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

Here you can see at a glance why this vaccine should be withdrawn worldwide and ask yourself why do health officials promote such dangerous, ineffective, unaffordable and unnecessary vaccine programmes.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

• Japanese Government Withdraws Support for HPV Cervical Cancer Vaccines On Safety Grounds

• UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million

• Japan’s Suspension of Recommendation for Gardasil & Cervarix HPV Vaccines for Women – Caused by Large Numbers of Unexplained Serious Adverse Reactions

• US Bill [Albany, NY] To Allow US 4 Year Olds To Opt Into Anti-Sexually Transmitted Disease Vaccines – Blocked Temporarily

• HPV Vaccine Destroys Australian Child’s Ovaries – Manufacturer Didn’t Check

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

#1 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT SAFE

• HPV vaccines account for nearly 25% of the reports on the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. VAERS was established in 1990. HPV vaccines were introduced 16 years later in mid-2006.  And there are over 80 other vaccines approved for use in the United States.  Since the introduction of HPV vaccines [including Gardasil and Cervarix]:
  
  • reports of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis [ADEM] have increased over 1,000%;
  • infertility reports increased 790%;
  • reports of blindness increased 188%;
  • spontaneous abortions by 270%.

• when 24,000 girls were injected with HPV vaccines during ‘demonstration projects’ an estimated 5% (1200) were left with chronic health problems and/or autoimmune disorders;

• Japan withdrew the government recommendation for the administration of HPV vaccines after only 6 weeks when reports of adverse events after Gardasil were 26 times higher than the annual flu shot;
  • reports after Cervarix were 52 times higher than the annual flu shot;
  • 24.9% of the adverse events reported were considered serious.

• Denmark reports that 24% of the adverse events reported after HPV vaccinations were considered serious.

• adverse events reports in Italy are ten times higher than most other vaccines – at a rate of 219/100,000. The cervical cancer rate in Italy is 7.7/100,000.

#2 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT AFFORDABLE

• HPV vaccination programs do not eliminate the need for pap screening, they simply add the price of 3 injections to already overburdened healthcare systems around the globe.

• There is an already proven safe and effective method of controlling cervical cancer in most developed countries – pap screening and good gynecological follow-up. Countries without this practice in place would be money ahead to spend their healthcare budget developing the infrastructure to provide this type of care.

• Cervical cancer causes 2.3 deaths/100,000 women in the United States. The cost of 3 doses of HPV vaccine for 100,000 women is an estimated $30,000,000 ($100/dose) to try and eliminate less than 3 deaths which could have been avoided with pap screening and good gynecological follow-up. How many medical professionals could be trained and/or medical facilities built with that same 30 million dollars?

#3 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT NECESSARY

• The human papillomavirus has never been proven to cause cancer by itself. Other risk factors must also be present in order to prompt the development of cancer.

• According to the World Health Organization, only 0.15% of all people exposed to any high-risk strain of HPV will ever develop cervical cancer. The vast majority of HPV ‘infections’ are benign and cause no medical problem whatsoever.

• HPV type prevalence varies greatly from one region to the next. Are the HPV types targeted by current vaccines the same ones prevalent in your country?

• There is no excuse for exposing the female population of the world to the risks involved with HPV vaccination when there is an already proven safe, affordable, necessary and effective means of controlling cervical cancer.

#4 HPV VACCINES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE

• According to the World Health Organization, only 1% of CIN1 progresses to the next stage, only 1.5% of CIN2 progresses. Only 12% of CIN3 lesions, which are actually considered a pre-cursors to cancer. Nevertheless, the FDA allowed the manufacturers of HPV vaccines to use these often self-reversing abnormal lesions as endpoints to judge the efficacy of their products.

• The other endpoint used to predict efficacy was antibody titers. No one has determined what level of antibodies is necessary to prevent HPV infections. It is simply assumed that the higher the antibody titer level, the better the potential protection.

• HPV vaccines have not been clinically proven to prevent a single case of cancer.

• There is no guarantee that eliminating one risk factor for the development of cervical cancer will have any impact on the disease incidence or mortality rate.

• It will take more than 20 years to determine whether or not HPV vaccines perform as advertised.

• There is no guarantee that any suppressed oncogenic HPV type will not mutate over the next 20 years and become more dangerous.

Japan’s Suspension of Recommendation for Gardasil & Cervarix HPV Vaccines for Women – Caused by Large Numbers of Unexplained Serious Adverse Reactions

For those CHS readers who may not know of the suspension of the Japanese Health Ministry’s recommendation for these vaccines last year, it was reported June 18, 2013 in Japan’s leading daily newspaper, in an in-depth article which was republished in the English-language digital version The Asahi Shimbun AJW: ANALYSIS: Experts at loss over pain from cervical cancer vaccination.

What this tells us is that throughout the western world health officials and others have managed to cow and manipulate the media to such a degree that serious health risks of drug products go unreported.  In the UK, health officials have presented formal reports containing manipulated data about such reactions including classifying some as “psychogenic” – even serious ones, which it is difficult to imagine could be: UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million.

In other words in health females have no equality.  Health officials continue to present women and girls as silly bubble-headed females who are so flighty and feckless that they make something out of nothing and do not know what is real and what is not.   

There have been cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), in which severe pain often spreads from a limb to other body parts.  In serious cases, it becomes difficult to walk or move the arms.

More than half the estimated 3.28 million vaccinated Japanese women reported symptoms ranging from a swollen or reddened inoculation site to pain and fatigue with 2,000 complaints of side effects, such as prolonged pain and numbness which includes 357 serious cases, such as difficulties in breathing or walking and convulsions.

The Health Ministry is allowing Japanese women and girls to be vaccinated at their and their families own risk.  A decision regarding reinstatement of the recommendation was anticipated within 6 months of the suspension although Ministry officials were quoted at the time as saying there was then no means to fully examine or explain the causes of the side effects.

Here are some prior CHS reports:

Girl, 13, left in ‘waking coma’ and sleeps for 23 hours a day after severe reaction to cervical cancer jabs

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

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

7 Deaths In Bill Gates Foundation Funded HPV Vaccine Trials – Trials Were “Child Abuse” Says Parliamentary Panel – India, The Hindu

“World’s Most Dangerous Vaccine” Now Being Given to British Schoolgirls

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

HPV Vaccine Questioned Internationally

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

Mercury banned as vaccine ingredient by Chilean lawmakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlotte, NC (PRWEB) February 19, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mercury banned as vaccine ingredient by Chilean lawmakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See also:

• Conventional Medicine – #1 Leading Cause of Death In USA
• USA’s 4th Leading Cause of Death – Pharma’s Drugs
• W.H.O. Ensures Third World Child Vaccine Deaths Will Not Be Recorded – New Weakened W.H.O. Criteria For Third World Child Deaths From Vaccines]
• Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W.H.O. Ensures Third World Child Vaccine Deaths Will Not Be Recorded – New Weakened W.H.O. Criteria For Third World Child Deaths From Vaccines

Link to this article: http://wp.me/pfSi7-235

Child deaths from vaccines in developing countries will be falsely recorded as not caused by the vaccine under a new W.H.O. watered down scheme for assessing “Adverse Events Following Immunisation” [AEFIs]. A child death from a vaccine will be recorded as ‘Not an AEFI’: Deaths in developing countries will count for less.

This new W.H.O. scheme comes at a time when third world child deaths associated with a newly introduced pentavalent vaccine could not previously be explained by W.H.O. as being by any cause other than the vaccine: ibid.

Many children are dying after administration of a new Pentavalent vaccine in Asia: eg. ‘Good’ 5-in-1 vaccine kills 5 times more kids than anything else.  In each case WHO ‘experts’ could not find any other explanation under the previous scheme so they were forced to call it “Adverse event following immunization (AEFI) possibly due to vaccine“. Under the new scheme developed by W.H.O. since the introduction of the new pentavalent vaccine, the new system of classification simply states they are “Not an AEFI“: Deaths in developing countries will count for less.

Not only has W.H.O. weakened the previously accepted scheme for classifying vaccine adverse events  in general for all developed and developing countries, the new scheme means just because some time or test criterion is not satisfied, and which is unlikely to be met in a third world country, then deaths of children in the third world will not count as caused by the vaccine: ibid.

