Just as the H1N1 scaremongers machine did in 2009, the Ebola scaremonger machine goes into overdrive

Does anyone remember the dud fake H1N1 swine flu pandemic scare?  How about the dud fake bird flu pandemic scare?  Or maybe people remember the dud fake SARS pandemic scare [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] or maybe even the HIV/AIDS scare?  You know – HIV/AIDS with the 1980s TV ads telling everyone they were all going to die from having sex without a condom and billions of tax dollars diverted to a lot of pockets of “scientists” and drug companies promoting highly toxic drugs like AZT which killed people?  Great news for condom manufacturers too.

As hard as it is to believe, H1N1 was five years ago.  Bird flu was 7 years ago.  SARS was 12 years ago and HIV/AIDS started in the 1980s. HIV/AIDS is the weirdest long-running scare.  We in the West were all meant to die but what a crazy thing – how come it was only a big problem in Africa?  Surprise surprise – pretty much anyone still moving and who was sick in Africa was HIV positive and anyone no longer moving and dead died from AIDS. (It did not matter what really killed them – it was AIDS).

And no one in the West seemed to notice how weird that was or at least even care.  And how come it all happened in Africa?  And how come in the West it was just gay people and drug abusers?  No one seemed to notice the contrast with Clamidia infection spreading like wildfire even today from unsafe sex particularly in 10% of US and European teens but HIV/AIDS in comparison in the West was not.

These historical dud health scares are just like the latest money-spinning wheeze from the drug industry and health officials to hype how great they are at saving everyone – after all Homeland Security is saving us all from the latest flavor of the month terrorists to take our minds off how our own governments are the biggest threats to our health and world security.  So the health protection industry needs to have their own occasional bogey-men to make sure we keep paying their mortgages with their inflated salaries for mostly providing near worthless pointless services – like the US CDC criticized in a Congressional report which was:

A review of how an agency tasked with fighting and preventing disease has spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars for failed prevention efforts, international junkets, and lavish facilities, but cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease.

One thing we remember about these crankfest fake scares was just how crazy the crankosphere’s nutters and loonies were, attacking anyone who criticized these drug industry marketing opportunities to promote worthless snake-oil treatments and pointless public health campaigns spending billions of dollars to develop drugs and dangerous untested vaccines to be unleashed on citizens of the US and Europe using their own tax monies to do it.

Besides the usual paranoia that demonized these fake dud pandemics as wildfire killer diseases was other equally ridiculous fever dream nonsense, and there was the quackery.  And one you should remember quite well is the one where it was claimed that Tamiflu would save us all. Anything claiming otherwise was all conspiracy theories the nutters and loonies screeched on the blogs and in social media, like the Donald Rumsfeld financial interest in Tamiflu maker Hoffman La Roche. Or the Bush presidential interests in it:

President Bush sought to instil panic by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from avian flu but it could be as bad as two million deaths in the US alone. This hoax was justified by the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu.’

These were truly eye-opening events, surpassing any others of well nearly 30 years’ experience of media mania manipulators and these barking crazy cranks. Remember we were told by the media to look out for the dead carcasses of migrating birds dropping from the skies?  That was the wackiest wackfest in wonderland with the media hype over just the one dead swan found in the whole of Europe which turned out not to be a bird flu bird.

The news that Baxter pharmaceutical released vaccines contaminated with live avian flu virus in the EU in vaccines when it should have been impossible under stringent laboratory protocols should have set the alarm bells ringing world-wide.  The virus turned out not to be the killer it was hyped to be but its release would have generated billions of dollars in vaccine sales and the vaccine would have been fast-tracked past any safety testing – instant wealth for Baxter Pharmaceutical.  The crankosphere would claim that is truly weapons-grade conspiracy mongering stupidity.   But wait … it happened.  It took place.  And what prevented the release?  In the whole of Europe just one Czech lab took the trouble to test it on animals – they died.

The flu vaccine with a counted confirmed number of 800 European child victims of narcolepsy confirmed in the British Medical Journal, an unknown number of uncounted and with that cataplexy too and other adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline standing to gain US$480,000,000 from causing it with its flu vaccine.  And for causing a problem that required the EU to take emergency measures over the health problem for European children.

