been recognized as an expert witness in autism, vaccine injury and Shaken Baby Syndrome litigation and has published extensively on those subjects.

He and his wife maureen, a pediatric nurse practitioner, have four children and twelve grandchildren. Their family like many others has been severely affected by autism.

Recent Posts

The Deer Crusade and Collateral Damage  10 Mar 2013

Ethyl Mercury in vaccines: Was Hilleman right? 22 Feb 2013

Controversial Doctor and Autism Media Channel Director proven right – MMR Vaccine Causes Autism & Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Press Release March 8, 2013.

Two landmark events – a government concession in the US Vaccine Court, and a groundbreaking scientific paper – confirm that physician, scientist, and Autism Media Channel [AMC] Director, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and the parents were right all along.

In a recently published December 13, 2012 vaccine court ruling, hundreds of thousands of dollars were awarded to Ryan Mojabi, [i] whose parents described how “MMR vaccinations,” caused a “severe and debilitating injury to his brain, diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’).”

Later the same month, the government suffered a second major defeat when young Emily Moller from Houston won compensation following vaccine-related brain injury that, once again, involved MMR and resulted in autism. The cases follow similar successful petitions in the Italian and US courts (including Hannah Poling [ii], Bailey Banks [iii], Misty Hyatt [iv], Kienan Freeman [v], Valentino Bocca [vi], and Julia Grimes [vii]) in which the governments conceded or the court ruled that vaccines had caused brain injury. In turn, this injury led to an ASD diagnosis. MMR vaccine was the common denominator in these cases.

And today, scientists and physicians from Wake Forest University, New York, and Venezuela, reported findings that not only confirm the presence of intestinal disease in children with autism and intestinal symptoms, but also indicate that this disease may be novel. [viii] Using sophisticated laboratory methods Dr. Steve Walker and his colleagues endorsed Wakefield’s original findings by showing molecular changes in the children’s intestinal tissues that were highly distinctive and clearly abnormal.

From 1998 Dr. Wakefield discovered and reported intestinal disease in children with autism. [ix] Based upon the medical histories of the children he linked their disease and their autistic regression to the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR vaccine). He has since been subjected to relentless personal and professional attacks in the media, and from governments, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. In the wake of demonstrably false and highly damaging allegations of scientific fraud by British journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal, Dr. Wakefield is pursuing defamation proceedings against them in Texas. [x]

While repeated studies from around the world confirmed Wakefield’s bowel disease in autistic children [xi] and his position that safety studies of the MMR are inadequate, [xii] Dr. Wakefield ’s career has been destroyed by false allegations.  Despite this he continues to work tirelessly to help solve the autism catastrophe.

The incidence of autism has rocketed to a risk of around 1 in 25 for children born today. Meanwhile governments, absent any explanation and fearing loss of public trust, continue to deny the vaccine autism connection despite the concessions in vaccine court.

Speaking from his home in Austin, Texas, Dr. Wakefield said,

There can be very little doubt that vaccines can and do cause autism. In these children, the evidence for a n adverse reaction involving brain injury following the MMR that progresses to an autism diagnosis is compelling. It’s now a question of the body count. The parents’ story was right all along. Governments must stop playing with words while children continue to be damaged . My hope is that recognition of the intestinal disease in these children will lead to the relief of their suffering. This is long , long overdue .”

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a best selling author, [xi] founder of the autism research non profit Strategic Autism Initiative (SAI), and Director of the Autism Media Channel.

Identification of Unique Gene Expression Profile in Children with Regressive Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Ileocolitis” PLOS ONE March 8, 2013, available online at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058058

To see an exclusive interview with one of the study’s key authors Dr. Arthur Krigsman, go to autismmediachannel.com Contact: info@autismmediachannel.com or (001) 512 992 7389

[i] Decision Awarding Damages to Ryan Mohabi 13 Dec 2012

[ii] Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award September 9, 2010 2:14 PM

and

Decision Awarding Damages 21 July 2012

[iii] Entitlement Ruling Determining MMR Caused Bailey Banks’ Autistic Condition (see footnote 4)

[iv] Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? February 11, 2009 3:20 PM CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson

[v] KIENAN FREEMAN RULING CONCERNING “ENTITLEMENT” – September 25, 2003

[vi] MMR: A mother’s victory. The vast majority of doctors say there is no link between the triple jab and autism, but could an Italian court case reignite this controversial debate? By Sue ReidDaily Mail 15 June 2012

[vii] JULIA GRIMES – DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES January 12, 2011

[viii] Walker S., Fortunado J, Krigsman A., Gonzalez L. Identification of Unique Gene Expression Profile in Children with Regressive Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Ileocolitis

[ix] Wakefield AJ. Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines – The Truth Behind a Tragedy. 2010. Skyhorse Publishing, NY, NY. Chapter 1, footnotes 1 & 4, p.20

[x] For Affidavits see www.DrWakefieldJusticeFund.org

[xi] Wakefield AJ. Waging War on the Autistic Child. 2012 Skyhorse Publishing NY, NY. Chapter 2, footnotes 2 11, pp. 255 256