This is like not classifying a pedestrian fatality as being death by an auto accident because the driver and car fled the scene.

The new scheme has been introduced by W.H.O. in collaboration with The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).  It is contained in a joint W.H.O./CIOMS report Definition and Application of Terms for Vaccine Pharmacovigilance.

A child vaccine death is the worst AEFI possible. Additionally, use of the new W.H.O. scheme will result in an important opportunity to pick up signals that could save lives being missed. This is dangerous and suggests a return to the prior Brighton Collaboration classification for vaccine adverse reactions is needed.  Clearly, W.H.O. is not acting in the interests of children of the third world.  This is similar to the position with UNICEF: How UNICEF Harms Third World Children And Misleads About Their Deaths.

In a paper by Tozzi et al, the authors summarise the new W.H.O. scheme:

Final classification generated by the process includes four categories in which the event is either: (1) consistent; (2) inconsistent; or (3) indeterminate with respect of causal association; or (4) unclassifiable.”

Assessment of causality of individual adverse events following immunization (AEFI): a WHO tool for global use. Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5041-6. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.087. Epub 2013 Sep 8.  Tozzi AE et al

[NB. Regular CHS readers may recognise the author’s name Tozzi from this: US Research Fraud, Tax Dollars And Italian Vaccine Mercury Study]

Deaths soon after immunization without an alternate explanation were classified as ‘probably related to vaccine’ under the prior accepted scheme for classifying AEFIs, formulated by the Brighton Collaboration.  Under that scheme AEFIs were classified as:

• very likely/certain;
• probable;
• possible;
• unlikely;
• unrelated;
• unclassifiable, based on temporal criteria and evidence of alternate etiological explanation.

With use of Pentavalent vaccine (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hib and Hepatitis B) in developing countries, there have been many AEFI deaths [eg reference above]. W.H.O. experts investigated these deaths in Sri Lanka. They could find no alternate explanation for 3 deaths. The causal association with the vaccine should have been classified as ‘probable’. The BMJ published a letter about this in 2010: Sri Lankan deaths following Pentavalent vaccine: Acceptable collateral damage? 7 July 2010.  The experts write in the report that they deleted the categories ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ from the Brighton classification and after that, although they could not attribute deaths to another cause, they were declared unlikely to be related to the vaccine: Deaths in developing countries will count for less.

A detailed analysis has been published on the new W.H.O. scheme in a comment on the Tozzi paper Ibid [edited extracts]:

1. The CIOMS/WHO report came after the BMJ letter. The committee, composed of 40 members (19 were vaccine-industry representatives), proposed changes to how AEFI are investigated and reported. The 194-page document has serious implications for developing countries.

2. Case definitions for different adverse events were developed. Illogically, the inclusion criteria for the proposed case definitions are too strict to be of scientific value in most countries. For example, to diagnose ‘encephalitis’ one needs the child with fever and encephalopathy to live at least 24 hours after AEFI onset, and have a CSF examination, an EEG or neuro-imaging and one of these investigations must be positive, to reach a level 2 diagnosis (page 73).

3. Presume that a healthy child is vaccinated. Suppose she develops high fever within 2 hours, has convulsions, then lapsed into a coma and dies within 10 hours. (Variations of this scenario have been enacted repeatedly with Pentavalent vaccine). Using CIOMS/WHO definitions, as the encephalopathy lasted less than 24 hours, it cannot be classified as encephalitis. In many countries, the facilities for a lumbar puncture may be unavailable, much less those for an EEG and CT/MRI. Under the report’s scheme, this would be labeled, “Insufficient information to distinguish both acute encephalitis and ADEM; Case unable to be definitely classified”.

4. Further, on page 170 (i) (in very small print), the report says, “Such a case must be classified as ‘Not an AEFI’”. This last step, which classifies an “AEFI” as “Not an AEFI”, is patently unscientific, illogical and Orwellian.

5. The scenario described could well have been caused by ‘multisystem generalized reaction to one or more vaccine components’ (page 50). The encephalopathy, fever and convulsions could follow systemic inflammatory response but CIOSM does not have case definition for this, and inability to exclude causes of encephalopathy, is sufficient to classify the reaction as ‘not an AEFI’.

6. The risk is not merely theoretical. In March 2013 WHO investigated 12 deaths in Viet Nam from the same Pentavalent vaccine. The Viet Nam report stated, “no fatal AEFI has ever been associated with this vaccine”. The 2008 WHO experts had earlier classified the Sri Lanka deaths as AEFI unlikely to be related to vaccine. The Viet Nam report stating ‘no fatal AEFI has ever been associated with this vaccine’ suggests the Sri Lanka AEFI is now reclassified as “Not an AEFI”.

7. Tozzi et al suggest that ‘events with a consistent temporal relationship but with insufficient evidence for vaccine as a cause, according to well designated epidemiological studies – in such cases, further studies are encouraged if other similar events are identified’. There have been 54 deaths temporally related to the vaccine in India. Instead of taking them as a group the new system looks at ‘individual adverse events’ and then labels them as ‘not an AEFI’ making way for many more deaths.

8. Tozzi and colleagues report different clinical scenarios (Supplementary material). The scenario in Asia is also worth considering. Pentavalent vaccine is selectively promoted in developing countries with poor surveillance systems. Eighty three deaths following Pentavalent inoculation have been reported from Asian countries Puliyel J, 2013. There is no plausible alternate explanation. Most deaths occurred after the first vaccine dose, fewer after the second, and hardly any after the third. This pattern argues against the deaths being random events. Yet, the WHO to maintains that a cause and effect relationship has not been established.

9. This contrasts with what happened in 1998 when RotaShield was approved in the US. When intussusceptions were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and only 12 children were affected the vaccine was withdrawn. No one needed to be ‘certain’.

10. A public health expert in India, Dr Y Jain has filed a public interest petition in the Supreme Court asking for these deaths to be investigated. The petition states that in the first six months, when the 40,000 doses were administered to children in the southern state of Kerala, at least five children died. Extrapolated to the 25 million babies born in India each year, 3,125 deaths can be expected from the vaccine each year. Using the best evidence from the Minz study Minz S, 2008 the incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis in India is 7/100,000 children under 5. Using the Unicef rapid method to estimate Hib Pneumonia 350 deaths from Hib disease will be prevented over 5 years by vaccinating one birth cohort of 25 million. 3125 deaths from AEFI cannot be acceptable to prevent 350 Hib deaths.

11. The Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) in Kerala is 14. Seven of these deaths occur in the first month. The other seven deaths occur in the remaining 11 months of the infant’s first year. Pentavalent vaccine is administered six weeks after birth to babies who have survived neonatal life. Of the first five deaths from the vaccine, four occurred within 24 to 48 hours of the first dose of this vaccine. The death rate of babies in the first days after vaccination works out to be two to four times higher than Kerala’s post neonatal IMR.

12. The first 14 deaths in Kerala were investigated by AEFI experts. They reported 6 children had co-morbid conditions and the other 8 died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This SIDS rate on day after vaccination is higher than the all-cause IMR.

13. Under the new scheme, fatal AEFI in developing countries will be falsely recorded as ‘Not an AEFI’, simply because some time or test criterion was not met. Death is the worst AEFI possible. Continued use of the CIOMS/WHO scheme will result in missing an important opportunity to pick up signals that could save lives. This is dangerous. Perhaps we need to get back to the Brighton Classification.

Vaccine Maker GlaxoSmithKline To Gain US$480,000,000 From Causing Narcolepsy in 800 Children With Its Flu Vaccine

This is how vaccines “work” [for the drug industry].  The Daily Sheeple has an excellent article on this which we recommend you read:  Big Pharma Gives Another Child Narcolepsy via the Swine Flu Vax, Then Cures It with a New Miracle Drug That Costs Over $20K per Year.

Here we provide some further and related information.

Back in 2009 British and European children were given a rapidly approved flu vaccine during a false scare by the World Health Organisation about an alleged swine flu pandemic: Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic.  The WHO’s irresponsible conduct over the scare caused a world-wide panic.  Vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline was able to fast-track the alleged swine flu vaccine called Pandemrix through the drug approvals processes effectively untested. It was to be given first in priority to children and pregnant women. 