Or how about the Dutch Parliament’s failed investigation into the financial interests of the single Dutch “scientist” who was documented as the single person responsible for sparking off SARS and the numerous swine and bird flu scares from his position on the World Health Organisation’s scientific committee responsible for investigating and reporting  such threats.

Yes, pandemics and epidemics do bring out the worst in people, as far as critical thinking goes. This time around  it’s Ebola virus disease. This has been hyped to such a degree using mainstream media that the bozosphere’s looney toons will claim that to the average person, Ebola is way more scary than H1N1.  They claim H1N1 had the potential to infect and potentially kill far more people – even though for around a decade that has just not happened despite the efforts to hype and spread it.

But wait.  The notorious “Science Based Medicine” crank Dr David Gorski just cannot help himself and dived in with both feet.  This is “Science Based Medicine” at its best.  Gorski teaches us all what Science Based Medicine is: repeated direct contradiction paragraph after paragraph in polemical diatribe, just like the fictional British journalist Glenda Slagg brought to life by satirical magazine, Private Eye [fag is British slang for ‘cigarette’]:

Glenda Slagg and Polly Filla

Two of the leading women columnists in journalism today. Glenda is very much old-school; fag in one hand, opinion in the other. Or rather opinions, because Glenda’s prime asset is her ability to effortlessly contradict herself. Polly is a much younger model; the new breed of hack who can Free Tibet, get the Romanian au pair to do the children’s homework and fit in Pilates before brunch in Hampstead; all on just 150K a year.

Now that cases of Ebola virus disease have been reported in the US, the panic has been cranked up, even though this is at the same time as the crankiest of cranks of the crankosphere admitting the risk of an epidemic in the US or Europe is minimal. He Dr David Gorski along with the rest of the drug and vaccine brigade even go so far as to claim that longstanding known health treatments and prophylaxis like vitamins and healthy eating are of no use whatsoever against this new hyper super-sized killer zombie disease hyped health threat.  The quackery of Science Based Medicine is breathtaking.

Now, given how afraid everyone is of Ebola they want you all to support a vaccine against the disease claiming “a vaccine likely represents the best hope for bringing the current epidemic under control with as little loss of life as possible” [God help us all – ooh we’re all doomed]. Certainly if such a vaccine were to be developed, it will be fast-tracked past all safety precautions as usual and likely be available relatively soon (at least in terms of drug or vaccine development time), given the urgency the hyper hype is generating that wasn’t there before.   With all this history these loons and nutters say “you’d think that a vaccine would be welcomed with open arms“.  Barking mad.

But the US and CDC in particular look incompetent at best and potentially crooked at worst.  We are also told an experimental Ebola vaccine is being fast tracked into human trials and promoted as the final solution.  Then there is the supposed alternative of ramping up testing and production of experimental drugs which have allegedly already saved the lives of several Ebola-infected Americans.  Just like Tamiflu it will be hailed the new saviour of mankind.

But wait did the cook of the crankiest crankfest of the crankosphere, Dr David Gorski on his Scienceblogs comic strip of a blog actually questions whether experimental wonder drug ZMapp actually did save the lives of those Americans who survived Ebola?  Yep – he claimes “It might have. It might not have. We need more data and a clinical trial to tell if ZMapp is as effective as we all hope it is. It might have been that those patients would have recovered anyway with supportive care alone.

Oh, no wee Dr Davy Gorski.  What an own goal for Science Based Medicine.  First he tells some of the dunderhead disciples how serious Ebola is as a world threat and then he says people might just recover on their own.  But wait a nanosec or three, to Gorski it is quackery and heresy indeed to suggest good nourishment to keep the immune system working in top order and maybe a shovel load of vitamins might do any good.  And to cap it all we need clinical trials – hey Davy, whatever happened to the “need” to fast-track and ignore safety which tomorrow you will tell everyone is essential?