[xii] Jefferson T et al, Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine 21 (2003) 3954–3960

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

See BMJ and press reports:

Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis BMJ 2013 (Published 26 February 2013) 

[html online version here]

BMJ News Release: Increased risk of sleep disorder in children who received swine flu vaccine

Media reports:

Swine flu jab raises risk of narcolepsy in children

Telegraph.co.uk – ‎3 hours ago‎
The agency’s findings are likely to help parents seeking damages, who claim the jab gave their children narcolepsy. Caroline Hadfield, 42, from Frome in Somerset, is suing the Government because her son Josh, seven, developed the condition within weeks

UK study confirms GSK flu shot link to rare sleep disorder

Reuters UK – ‎1 hour ago‎
The vaccine, more than 30 million doses of which were given during the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009-2010, contains a booster, or adjuvant, and may have triggered an adverse immune reaction in some children at higher genetic risk of narcolepsy, scientists

Swine flu jab linked to sleep disorder: Fears one million children received jab

Daily Mail – ‎9 hours ago‎
Almost a million children were given a swine flu jab which put them at increased risk of the sleep disorder narcolepsy, say scientists. New research shows the Pandemrix vaccine carries a 14-fold extra risk of triggering narcolepsy, in which sufferers can fall

Swine flu jab linked to narcolepsy

Belfast Telegraph – ‎10 hours ago‎
Pandemrix, a vaccine used in response to the swine flu pandemic that began in 2009, increased children’s risk of narcolepsy – a chronic disorder which causes excessive daytime sleepiness, research suggests. For every 55,000 doses delivered around one

Research shows link between narcolepsy and Pandemrix flu vaccine

Nursing Times – ‎40 minutes ago‎
Scientists from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) worked with research teams at two Cambridgeshire hospitals – Papworth and Addenbrooke’s – to look into narcolepsy in children. The study, which has been published in the British Medical Journal, followed

GSK flu vaccine linked to sleep disorder

Financial Times – ‎10 hours ago‎
HPA scientists concluded that Pandemrix, the vaccine produced by GSK to protect against the swine flu pandemic between 2009 and 2011, was associated with a risk of one narcolepsy case for every 55,000 children vaccinated. That is 14 times greater than

Swine flu vaccine linked to narcolepsy in kids

Channel 4 News – ‎11 hours ago‎
Researchers from Addenbrokes and Papworth hospitals in Cambridge looked at 75 children aged between four and 18 who were diagnosed with narcolepsy after January 2008. Eleven had been vaccinated with Pandemrix before showing signs of

Higher risk of narcolepsy in children who had swine flu vaccine

OnMedica – ‎1 hour ago‎
UK children given the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix in 2009-10 are 14 times more likely to have narcolepsy than other children, according to a study published online today in the BMJ. A team of UK researchers who identified the higher prevalence of the sleep

Flu vaccination linked to narcolepsy

Practice Business – ‎1 hour ago‎
In collaboration with researchers from Papworth and Addenbrooke’s hospitals in Cambridge, the study looked at 75 children aged between four and 18 who were diagnosed with narcolepsy from January 2008 and who attended sleep centres across England.

Swine flu jab narcolepsy risk

ITV News – ‎8 hours ago‎
A mother from Somerset is threatening to sue the government after new figures show a link between the swine flu jab and Narcolepsy. Caroline Hadfield says her son Josh, 4, developed the condition within three months of the injection. She says he was a

Glaxo’s Swine-Flu Shot Linked to Narcolepsy in UK Kids

Businessweek – ‎10 hours ago‎
Among 75 children between the ages of 4 and 18 diagnosed with narcolepsy, 11 had been vaccinated with Pandemrix before symptoms began, seven of them within six months, scientists at the U.K. Health Protection Agency found. The study was published

Flu vac may cause sleep disorder

iAfrica.com – ‎2 hours ago‎
Using the Pandemrix vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy among people aged four to 18 by a factor of 14 compared to those who did not get the jab, they said. The risk in absolute terms was between one in 52 000 people and one in 57,000, but this figure

Swine flu findings ‘consistent’ with European studies

ITV News – ‎7 hours ago‎
Professor Liz Miller, a consultant epidemiologist with the Health Protection Agency, said that findings which have linked the swine flu vaccine to an increased risk of narcolepsy, are consistent with those from European studies. She added that further studies

Increased risk of narcolepsy from swine flu jab

ITV News – ‎8 hours ago‎
Research has found that a swine flu jab given to children carried an increased risk of developing narcolepsy. Experts said the vaccine Pandemrix increased the child’s risk of the disorder, which causes excessive daytime sleepiness. Pandemrix, used in the

Pandemrix Vaccine Triggers Narcolepsy

TopNews United States – ‎3 hours ago‎
According to a new research, swine flu jab known as pandemrix vaccine triggers narcolepsy in children. It has been found that out of 55,000 doses delivered, one child suffers from the condition. It was learnt that the drug put the children at a 14 times greater