The alleged vaccine was later found to cause narcolepsy in children: Children Get Narcolepsy From Flu Vaccine – Confirmed in British Medical Journal.  It has also been associated with causing miscarriage and stillbirth: Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths.

Narcolepsy is a potentially fatal condition in particular because it causes sufferers to fall asleep without warning or to become unable to move whilst conscious – so driving a car is out of the question for sufferers.

Now the same vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline has come up with a way of making at least US$480,000,000 over 30 years according  to an estimate by The Daily Sheeple’s staff writer Daisy Luther. The true figure may however be at least ten times and up to fifty times more than that estimate.  This is because adverse drug reactions are notoriously highly under-reported and difficult to prove: Reporting adverse drug reactions A guide for healthcare professionals May 2006 BMA Board of Science.

And this figure is for just the one year and just for the one vaccine.  Imagine how much money the drug industry can make selling treatments for chronic lifetime conditions caused in children by vaccines [and notice that it will always be lifetime treatments never cures].

The maximum UK government total lifetime compensation for the most severe injuries caused to any individual by a vaccine is currently US$200,000 [ie. UK £120,000 sterling].

The Dutch Parliament investigated allegations WHO’s false health scare panic was caused by one man with drug industry connections on the WHO committee which promoted the false scare. Professor Albert Osterhaus of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam Holland was the key expert on WHO’s SAGE committee.  It was alleged he was also involved in starting the previous international worldwide scares over SARS and bird flu which also were false alarms and that with his drug industry financial interests he stood to gain substantially: WHO “Swine Flu Pope” Under Investigation by F. William Engdahl, author of Full Spectrum Dominance. December 8, 2009.

The Dutch Parliament’s investigation was inconclusive.

WHO’s SAGE committee was at the time chaired by the UK’s Head of Immunisation, Professor David Salisbury assisted by Professor Elizabeth Miller.  So it seems that some or all of the blame for the fake swine flu scare can be laid at the feet of Professor Salisbury for failing to ensure his committee issued reliable unbiased information.

Professor Salisbury’s retirement as the UK’s Head of Immunisation was reported in the draft October 2013 minutes of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.  His name did not appear in lists published annually by the British media of honours conferred [notionally] by the Queen of England [but in fact compiled by the British Government].

10 Camels die in Nagaur, India. Villagers blame vaccination – [Of course they cannot possibly be right. They are just villagers.]

Some of our regular readers might find this of interest:  10 Camels die in Nagaur, villagers blame vaccination The Times of India Jan 9, 2014

Quick, contact the US CDC and ask them to hire Dr Poul Thorsen to do one of his statistical studies to prove this has nothing to do with Camel vaccines and is probably caused by the camels getting too much ice-cream.

Next we will hear from some of the animal rights lobby saying what a disgrace it is camels may have been harmed and who are always very concerned about Tiddles the Cat getting harmed in the slightest way but we don’t seem to hear from them when it comes to children and vaccines.  Odd thing that, don’t you think?

Who is betting this story gets more hits from animal rights activists than any other in the history of the internet?  [Just kidding.  No really.  Honest to God.]

Here is an excerpt:

When contacted, doctor Dinesh Sharma, joint director, animal husbandry, Nagaur, said, “After the investigations it was found that the camel died of Tripnosomesis, a disease that is very common in chilly winters. In this season, Nagaur had even registered minimum temperatures below 0 degree Celsius.”

On the claims of the farmers that the vaccination proved fatal to the camels, Sharma, said, “Had it been the case, similar deaths would have been reported across the state as the camp is being organised throughout the state. Every year camels die of the disease and there is nothing unusual

This is a typical official statement. It is in fact based on no evidence but that does not prevent it being made.  Notice how Dr Sharma is quoted about one camel only.  Perhaps one camel dying is “nothing unusual“. Are ten camels all dying at the same time “nothing unusual“? It is so “nothing unusual” that the villagers did not seem to agree. And it is so “nothing unusual” that it is reported in The Times of India.

And the official statement as reported in the newspaper on examination is not reassuring. There is no official statement on the ten camels dying.  Why did they all die at the same time? The villagers thought it was not normal. Did anyone investigate the vaccine batch?  It seems not. Could it have been a “hot lot“? The public do not know.

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

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

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

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

In comparison:

Conventional Medicine – #1 Leading Cause of Death In USA

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

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

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

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

And here are the US CDC’s figures:

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

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

Australia Bans Flu Vaccine – Child In Coma – Many Hospitalised

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

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

US Drug Company Released Deadly Virus In EU In Vaccine

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

Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic

“Children to Die” – Latest Flu Scaremongering

UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers

World Pandemic Health News Round-Up

Swine ‘Flu Jokes

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

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

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

New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

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

Australian Government Dumps On Sick Kids Injured by ‘Flu Vaccine

Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths

Flu Vaccine Cripples Healthy US Cheerleader for Life

EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

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

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

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

Dr Ben Goldacre’s Internet Bullies Given OK To Launch Attacks On Their Own Blogs – And Told To Shut Up On His BadScience Forum

Here you can watch in real time as some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Internet forum members agree together to engage across the internet in what will likely be their usual formula of personal abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation.

They have been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum about this CHS article posted three days ago:

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies

So having been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum, they are being told it is OK to go onto their own blogs where they will no doubt engage in Google bombing the internet about this.

Here you can see it being discussed on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum, [subject of course to postings being deleted or posting terminated once this CHS article is posted]:

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum Comment Thread: ”Patient Commits Suicide After His Doctor Hounded By..”

The CHS article above is about just one suicide linked to the internet activities of some of the members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum.  It is not the only suicide of an individual subjected to years of relentless internet attacks by some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members.

The article exposes what Dr Ben Goldacre has been allowing on his BadScience internet forum for years – very serious organised orchestrated internet bullying, abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation on an internet wide scale against individuals who have differing perspectives from his members and associates.

Additionally, it is clear from this and other evidence that Dr Ben Goldacre is allowing his BadScience forum to be used in this manner.  He has had previous warnings which are documented.

Harassment whether on the internet or elsewhere is apparently illegal and can attract stiff penalties following laws introduced to the UK to counter serious problems of stalking and harassment of celebrities and private individuals.  And this clearly has the look of the usual orchestrated harassment by agreement which under wholly separate legal provisions CHS understands can also be unlawful and attract stiff penalties.

Or should Dr Goldacre be exempt from acting responsibly or above the law?

The BadScience Forum webpage linked to above keeps changing and some comments have been removed already and some are still being added.

In case of further deletions here is an exchange showing they have been told to shut up:

#9 by sTeamTraen » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:46 pm

jdc wrote:

soveda wrote:Moderator note:
Please be very careful in discussing this not to stray into anything that will be problematic, thank you.

Further to this: I was a bit worried we hadn’t been quite careful enough, so I’ve quarantined a couple of posts. I might be being overcautious. I’ll ask the other mods to take a look at teh quarantined posts.

Soz.

I apologise for inadvertently posting about this. I didn’t realise what was going on (but I have since received PMs from three people explaining the situation).

And here is why they are being told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum:

#19 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:34 pm

andysnat wrote:It has nothing to do with legal, and plenty to do with keeping the forum.Thanks.

This. Anybody feel free to PM me for discussion of the background to this situation.

Here is a post encouraging Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members to blog about these matters on their own blogs across the internet instead of on Dr Goldacre’s BadScience forum:

#14 by duck » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:25 pm

As ever, we thoroughly encourage people to write about this on their own blogs.

And another here:

#16 by ThermalTurnip » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:46 pm

Backstep wrote:Dear mods, I love you all dearly, but hows about you don’t encourage us to p.ssy foot around this topic? As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?

Seconded.

And here:

#17 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:04 pm

Backstep wrote:As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?

Yes, there is. The last time this came up it was almost the end of this forum. Personally, I like it here, and I don’t want it to become more trouble to the curly-haired one than it’s worth.

I think we should take the advice previously given, and repeated by duck, that if we want to address the issues raised we should take it to our own blogs.