But if the drug needs trials and proper testing, the same must apply to the vaccine?  But Gorski’s Science Based Medicine is blind to details when he wants to scare and push a potentially dangerous and potentially useless fast tracked vaccine over a just as potentially dangerous and useless drug.  And if people might get better from Ebola all by themselves, as Gorski bizarrely claims whilst claiming the disease is a serious killer, the same should apply to a vaccine as to any claimed wonder drug, whether ZMapp, or the near useless Tamiflu?

Who would have known it?  Wee Davy Gorski has just driven the Quack-o-Meter so far off-scale the needle spun round like a coiled spring.  That’s Science Based Medicine for you.

That is how completely barking these people are.  In one blog post cherrypicking like crazy entirely contradictory positions as if no one will notice. And oh dear, is this drug not the world’s saviour after all?  Gorski dehypes it as “a humanized monoclonal antibody (like Avastin and Herceptin, for instance). Making such drugs is difficult, expensive, and can’t easily just be “ramped up” instantly.

Is Davy a naive soul or someone driving an agenda of bullying and abusing those who stand up against corruption and fraud in the drug industry and by government health officials.  He really wants everyone to believe it is impossible that some people in industry, the government, and the World Health Organization do not want the Ebola outbreak to be confined to several nations in Africa because that would fail to create a lucrative global market for mandated use of fast tracked Ebola vaccines by every one of the seven billion human beings living on this planet.

But does he believe it himself?  What are the chances?

And that was when the question was being posed “Will there be an Ebola outbreak in America?“.  Well now we are being told Ebola has made landfall.  Hip hooray for the drugfest bonanza to follow.

Notice how it never occurs to Gorski that the best way to stop an outbreak of an infectious disease is through prevention like is done with smallpox – the most effective method proven over centuries is isolation. What?  Oh, it is being done with Ebola too?  Well you would never believe it.  Old tried and tested quack methods being used with all that hi-tech medicine ‘n all.

Gorski really wants the world to believe the money driven marketing machines of the drug industry would never sustain, or take advantage of the current Ebola “outbreak” in order to create a market for vaccines for its pharma overlords nor to create a lucrative market for ZMapp, whose early development Gorski confirms was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.  Well of course next Gorski will tell everyone that Rumsfeld and Tamiflu are like financial products – past performance is no guide to future performance – really Davy?  Is it really the rest of the world that is stupid like you claim or are you so stupid you actually believe that?

Well, that is what Science Based Medicine seems to be all about – a political polemical rhetorical device to claim “science is on our side” whilst attacking, deriding and abusing others on the internet just like manipulative rulers and warmongers would exhort their people that “God is on our side” to wage wars. 

Gorski is not quite as stupid as you might think from reading his dire fanatical blog posts.  He knows perfectly well what is true when attacking his opponents claiming the contrary.

But to Gorski on his blog just like the assassination of John F Kennedy, its all paranoid conspiracy theories with him citing real people on social media expressing real concerns justified over and over by history and him cherrypicking exchanges too like these:

The seemingly unhinged Gorski with his bizarre cranky views claims the replies are equally unhinged:

Gorski claims a drug industry with a long and repeated history of frauds bribery and corruption have no interest in the Ebola “feargasm” being used to promote toxic mass vaccination programmes.  Its all conspiracy theory, like the corruption investigations and criminal charges against companies like GlaxoSmithKline [latest example China]. He wants you to think no drug company nor health official would have any interest in using Ebola as a pretext for mass vaccination. Not surprisingly, history teaches that Gorski’s claims it is all paranoia and conspiracy theories is his usual crap scribbling.  Gorski surely cannot believe what he writes? Can he?  Really?  Can anyone really and truly believe that drivel? 

We have only given a few of large numbers of examples here from a long and undistinguished drug industry history, undistinguished save for its repeated heavy taints of murkiness and corruption. Davy is part of it too as anyone who reads his verbal vomitus soon realises.

Despite the huge own goal of the World Health Organisation over the 2009 swine flu feargasm showing how eerily similar what is happening now to the ones that sprang up five, ten and many more years ago, Gorski in his shrillest shill tones wants you all believe everything done is being done and will be done in the mass vaccination programs to be instituted by the US and other nations will be just to try to forestall Ebola’s “worst effects“.