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies – Perpetrator’s Mild Two Year Cautionary Sentence Only Just Ended December 2013

[STOP PRESS 4 Jan 2014 @15:02: Dr Ben Goldacre’s Internet Bullies Given OK To Launch Attacks On Their Own Blogs – And Told To Shut Up On His BadScience Forum. This new CHS article is published because since the CHS article below was published CHS has obtained information showing some people will not take notice even when it is spelt out clearly for them.]

A patient committed suicide after an anonymous malicious complaint was made by Stuart Jones to the UK’s General Medical Council about the patient’s treating physician, a disciplinary tribunal was told.  Stuart Jones [Registration Number: CS17316] was at the time a member of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum and was a clinical scientist at the Queens Hospital, Romford, UK. The physician concerned sometimes employed treatment methods which were not those conventionally employed by others but which apparently reaped benefits for patients.

After making the complaint to the GMC about the patient’s doctor, Stuart Jones wrote on May 19th 2010 on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum to other forum members:

Yup, that’s exactly why I complained actually, to give SM a bucket load of administration to wade through and increase anxiety levels in her patients, very pleasurable in deed!”

The patient, who was suffering with chronic fatigue syndrome at the time [also known as ME] killed himself, according to evidence from his doctor, because he mistakenly believed his doctor was no longer allowed to treat him: ‘Deluded quack’ jibe nearly ruined doctor’s career, Daily Telegraph, 21 December 2011.

Members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum are encouraged by Dr Ben Goldacre to take direct action and get involved.  This has included some members launching online attacks on medical professionals who employ treatment modalities others in mainstream medicine do not. BadScience Forum members are also encouraged to make complaints to a large number of regulatory bodies all the time.

In fact Dr Goldacre encourages his BadScience Forum members to get very, very involved:

The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.”

Dr Ben Goldacre has practised as a psychiatrist and is a columnist for the UK’s Guardian newspaper where his column, which appears infrequently now, is devoted to what he calls BadScience.

Stuart Jones’ complaint resulted in the temporary suspension by the GMC of the patient’s doctor.

The GMC prosecution of the deceased patient’s treating doctor was dropped abruptly by the GMC.  By 22nd August 2011 the GMC advised the Doctor all charges had been dropped – [see chonology at end of this article]. 

Stuart Jones was in turn prosecuted by the Health and Care Professions Council.  He was subjected to a very minor punishment of merely a two-year Caution Order.  The two year caution order was imposed in December 2011 but will remain on the register until 18th January this year.

Between 1st March 2009 and 26th October 2010 Stuart Jones, posting anonymously on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum as “Jonas“, made numerous disparaging remarks about the patient’s treating physician.

The career of the patient’s doctor was nearly destroyed in addition to the patient taking his own life in despair at the thought of not getting effective treatment after Stuart Jones described the patient’s doctor as a ‘deluded, pill-peddling quack’ the disciplinary tribunal hearing was told. Stuart Jones also wrote on the BadScience website that the patient’s doctor, who specialises in treating chronic fatigue syndrome, “lulled patients into a dangerous world of make-believe pseudo-science”.  The Health Professions Council heard evidence that Jones’ messages were “defamatory, derogatory and disparaging” and had a detrimental effect on the doctor’s professional and personal life.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum was flooded with 10,000 posts responding to Jones’ initial message in April 2010.

Evidence at the hearing from the patient’s doctor was:

In fact, there was one patient in particular who thought because I had been suspended I could no longer could be consulted. I don’t know if this happened directly as a result of that but the man deteriorated and he actually committed suicide. That’s just one example of how one patient was very seriously affected. I don’t know if that’s directly as part of Mr Jones’ blogging but it resulted.“

Causing a patient to commit suicide by vicious bullying of the patient’s treating doctor specifically to “increase anxiety levels” in the victim doctor’s patients is apparently not a sufficiently serious crime to warrant more than a 2 year “caution” for the Health and Care Professions Council.

Although no charges were brought against the patient’s doctor by the GMC and the doctor was never called before the GMC, aborted investigations in 2006/07 cost the GMC £136,692.12 in solicitors’ fees and disbursements and a possible further £500,000 on internal costs – according to a report on a website set up to support the patient’s doctor by patients and wellwishers.

The GMC is funded by a levy paid by all medical doctors registered in the UK.

It appears also no action has been taken by the GMC regarding Dr Goldacre’s BadScience Forum activities.

The GMC is meant to act on patient complaints. The GMC is an unusual organisation as this previous CHS post demonstrates:

UK General Medical Council Told Docs “Commit Fraud for MMR Vaccine Bonuses”

To complain to the GMC you can contact them on:

Email: gmc@gmc-uk.org.

Or telephone:

• Inside the UK: 0161 923 6602
• Outside the UK: +44 161 923 6602

Monday to Friday – 8am to 6pm – Saturday – 9am to 5pm – UK Time.

Details of the outcome of the 2011 HCPC hearing against Stuart Jones can be read here on the HCPC’s website:

Stuart Jones

Profession: Clinical scientist

Registration Number: CS17316

Hearing type: Final Hearing

Date & Time of hearing: 20/12/2011 – 10:00 End: 20/12/2011 – 18:00

Location: HPC, Park House, 184 Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: Caution

Registration Number: CS17316

CHRONOLOGY [6 Jan 2014]: This is a chronology of some of what the poor doctor has had to face at the hands of the General Medical Council.

Compare what follows with the case of Dr Jane Barton.

With Barton the police investigated 92 deaths over 12 years [no criminal charges were brought].  An inquest found ten of 12 deaths followed excessive doses of morphine. Dr Barton was neither struck off nor suspended but simply had restrictions to prescribe certain drugs imposed on her.  This GMC decision came on January 29th 2010.

What The GMC Did To This Doctor

Remember at all times that no patient was harmed.  Patients benefited and praised the Doctor and none were put at risk.

Nov 2002: five day GMC fitness to practice hearing scheduled to take place. Five complaints only from doctors, none from patients. No patient harmed, put at risk, nor any malpractice.  Complaints objected to doctor’s style of practice and the allergy, environmental, nutritional approach to medicine.

Oct 2002: hearing postponed to Feb 2003 and extended 8 days for eight complaints.

Jan 2003: Feb hearing cancelled – no proper explanation.  Hearing was cancelled because at least one allegation was fabricated, one based on untrue facts and patients had refused to co-operate.

April 2007:  new set of allegations & new hearing proposed.  Again, includes complaints only from doctors and who do not like the style of practice. No patient harmed or put at risk. Now extended also to complaints about website.

July 2007: 10 day General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practice hearing scheduled to take place Sept 2007.

That hearing later postponed and proposed as a thirteen day hearing in February 2008.

Oct 2007: GMC drop all charges.

Aug 2009: Aug 12th GMC had been found out removing documentary evidence supporting the accused Doctor.

Apr 2010: Apr 2nd anonymous complaint received from GMC by Doctor [complaint from Stuart Jones].

April 2010: Thurs 8th April GMC orders Doctor to attend “Interim Orders Panel” for following Monday 12th April.  IOP is to make no decision about validity of complaint – an “interim” hearing only.

April 2010: April 9th – hearing postponed to April 29th.

April 2010: April 29th IOP hearing of unsubstantiated anonymous complaint [from Stuart Jones].  IOP hearing is not concerned if allegations are true but with whether to impose an order to protect public if the allegations were found to be true.  GMC interim panel decided there was a “potential risk to public safety” so imposed an interim order.  [Compare the Barton case above where Barton’s patients died after morphine overdoses, inquests & police investigations with this one where patients benefitted from Dr’s treatments & supported Doc.  Barton’s patients were in no condition to complain.]

Dec 2011: Over 1 1/2 years later yet another IOP hearing.

Jan 2011: Temporary suspension lifted.

Aug 2011: 1st Aug all sanctions lifted.

Aug 2011: 22nd Aug all charges dropped.  GMC cancels Fitness to Practice Hearing [scheduled for November 2011] and advises there is no case to answer.  Dr reinstated on the General Medical Council Register.

Dec 2011:  20th Dec Stuart Jones found guilty by HCPC.

Oct 2012: Despite serious charges of professional misconduct against the doctor being dropped the GMC continued its long victimisation of this courageous Dr.  But this time regarding charges concerning the content of her website.  The first expert witness the GMC picked to give evidence did not give them the answer they wanted.  His evidence was:

Dr Hr stated that he did not consider that you were acting inappropriately although he considered that your reference to ‘dangerous medicine’ was inappropriate. He added the caveat that you should ensure that the information given should be accurate and not alarmist. Overall, he considered that your actions were appropriate and of a reasonable competent standard.

So the GMC commissioned two more experts to address the website content and they decided it was not appropriate.

Instead of being struck from the medical register the Dr was given a “warning”.

— THE END — [for the moment]

Smallpox Eradication – One of History’s Biggest Lies & How Vaccination Did Not Eradicate Smallpox

You know about how individuals gain control of the power of the State and then abuse that power like former US President George “Dubya” Bush?  “Dubya” started a war in Iraq which was highly profitable for some US businesses.  He achieved this by claiming Iraq had a nuclear weapons programme which was a serious world security threat when Iraq did not and when it had already been bombed into oblivion by the war his Dad George Bush Snr waged on Iraq in 1992: Valerie Plame Wilson: the housewife CIA spy who was ‘fair game’ for Bush UK The Telegraph By Chrissy Iley 15 Feb 2011. 

Remember how Bush was supported by UK Premier Tony Blair who helped by persuading the British Parliament to join the US with faked “intelligence” of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which did not exist but which Blair claimed could be deployed within 40 minutes and posed a serious security threat?

If you remember that then you will know how these kinds of people manipulate the media.  Notice how they persuade us we are in imminent danger of some threat or other and that they can save us all if we trust them?

This trickery is not new.  It had been used for well over a century with smallpox.  The myth continues to this day.

On CHS we wrote previously about how unscientific the claim is that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination when that frankly is nonsense scientifically.  The demise of the disease came about as a result of the interaction of three completely different factors: isolation, attenuation and improved living conditions, particularly nutrition and sanitation. The effect cannot be attributable to the smallpox vaccine – any vaccine which takes over 100 years to work ipso facto proves itself not to have:

Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication

There was a nasty disease called smallpox and it did kill people long ago.

This was especially the case when the poor moved to the cities during the industrial revolution looking for work and choked them in overcrowded unsanitary slums ripe for breeding and spreading disease: London’s first park built after rich feared disease spread from slums UK The Independent By Andy McSmith Friday 07 November 2008;  Hygiene History in the Industrialized World.

The middle and upper classes needed to be reassured the State would keep them safe from the threat of disease.  The majority of the population of entire countries were persuaded their States could achieve this by ensuring the then truly “great unwashed” masses would be vaccinated and the disease controlled.  The trouble was this was a myth but the people wanted to believe and were persuaded. 

Smallpox vaccination did not work and sometimes killed as many or more than the disease itself whilst many of the “vaccinated” still contracted the disease: Smallpox Mortality, UK, USA, Sweden.

Now you can read a relatively short but well-referenced history of the myth of vaccination and the myth of its role in the eradication of smallpox:

Online Version – Vaccination: A Mythical History ~ by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries MD – August 27, 2013

SMALLPOX MORTALITY-UK, USA & SWEDEN

In the graphs below notice the large numbers of deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine itself.  By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself.  The severity of the disease dimished with improved living standards and was not vanquished by vaccination, as the medical “consensus” view tells us. Any vaccine which takes 100 years to “work” did not.  On any scientific analysis of the history and data, crediting smallpox vaccine for the decline in smallpox appears misplaced.

When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England stopped vaccination compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummeted [see table below].  Leicester’s approach also cost far less.

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

 

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

[Download Entire Book as .pdf 43 Mb  – Or Read Online]

TABLE 21

SMALLPOX FATALITY RATES, cases in vaccinated and re-vaccinated populations compared with “unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.

Name.	Period.	Small-Pox.  Cases	Small-Pox. Deaths.	Fatality-rate per cent. of Cases
Japan	1886-1908	288,779	77,415	26.8
British Army (United Kingdom)	1860-1908	1,355	96	7.1
British Army (India)	1860-1908	2,753	307	11.1
British Army (Colonies)	1860-1908	934	82	8.8
Royal Navy	1860-1908	2,909	234	8.0
Grand Totals and case fatality rate per cent, over all		296,730	78,134	26.3
Leicester (since giving up vaccination)	1880-1908	1,206	61	5.1

Biggs said “In this comparison, I have given the numbers of revaccinated cases, and deaths, and each fatality-rate separately and together, so that they may be compared either way with Leicester. In pro-vaccinist language, may I ask, if the excessive small-pox fatality of Japan, of the British Army, and of the Royal Navy, are not due to vaccination and revaccination, to what are they due? It would afford an interesting psychical study were we able to know to what heights of eloquent glorification Sir George Buchanan would have soared with a corresponding result—but on the opposite side.“

 TABLE 29.

Small-Pox Epidemics, Cost, and Fatality Rates Compared

	Vaccinal Condition	Small-Pox Cases	Small-Pox Deaths	Fatality-rate Per Cent	Cost of Epidemic
London 1900-02	Well Vaccinated	9,659	1,594	16.50	£492,000
Glasgow 1900-02	Well Vaccinated	3,417	377	11.03	£ 150,000
Sheffield 1887-88	Well Vaccinated	7,066	688	9.73	£32,257
Leicester 1892-94	Practically Unvaccinated	393	21	5.34	£2,888
Leicester 1902-04	Practically Unvaccinated	731	30	4.10	£1,602

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

 

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

__________________________________________

Vaccination: A Mythical History ~ by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries MD

– August 27, 2013

With the approaching flu season and the enthusiastic calls to use the flu vaccine, you might be wondering where the idea of vaccination got its start. Where did the idea of injecting whole or bits of microbes and other substances into people in an attempt to provide protection against contagious disease begin?

Many medical and history books present a simple tale of the origin of vaccination. Most present the same basic tale of the brilliant observation of a simple country doctor and his courage in attempting to thwart a deadly and frightening disease of that time – smallpox, or as it was often called the speckled monster. In a recent and popular book, The Panic Virus, the author reiterates this classic tale.

In 1796, Jenner enlisted a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes and an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to test his theory. Jenner transferred pus from Nelmes’s cowpox blisters onto incisions he’d made in Phipps’s hands. The boy came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. Later, Jenner gave Phipps a standard smallpox inoculation – which should have resulted in a full-blown, albeit mild, case of the disease. Nothing happened. Jenner tried inoculating Phipps with smallpox once more; again, nothing. [1]

Edward Jenner’s idea eventually became known as vaccination, which is derived from the Latin word for cow – vacca. It was originally referred to as cowpoxing, but eventually the term vaccination was adopted. As the story goes, with this invention in place, smallpox would be tamed and the world would be freed from the terror of the disease.

Such is the stuff of legends. The story is not unlike the classic Greek legends of Theseus defeating the child-devouring Minotaur, or Perseus beheading the deadly snake-headed Medusa, or many other classic stories of the brave hero defeating a deadly enemy. The Jenner legend has been reduced to a simple and memorable story of a hero defeating the deadly enemy, smallpox. Authors claim that with vaccination in place, “billions of lives” have been saved.[2]

But legendary heroes, particularly those that are used to support a belief, achieve an iconic status while any unsavory aspects about the hero and the story are ignored or forgotten. Mythical tales are designed to evoke a positive emotional response to influence societal thinking.

The tale of defeating smallpox begins well before the story of our hero. It begins with the concept of using small amounts of smallpox pus and scratching it into the arms of healthy people. This idea was introduced to the Western world by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in 1717. She had returned from the Ottoman Empire with knowledge of the practice of inoculation against smallpox, known as variolation. This type of inoculation was simply a matter of infecting a person with smallpox at a time and in a setting of his choosing. The idea behind inoculation was that, in a controlled setting, people would do better against the disease than if they contracted it at some possibly less desirable time and place in the future.

The idea was embraced by the medical profession and enthusiastically practiced. But because of the complexity and danger involved, inoculation remained an operation that could only be afforded by the wealthy.[3] The procedure did often help protect the individual that was inoculated, but there was still an estimated 2-5% that died as a result.[4,5] Still, this was an improvement compared to a 20-25% mortality rate in those that had naturally contracted smallpox during an epidemic.[6] But, was the difference in mortality due to inoculation alone? Or could it have had something to do with the fact that the wealthy had better access to more nutritious food and a cleaner environment than the majority of society?