Just like Glenda Slagg, Gorski does not believe what he writes and does not care about the contradictions, because some people will read and Believe, Allellujah because its Science, innit, yo babe. 

Gorski is under contract to write and so he writes six days a week just like Glenda Slagg.

How to Fool a Health and Science Journalist About Health Fraud? Give the Story to Tom Chivers of UK’s The Telegraph newspaper

Hey, wanna good laugh?  Its always the oldest and best known and loved tricks which work on the greenest of newbies. 

Q) How to keep a moron occupied?  A) Give him a sheet of paper with “please turn over” written on both sides.

Q) Hey Tom, d’ya know how to keep a moron in suspense for seven days?  A) We’ll tell ya next week. 

Q) How to get a journalist to write a crap story?  A) Give it to Tom Chivers headed “BMJ” or “Department of Health”.

Maybe its time bloggers took down a peg or two some of the mainstream journalists who take themselves “oh-so-seriously” as important opinion formers in the mainstream media but churn out a daily diet of junk stories about health and science, in the delusion they are behaving with the due care of a professional.

In his piece on Friday in the Telegraph’s print edition entitled “Why weren’t we told Tamiflu didn’t work” Tom wrote one of the sucky type of pieces many of the health and science journalists are writing about right now: how dreadful it is that the UK Government spent US$600 billion stockpiling the near useless snake-oil flu treatment, Tamiflu, supplied by drug giant Roche’s roaches to lighten the wallets of British tax-payers. We emphasise many because it is not just Tom. 

Tom goes on in his piece about how everyone was fooled.  Strangely for an opinion piece he nowhere mentions it looks like yet another massive drug industry fraud, with Roche holding back 20 or so scientific studies showing Tamiflu is a crap drug which is worthless.  Why so shy Tom?  This was a drug which was supposed to save millions from dying horrible deaths in a swine flu pandemic which only later turned out to be a fake, hyped by Professor David Salisbury’s World Health Organisation Committee and started by one of his subcommittee members alleged to have also been solely responsible for starting and financially benefiting from the previous SARS and Bird Flu scams. 

Tom also has not questioned why Inspector Plodder of New Scotland Yard has not been called in to investigate this as a potential fraud. Maybe that has something to do with Government and establishment figures in the medical professions not wanting to upset the freebies and other benefits streaming out of drug companies like Roche and GSK.  [And it was UK£600 million not billion – and if you had not noticed our deliberate error, then look at how easy it is for journalists like Tom to fool you by not checking his facts and getting it wrong.  £600m is roughly US$840m.]

Actually, Tom really believes that what Roche’s roaches did is legal quoting totally uncritically his journalistic colleague Dr Ben Goldacre: “Roche broke no law by withholding vital information on how well its drug works“.  Yeah, well Ben, they don’t break the law breathing either, but its the laws they did break we are interested in, thanks all the same, like potential fraud worth US$840m. A drug was sold on the basis it worked but it was not as safe as it should have been and did not work as it should have and Roche had the data showing that when they were selling the drug and withheld it when people wanted to check and whilst the UK Government was still buying the drug.

Tom, what are you?  Because “journalist” does not come close, does it? Be honest with yourself, it just does not cut it.

The reason Roche got away with this fraudulent behaviour is because one too many “professional” “health” and “science” “journalists” like Tom let them [and a company Tom also wrote about withholding trial data for its flu drug Relenza, is GSK].  These journalists don’t do the job their readers need them to.  Too many journalists lap up the spilt cream dropped for them by the media relations staff of health departments, medical associations, journals and drug companies without looking too carefully, maybe just in case no one in future spills a bit of cream for them, if they did look carefully.

In short, people like Tom let down the people, their readers who buy newpapers, papers filled daily with misleading scribblings and rants.  People like Tom look like they don’t – look that is.  Its not convenient if they and their editors just want to fill the column inches with seeming reliable news, and won’t care too much because tomorrow its wrapping your fish and chip supper and they need to pay their mortgages.

Now what we want to focus on today, is what Tom opened up with in his piece on Friday, because it seems to us over here at CHS that if he were really a professional and if he were really a journalist and not play-acting, he might have looked and then should have known the truth instead of regurgitating crap.  And in this case it looks like that includes crap the BBC also regurgitated on their website without checking.  Children who might have aspired to important jobs, like being an engine-driver, may end up instead in the dumbed-down dead-end journalism is rapidly becoming.

Tom wrote:

Flu is actually a pretty nasty disease.  People say they’ve got ‘the flu’ when they’ve only got a cold, but a genuine bout of influenza knocks you off your feet for several days and is a major killer of the elderly: an outbreak in 2011 killed about 600 people.”

This is crap.  But Tom does not realise it is crap because he has not checked his facts.  And were he a professional journalist, he would have known from plenty of information published over many years that would have ensured he had the information easily to hand to make sure he did not write crap every time a flu story comes up.  Some people get flu and some never do.  Some who get it are asymptomatic and some have symptoms.  But that is not the main reason why it is crap.

Tom should also have known to be more careful and that the UK Department of Health and Health Protection Agency for years were hyping the flu stats, just like the US Centers for Disease Control [CDC] does.  In short if Tom were professional he would have known The UK Department of Health lied about flu deaths.  Why should he have known?  Because they were caught.  But they were not just caught lying but were caught telling a very very big one.  Huge.  CHS covered it here: UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers  So if CHS knew, then Tom should have and he should have been very sceptical of any Government figures, even sensible-looking figures.

The UK Department of Health claimed 12,000 annual flu deaths when the average was 33.  If a Boeing or Airbus passenger plane fell out of the sky killing 300, the way the figures were worked out, those would be counted as flu deaths.  For comparison, the US CDC claimed 36,000 flu deaths annually. 

It was in fact enormous enough to be a major British news story but Tom did not cover it and neither did most if not all of the other “health” and “science” writers who describe themselves as “professional” and “journalists“.  And if Tom had covered it, then he might not have written the crap we quote above and we might not have been able to describe what he writes as crap [but don’t hold your breath as Tom never was a journalist we have ever rated and just have not paid enough attention to the quality of his other scribbles. That is something which may need attention in future].

As recently as 2012 even the UK’s Press Association were as competent as Tom writing “Around 4,700 people die every year in England after getting flu, a Department of Health spokeswoman said.: British Press Association Publishes Known-To-Be-False UK Government Flu Death Figures – In A Story To Promote Known-To-Be-Ineffective ‘Flu Vaccines To UK Elderly.

Oh, but Tom only wrote there were 600 deaths and not 12,000 or even 4,700. So what is wrong with that?  Plenty.  As you will see above the average in previous years was 33 flu deaths.  And with around 600,000 to 700,000 deaths from everything every year, 33 deaths is small beer and nothing to get worked up about [unless you are a close relative of the deceased, which is also a very small number in the big scheme of life].

But is it worse, because had Tom checked up he should have made clear that the vast majority of people are not at risk, but he wrote “Flu is actually a pretty nasty disease. People say they’ve got ‘the flu’ when they’ve only got a cold, but .. genuine … influenza ….. is a major killer ….. in 2011 killed about 600 people.”  Tom wrote as if anyone getting a bout of flu could die and that is totally false and misleading, but he did not qualify it. 

That is Tom’s crap.  But the consumate professional he is, Tom did not stop with just that crap.  There is more.

Tom failed to mention, to put the risk into perspective, that around 600,000 to 700,000 people die every year in the UK and many more from fires, road accidents, other chronic conditions than from flu. In short, Tom failed to make clear the problem for ordinary healthy people is so miniscule as to be practically an irrelevance compared to all the other risks people face every day.

And the 6oo deaths Tom Chivers claimed in winter 2010/2011 were not of deaths caused by flu.  They were deaths with laboratory confirmed influenza, which is claimed as contributing to the death, but not as being the cause.  Moreover, as that shows, the highest mortality in this 600 deaths was not in healthy people at all.  It was in patients with underlying chronic conditions, namely immunosuppression followed by patients with underlying liver disease and patients with neurological disease: Surveillance of influenza and other respiratory viruses in the UK 2010-2011 report HPA. 

In short, most deaths were in people who could have died from anything at any time, and it was not claimed that it was the flu that killed them.