There was one major and generally unacknowledged drawback to variolation – those inoculated could and did spread smallpox creating more deaths than there would have been naturally. In a 1764 article the author recognized that smallpox was a contagious disease and that the practice of variolation would create new vectors to spread it. He compared the smallpox deaths in the 38 years before the introduction of variolation to the 38 years after, and found that smallpox deaths had increased⎯not decreased. He was forced to conclude that variolation on the whole, led to worse problems, because it caused more deaths than lives saved.

It is incontestably like the plague a contagious disease, what tends to stop the progress of the infection tends to lessen the danger that attends it; what tends to spread the contagion, tends to increase that danger; the practice of Inoculation manifestly tends to spread the contagion, for a contagious disease is produced by Inoculation where it would not otherwise have been produced; the place where it is thus produced becomes a center of contagion, whence it spreads not less fatally or widely than it would spread from a center where the disease should happen in a natural way; these centers of contagion are manifestly multiplied very greatly by Inoculation . . .[7]

However, while the popularity of variolation varied, the problem of it spreading smallpox, was largely unrecognized. Because variolation had become a very lucrative procedure it was enthusiastically continued by most of the medical profession through the 1700s and into the early 1800s. Smallpox continued to be spread by this medically-sanctioned procedure.

Now enters the hero of our legend. It was rumored among milkmaids that infection with cowpox would protect one from smallpox. In 1796, believing these stories, Edward Jenner performed an experiment on an 8-year-old boy named James Phipps. He took disease matter that he believed to be cowpox from lesions on a dairymaid, Sarah Nelmes, and vaccinated James Phipps with it. He later deliberately exposed the child to smallpox as a test to see if he was protected by the cowpox inoculation. When the boy did not contract clinical smallpox, it was assumed that the technique of vaccination was successful.

In 1798 Jenner published his results claiming lifelong protection against smallpox using his discovery with only rumors to support his contention. While he promoted the use of his technique based on the tale that someone infected with cowpox would be immune to smallpox, there were doctors of the time who challenged this myth, because they had seen smallpox follow cowpox. At a meeting of the Medico-Convivial Society, Jenner was ridiculed over his practice.

But he [Jenner] no sooner mentioned it than they laughed at it. The cow doctors could have told him of hundreds of cases where small-pox had followed cow-pox . . . [8]

From the beginning there were problems with Jenner’s procedure. In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated a number of children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox to see if the cowpox procedure had been effective. All of them developed smallpox, and vaccination failed to protect any of them. Jenner received the report but decided to ignore the results because they were not in support of his theory.[9]

Vaccination was quickly embraced by many in the medical profession as the answer to combating smallpox. By 1801, an estimated 100,000 people had already been vaccinated in England with the belief that the procedure would produce lifelong protection. The medical community continued to embrace Jenner’s ideas amidst numerous accounts that refuted the theory of vaccination. Early reports indicated that there were cases of people who had cowpox, or were vaccinated, and were still dying of smallpox. Specific cases of cowpox and vaccine failure were reported in the 1809 Medical Observer.

A Child was vaccinated by Mr. Robinson, surgeon and apothecary, at Rotherham, towards the end of the year 1799. A month later it was inoculated with small-pox matter without effect, and a few months subsequently took confluent small-pox and died. 2. A woman-servant to Mr. Gamble, of Bungay, in Suffolk, had cow-pox in the casual way from milking. Seven years afterwards she became nurse to Yarmouth Hospital, where she caught small-pox, and died. 3 and 4. Elizabeth and John Nicholson, three years of age, were vaccinated at Battersea in the summer of 1804. Both contracted small-pox in May, 1805 and died . . . 13. The child of Mr. R died of small-pox in October 1805. The patient had been vaccinated, and the parents were assured of its security. The vaccinator’s name was concealed. 14. The child of Mr. Hindsley at Mr. Adam’s office . . . died of small-pox a year after vaccination.[10]

Reports through the early 1800s began to accumulate showing vaccination was not living up to its promise to protect from smallpox. A report in 1810 from the Medical Observer noted 535 cases of small-pox after vaccination, 97 fatal cases, and 150 cases of vaccine injuries.[11] Note that 97 deaths out of 535 cases is an 18% fatality rate and is essentially the same fatality rate as smallpox before vaccination was introduced. This high fatality rate along with 150 vaccine-related injuries was a direct challenge to this new and highly lauded medical procedure.

Another article in 1817 reflected the reality of vaccination failure.

. . . the number of all ranks suffering under Small Pox, who have previously undergone Vaccination by the most skillful practitioners, is at present alarmingly great.[12]

In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Musselburgh, Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that he was originally extremely positive in promoting vaccination and that no one in the medical profession “could outstrip me in zeal for promoting vaccine practice.” But after vaccinating 1,200 persons, he became disappointed in the promise of vaccination. His experience was that, after vaccination, people still could contract and even die from smallpox, and that he could no longer support the practice.[13]

Like today, surgeons and doctors of the time were handsomely compensated for performing vaccination and thus had a tendency to embrace it as a new form of income. It is therefore quite significant for a doctor to have spoken out against it as Dr. Brown did.

Continued observations showed that smallpox could still infect those who previously had smallpox and that those who were vaccinated could also be infected.

. . . during the years 1820, 1, and, 2 [1820-1822] there was a great hubbub about the small-pox. It broke out with the great epidemic to the north . . . It pressed close to home to Dr. Jenner himself . . . It attacked many who had had small-pox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers.[14]

William Cobbett was a farmer, journalist, and English pamphleteer. In 1829 he wrote about the failure of vaccination to protect people from smallpox. Cobbett considered vaccination to be an unproven and fraudulent medical practice. He noted that:

. . . hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF, have taken the real small-pox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives![15]

During this time vaccine material was the “humanized” form, which meant that material was taken from the arm of a previously vaccinated person to vaccinate the next person. Arm-to-arm vaccination continued for decades, but as failures increased there was a belief that the vaccine had lost its original supposed potency, and there were calls to obtain fresh material directly from cows.[16]

While the legend maintained that the vaccine material came from cows, Jenner actually believed the material originated from an infectious condition of horses called the “grease.” From this and other beliefs, there were many attempts to recreate an original cow-based vaccine. All these attempts failed.[17] Some believed that cowpox was simply smallpox that was passed through cows and somehow made into a new disease.[18] This faulty belief would result in the creation of more smallpox epidemics.

In 1836 in Attenborough, Massachusetts, Dr. John C. Martin took fluid from the pock of a man who died from smallpox and inoculated it onto a cow’s udder. He then took pus from that cow and used it to vaccinate people. A large smallpox epidemic ensued causing panic and sickness in many people over the subsequent months.[19] A later inquiry determined that this was nothing more than the old practice of smallpox inoculation.[20]

Not only was vaccination failing and causing smallpox epidemics, but there were also reports of deaths from other causes shortly after vaccination. For example, a skin condition called erysipelas was a particularly prolonged and painful way to die.

. . . a boy from Somers-town, aged 5 years, “small-pox confluent, unmodified (9 days).” He had been vaccinated at the age of 4 months; one cicatrix . . . the wife of a labourer, from Lambeth, aged 22 years, “small-pox confluent, unmodified (8 days).” Vaccinated in infancy in Suffolk; two good cicatrices . . . the son of a mariner, aged 10 weeks, and the son of a sugar baker, aged 13 weeks, died of “general erysipelas after vaccination, effusion of the brain.”[21]

Because arm-to-arm vaccination was being used, other diseases could be spread causing various epidemics. Infectious diseases attributed to vaccination included tuberculosis and syphilis. In 1863 Dr. Ricord spoke before the Academy at Paris.