So its not just one bit of crap from Tom.  Nope, Tom has served up a real triple chocolate triple decker crap cookie sandwich and all in one short supposedly newsy science and health comment piece.  The Telegraph used to be such a good paper too.

In our view Tom’s piece on Friday makes him look like one of the new school journalists, who is delighted to be given “opinion-former” stories on a plate, to make him look important and informed so he can churn them out with abandon and with the minimum of thought and care, to fill his daily quota of column inches.  And judging from his photo, he looks like he has recently left school, and to us writes as if that was before he should have sat his GCSE exams [but make your own mind up – that is author bias just us employing dramatic licence].

And sniffy Broadsheet journalists are happy to let their journalism colleagues at the Daily Mail be denigrated, when they are just as guilty and all the Daily Mail do is report on a peer reviewed journal news release on the latest published journal study which one week claims green berry juice cures flatulence, another week boredom and another that is does nothing.  They all do it to one degree or another, but the Daily Mail outsells them by a million copies or three daily, which is not a sniffy matter.

Tom writing in the UK’s Telegraph newspaper in his own words claims to write mainly on science.  “Claims” you should focus on but worth noting as well is what Tom thinks the word “mainly” means and also what Tom seems to think qualifies as “science“.  Tom’s judgement needs to be questioned, as does also his fact-checking and professionalism.  [Tom’s pieces are also inset with an “I’m an oh-so-important-journalist” photo, that cracks us up here.]

Poor old Tom is not just a journalist.  Tom is an Editor!!  Thankfully not “The” editor, [not yet at least, but the way mainstream journalism is going, you won’t have to hold your breath too long for that].  Fortunately many reliable sites are now on the web for you to read and are making up for the shortcomings of some who make up the not-so-professional mainstream media].  Actually Tom is “Comment Editor“, which is in the second division of online – a bit like being a Second Assistant Tea Stirrer’s Mate, so let’s not worry you too much.

Interestingly, someone else has Tom down as #50 in the 100 worst people on twitter and someone else wrote [our emphasis] “I’ve re-read an old column by Tom Chivers, the Telegraph’s assistant comment editor (a job title I would not have thought existed)“.

If we look like we are being a bit hard on Tom, be wise to this: it is not simply a mistake by a conscientious professional journalist but a failure of a journalist in doing the basics and getting basic facts right.  And just remember this: if it were you, he and his media mates would rip you apart in print unforgivingly like the press do to people daily.

Tom Chivers misled all his readers. Grow up Tom and be a professional or get a job driving a van.

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


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

Scotland on Sunday newspaper reports Scottish children’s health will be “risked unnecessarily” by government plans to “save money” by giving all seasonal flu vaccines.

Every Scottish child from two to 17 is to be offered a flu vaccine from next year.  It is claimed the proposed flu vaccine, Fluenz, a live flu virus in a nasal spray, is “a very effective way to spread flu”. The manufacturers warn the vaccine virus could infect others with a weak immune system.

Children’s health is also risked by vaccine side-effects, when children rarely suffer severe health problems from flu itself.

Health warning for Scots children flu vaccine plan – By FIONA MACGREGOR Scotland on Sunday Sunday 10 March 2013

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


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


[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


[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

Bill Gates & Vaccine Programmes – Dump The “Mistakes” – Vulnerable Vaccine Injured Sick Kids Dumped Out of Sight to Die

The following is from an extensive article by journalist Christina England which you can read in full here: Bill Gates Continues ‘God’s Work’, Third World Vaccine Workers Shot Dead Feb 26th, 2013 | By Christina England

It appears that Mr. Gates will go to any lengths to vaccinate the world, even if the world makes it very clear that they do not want his vaccines. Rather than vaccinating more children, if he was such a humanitarian, why has he allowed vulnerable, sick children to be dumped in the middle of nowhere to die? Surely the world would applaud him far more loudly if he spent his millions making sure that any vaccine casualties were sufficiently cared for.

……. whether Gates believes he is doing ‘God’s work’ or not, dumping severely vaccine damaged children in a remote village in Africa without a doctor on site is almost certainly not God’s work and this is exactly what Gates has allowed to happen to the children adversely affected by the MenAfriVac Meningitis A vaccine.