First I rejected the idea that syphilis could be transplanted by vaccination. But facts accumulated more and more, and now I must concede the possibility of the transfer of syphilis by means of the vaccine. I do this very reluctantly. At present I do not hesitate longer to acknowledge and proclaim the reality of the fact.[22]

As it became increasingly clear throughout the 1800s to more doctors and citizens that vaccination was not what it was promised to be, refusals increased. In order to deal with this, the judicial system intervened. In 1855, Massachusetts created a set of comprehensive laws providing for widespread vaccination.[23]

These laws and compulsory vaccination did nothing to curb the problem of smallpox. Data from Boston that begins in 1811 shows that, starting around 1837, there were periodic smallpox epidemics that culminated in the great 1872 epidemic. After 1855, there were further smallpox epidemics in 1859-60, 1864-65, and 1867 and the infamous epidemic in 1872-73. This was the most severe smallpox epidemic since the introduction of vaccination.[24] These repeat smallpox epidemics showed that the strict vaccination laws instituted by Massachusetts in 1855 had no effect at all (Graph 1). In fact, more people died in the 20 years after the strict Massachusetts vaccination compulsory laws than in the 20 years before.

Graph 1: Boston smallpox mortality rate from 1841 to 1880.

By this point, the medical profession no longer claimed lifelong protection against smallpox from a single vaccination. Instead, claims were made that vaccination made smallpox less likely to kill or that smallpox would be milder. Calls were then made for revaccination. Claims were made that revaccination had to be performed anywhere from yearly to every 10 years.[25]

While the majority of the medical profession supported vaccination, there were those that spoke out against the procedure. Dr. Longstaffe, a prominent physician of Edinburgh England noted that huge profits were being made by vaccinators. Immense financial gain combined with the force of law created the perfect environment that would impose vaccination upon the citizens of the Western world.

The public vaccinators have received immense sums from Parliament . . . In 1850 alone they amounted to £54,727, and in the present year they will get nearly a quarter million. Other sums, also, which I cannot name, have been granted for the purpose of sustaining this monstrous fraud. Has ever a quack remedy produced so much gain?

[26]

In England, governmental control strengthened over the years, with progressively stricter laws designed to enforce vaccination. Laws previously passed in 1840 and 1853 were consolidated into oppressive compulsory laws in 1867 that included fines for parents who did not vaccinate their children. However, through the 1800s, periodic smallpox epidemics continued to occur. A great pandemic struck in 1872 and took the lives of thousands, even those who were vaccinated.

Every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there were twenty-three thousand four hundred and sixty-nine cases of small-pox in that army. The London Lancet of July 15, 1871 said:

Of nine thousand three hundred and ninety-two small-pox patients in London hospitals, six thousand eight hundred and fifty-four had been vaccinated. Seventeen and one-half per cent of those attacked died. In the whole country more than one hundred and twenty-two thousand vaccinated persons have suffered from small-pox . . . Official returns from Germany show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox.[27]

Concerns over vaccine safety, effectiveness, and governmental infringement on personal liberty and freedom through compulsory vaccination stoked the fires of the anti-vaccine movement. People began to resist the government and chose to pay fines. Some even accepted imprisonment rather than allowing vaccination for themselves or their children. The public backlash culminated in the great demonstration in Leicester England, in 1885. That same year Leicester’s government, which had pushed for vaccination through the use of fines and jail time, was replaced with a new government that was opposed to compulsory vaccination. By 1887, the vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%.[28]

Instead of relying on vaccination, people began to rely on proper sanitation, quarantine of smallpox patients and thorough disinfection of their homes. They believed this technique was a cheap and effective means that eliminated the need for vaccination. However, there were dire predictions from the majority of the medical community that strongly endorsed vaccination and believed the low vaccination rate would result in a terrible “massacre,” especially in the “unprotected” children.[29]

Despite such prophesies of doom from the medical profession, the majority of the town’s residents were steadfast in their belief that vaccination was not necessary to control smallpox. The prophecy that the Leicester residents would eventually be plagued with disaster never did come to pass. Low vaccination rates resulted in lower smallpox rates and deaths, than in well-vaccinated towns.[30] In fact, the lower vaccination rates correlated to an overall decrease in smallpox deaths (Graph 2). Leicester showed that by abandoning vaccination in favor of what became termed as the “Leicester Method,” deaths from smallpox were far lower than when vaccination rates were high.

The experience of unvaccinated Leicester is an eye-opener to the people and an eye-sore to the pro-vaccinists the world over. Here is a great manufacturing town having a population of nearly a quarter of a million, which has demonstrated by a crucial test of an experience extending over a period of more than a quarter of a century, that an unvaccinated population has been far less susceptible to small-pox and far less afflicted by that disease since it abandoned vaccination than it was at a time when ninety-five per cent of its births were vaccinated and its adult population well re-vaccinated.[31]

While vaccination was often promoted as a safe procedure, it often caused sickness or even death. From 1859 to 1922 official deaths related to vaccination were more than 1,600 in England (Graph 3). In fact, from 1906 to 1922 the number of deaths recorded from smallpox vaccination and smallpox were approximately the same (Graph 4).

Graph 2: Leicester England smallpox mortality rate vs. vaccination coverage from 1838 to 1910.

Graph 3: England and Wales total deaths from cowpox and other effects of vaccination from 1859 to 1922.

Graph 4: England and Wales smallpox deaths vs. vaccination deaths from 1906 to 1922

At the end of the 1800s, smallpox changed its character. After the summer of 1897, the severe type of smallpox with its high death rate, with rare exception, had entirely disappeared from the United States. Smallpox turned from a disease that killed 1 in 5 of its victims to one that only killed anywhere from 1 in 50 and later to as low as 1 in 380. The disease could still kill, but having become so much milder, it was frequently mistaken for various other pox infections or skin eruptions.

During 1896 a very mild type of smallpox began to prevail in the South and later gradually spread over the country. The mortality was very low and it [smallpox] was usually at first mistaken for chicken pox. . .[32]

The author of a 1913 article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases presented a table showing that in 1895 and 1896 the smallpox death rate was around 20%, as it had been historically. The table also showed that after 1896 the death rate fell off rapidly, starting with 6% in 1897 to as low as 0.26% by 1908. As the mild form of smallpox replaced the classic type, smallpox could be difficult to tell from chickenpox, which was, by this time, considered a mild disease of childhood.

. . . chickenpox, is a minor communicable disease of childhood, and is chiefly important because it frequently gives rise to difficulty in diagnosis in cases of mild smallpox. Smallpox and chickenpox are sometimes very difficult to differentiate clinically.[33]

By the 1920s it was recognized that the new form of smallpox produced little in the way of symptoms, even though few had been vaccinated.

Individual cases, or even epidemics, occur in which, although there has been no protection by vaccination, the course of the disease is extremely mild. The lesions are few in number or entirely absent, and the constitutional symptoms mild or insignificant.[34]

Despite this extremely low vaccine coverage rate, there was never a resurgence of smallpox. Even though smallpox was not a major issue, the practice of smallpox vaccination continued from the time of the last smallpox death in the United States in 1948 up until 1963. This resulted in an estimated 5,000 unnecessary vaccine-related hospitalizations from generalized rash, secondary infections, and encephalitis.

A 1958 study detailed the cases of 9 children in which 2 died of a skin condition due to vaccination, now being termed eczema vaccinatum. The occurrence of this disease was estimated by the authors to be between 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 100,000 with a fatality rate of 4 to 40%.[35] However, they acknowledged that most cases were not reported and there was no accurate accounting on this consequence of vaccination. There were also an estimated 200 to 300 deaths as the result of smallpox vaccination, while during the same time there had only been 1 smallpox death in 1948.[36]

The last smallpox death in the United States following an importation occurred in 1948, but since that time there have been probably 200 to 300 deaths from smallpox vaccination.[37]

Eczema vaccinatum is still occurring today, as recently noted in the news. A toddler was infected by his military father after the father was vaccinated. After a prolonged admission, and a week of experimental treatments including immune globulin from donor blood and antiviral medication, the toddler recovered. The mother also required treatment and virus was found all over the house.[38]

Because of poor surveillance and vaccine reaction underreporting, the authors of a 1970 study thought that the number of smallpox vaccine-related deaths could actually have been even higher. This study only examined deaths from 1959 to 1968 in the United States. If the deaths were this high in a country with a modern health-care system, what was the total number of deaths from smallpox vaccination from 1800 to the present across the entire world?

There were those in the medical community who were relieved that the failure of compulsory vaccination never gained much public scrutiny. Instead, the focus was shifted to new types of vaccinations.