Over the last few months I have written four articles covering recent events in Chad, Northern Africa, where 106 children became ill after receiving the meningitis vaccine, 40 of which were left paralyzed and suffering from convulsions. [6,7,8,9]

This week, VacTruth received word from a Chadian contact that said:

Last night the Chadian minister of health evacuated all children paralyzed from MenAfriVac meningitis A vaccine, including very ill children, to Faya. I have just spoken to one person, who told me that seven girls and a boy are seriously ill with convulsions.

Please, help us. This forced evacuation of very ill and paralyzed children on a military plane, to a destination where there is not even basic medical personnel and equipment, is deliberately sending vulnerable children to a place where they are likely to die.”

Faya is a small town surrounded by desert at least 100 miles away from the children’s home village of Gouro. This is extremely worrying, especially after VacTruth received several medical records confirming that these children did indeed suffer vaccine injuries.

This approach is one way to make sure vaccine adverse reactions go under reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such nice people.

Australia Bans Flu Vaccine – Child In Coma – Many Hospitalised

Another year.  Another flu vaccine. Another national vaccine ban as Australian children became seriously ill after the flu vaccine.  And like governments around the world, including yours, in Australia if your child gets sick after a vaccine, you are on your own as CHS previously reported: Australian Government Dumps On Sick Kids Injured by ‘Flu Vaccine

Western Australia News reported in 2010: Flu vaccination ban goes national after fever, convulsions in children April 23, 2010 Chris Thomson. 

Vaccinations for children under five were suspended in Australia in 2010 as many children were hospitalised within hours of the shot. A baby just one year old was in a coma in a Perth hospital.  Children suffered febrile convulsions.  These are fits associated with a high temperature.  Other adverse reactions to the vaccine were fevers and vomiting.  

As was then reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia: “Don’t give children flu jab” says chief medical officer

Although that was 2010, the ban continues for that vaccine. 

But just weeks ago CHS reported on bans in the EU, Canada and in the UK for other flu vaccines:

And all of this is for a vaccine even the experts say is ineffective: New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work.   There have been numerous studies which CHS has reported previously numerous times – [see links below or CHS Site Map for other reports].

But government health officials under the influence of the drug industry insist on wasting billions of their taxpayers’ funds on these campaigns which threaten the lives and health of their nation’s children.  Health officials in the USA and the UK have been found to falsify statistics to issue grossly exaggerated claims of widespread deaths from flu when that is not true:

The following is about the 2010 ban in Australia:

Australia’s chief medical officer Jim Bishop today said health professionals should immediately stop immunising children under five years old with the flu vaccine.  Professor Bishop is concerned about a spike in the number of West Australian youngsters experiencing fever and convulsions after getting the shot: “Don’t give children flu jab: chief medical officer“  Syndey Morning Herald April 23, 2010

This is a precautionary measure while the matter is being urgently investigated by health experts and the Therapeutic Goods Administration,” he said.

Previous CHS reports on the Flu vaccine:

US Drug Company Released Deadly Virus In EU In Vaccine

Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic

“Children to Die” – Latest Flu Scaremongering

World Pandemic Health News Round-Up

Swine ‘Flu Jokes

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

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

Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths

Flu Vaccine Cripples Healthy US Cheerleader for Life

EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

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

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

More Fraud From Drug Giant GlaxoSmithKline Companies – Court Documents Show

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Press Release from NY Attorney General – 2 June 2004

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

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

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

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

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

The UK’s Independent reported in July 2004:-

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

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

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


Psychiatry Texbook Penned by Two Academic Leaders — GSK Ghosted

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Vera Hassner Sharav

POGO Letter to NIH on Ghostwriting Academics

November 29, 2010

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

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

Dear Dr. Collins:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Danielle Brian
Executive Director

Paul Thacker

Attachments A-K


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

New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here are some earlier studies:-


And here is a more extensive list:-

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

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

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

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerstoft J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ.

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

Cates CJ, Jefferson TO, Rowe BH.

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

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

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

Dharmaraj P, Smyth RL.

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

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

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

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

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