Compulsory vaccination which once had the suffrage of the nation has now hardly a serious supporter. We are ashamed to jettison the idea completely and perhaps afraid that if we did the accident of some future epidemic might put us in the wrong. We prefer to let compulsory vaccination die a natural death and are relieved that the general public is not curious enough to demand an inquest. In the meantime our attention is diverted to other and newer forms of immunisation.[39]

During this time with vaccination as virtually the only medically promoted way to deal with disease, there were doctors finding amazing successes with smallpox using other methods. Vinegar is a common food product that is made through fermentation of a variety of sources. An 1877 article described the success that Dr. Roth had using vinegar for smallpox prophylaxis.

D. G. Oliphant, M.D., of Toronto, Canada, having read the article on the use of Acetic acid in scarlet fever, writes of a “vinegar cure” as applied to small pox. Dr. Roth first claimed wonderful success in treatment regarding vinegar more reliable as a prophylactic in small-pox than Belladonna in scarlet fever. Dr. Roth gave both to the sick and to the exposed two table-spoonfuls of vinegar, after breakfast and at evening, for fourteen days. Few persons thus treated took the disease at all. None who adopted the prophylactic treatment died, while among those under ordinary treatment the mortality was as usual.[40]

In 1899 Dr. Howe also demonstrated vinegar’s ability to protect a person from acquiring smallpox. Those who used the vinegar protocol were able to take care of other people with smallpox without fear of contracting the disease. The author notes that despite several hundred exposures, vinegar was protective against smallpox and was considered an “established fact.”[41]

Again, in 1901 professor MacLean promoted the idea of vinegar as a real preventative of smallpox. Dr. MacLean claimed that apple cider vinegar and no other type of vinegar should be used three or four times a day to protect a person from contracting smallpox.

J.P. MacLean Ph. D., the renowned “anti” Secretary of the Western Reserve Historical Society, having readily overthrown the conclusions of all the great men who for a century past have been convinced of the efficacy of vaccination for the prevention of smallpox, now comes to the front in the newspapers with the real preventative. “Any person who has been exposed need have no fear of smallpox if he will take two or three tablespoonfuls of pure cider vinegar three or four times a day.” The discussion may now be regarded as closed, and smallpox at last is conquered![42]

Apple cider vinegar might seem silly, but only because most people have been conditioned to accept the age-old prophylaxis for smallpox: raw, disease-laden, contaminated pus scrapings from an infected animal’s (usually a cow) belly, diluted in glycerin, and scratched into the human arm with a metal prong until the arm was raw and bleeding. What seems sillier now?

Scurvy is a disease that results from a deficiency of vitamin C due to starvation or just an extremely poor or unbalanced diet. Vitamin C is essential for the formation of healthy collagen. Collagen is the protein that forms connective tissue in skin, bones, and blood vessels and also gives support to internal organs. In scurvy, the body is not able to generate adequate collagen or extracellular matrix proteins that serve as mortar holding cells together and, as a result, literally comes unglued and falls apart.

William A. Guy, dean of the Medical Department of King’s College, described the poor diet of gold miners in California in the 1850s. Thousands of miners subsisted on meat, fat, coffee, and alcohol while working long, hard days under the unrelenting California sun. The vitamin C-deficient diet led many to develop scurvy.

Scurvy has been very prevalent among the gold miners of California . . . the emigrants upon the overland journeys and at the mines, as living almost entirely upon fried bacon or fat pork and flour made into batter-cakes, and fried in the fat, which completely saturates it. This is washed down with copious librations of strong coffee, and large quantities of brandy or whiskey are taken in the intervals of the meals . . . this has been the diet of thousands for months, under a scorching sun, when the temperature was over a hundred in the shade, the men being at the same time subjected to the most intense labour.[43]

Although many died of cholera during the California Gold Rush of the mid-1800s, an estimated 10,000 men died from scurvy.

During the American Civil War twice as many died from nutritional deficiency related diseases as those killed in battle.[44] For instance, the causes of death listed for Indiana soldiers buried at the National Cemetery in Andersonville, Georgia, shows that diarrhea and scurvy directly accounted for at least two-thirds.[45] Dysentery was the next common cause of death, with the infamous diseases such as smallpox, typhus, pneumonia, and gangrene responsible for only a small fraction. Those who were killed in actual battle or who died as a result of their wounds accounted only for 1 percent of the total deaths.

Other big infectious killers such as scarlet fever, measles, diphtheria, and whooping cough (also known as pertussis) all greatly declined during this time to where they were either completely eliminated or considered mild childhood illnesses by the mid-1900s. This massive decline of 99% of deaths in whooping cough and measles occurred before vaccines or antibiotics were available (Graph 5 & 6).

Graph 5: England and Wales whooping cough mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

Graph 6: England and Wales measles mortality rate from 1838 to 1978.

 

The fairytale legend of a country doctor making a discovery that saved the world from the devastation of smallpox is a fundamental medical belief that continues to be echoed by indoctrinated and naïve doctors whenever vaccines are challenged. Smallpox vaccine, in the minds of medical professionals remains a pillar of their vaccine faith. But the true history shows us a different reality.

The brand name of vaccination was indoctrinated into the world psyche as something to protect someone from an illness. This belief spawned off numerous other ideas using the same notion of injecting whole or parts of disease matter into living beings in attempts to protect them from a specific disease. The reality of vaccination is nothing close to the myth.

Other extremely effective alternative methods of sanitation, nutrition, apple cider vinegar, and other solutions were ignored and have since vanished from societal collective memory. Instead we were left with the mythical history of Jenner’s great discovery and the continued onslaught of dangerous vaccines to newborn infants. Vaccines are now a regular thing from cradle to grave, all in the name of supposedly healthier people. Now that the curtain has been pulled back on the origins of vaccination, do more and more vaccines seem like a good idea to you?

More information on the history of vaccination including polio, measles, whooping cough, and lost remedies can be found in Dr Humphries’ and Roman Bystrianyk’s book “Dissolving Illusions” which can be found on amazon.com

Bibliography:
1.Seth Mnookin, The Panic Virus, Simon & Schuster, 2011, p. 31.
2.Science the Definitive Visual Guide, DK Publishing, 2009, p. 156.
3.Victor C. Vaughan, MD, Epidemiology and Public Health, St. Louis, C.V. Mosby Company, 1922, p. 189.
4.Frederick F. Cartwright, Disease and History, Rupert-Hart-Davis, London, 1972, p. 124.
5.William Douglass, MA, A Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements and Present State of the British Settlements of North-America, London, 1760, p. 398.
6.Ann Jannetta, The Vaccinators: Smallpox Medical Knowledge and the ‘Opening’ of Japan, Stanford University Press, 2007, p.179.
7.“The Practice of Inoculation Truly Stated,” The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, vol. 34, 1764, p. 333.
8.Dr. Walter Hadwen, The Case Against Vaccination, Goddard’s Rooms, Gloucester, January 25, 1896, p. 12.
9.Charles Creighton, Jenner and Vaccination, 1889, pp. 95-96.
10.William Scott Tebb, MD, A Century of Vaccination and What it Teaches, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., London, 1898, p. 126.
11.“Vaccination by Act of Parliament,” Westminster Review, vol. 131, 1889, p. 101.
12.“Observations on Prevailing Diseases,” The London Medical Repository Monthly Journal and Review, vol. VIII, July-December, 1817, p. 95.
13.Mr. Thomas Brown, Surgeon Musselburgh, “On the Present State of Vaccination,” The Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, Volume Fifteenth, 1819, p. 67.
14.“Observations by Mr. Fosbroke,” The Lancet, vol. II, 1829, p. 583.
15.William Cobbett, Advice to Young Men and (Incidentally) to Young Women, 1829, London, pp. 224-225.
16.Dr. Delagrange of Paris, “On the Present State of Vaccination in France,” The Lancet, vol. II, 1829, p. 582.
17.“Cowpox Origin of,” The Medico-chirurgical review and journal of practical medicine, vol. 20, 1834, p. 504.
18.Dr. Fiard, “Experiments upon the Communication and Origin of Vaccine Virus,” London medical and surgical journal, vol. 4, 1834, p. 796.
19.Ephraim Cutter, MD, “Partial Report on the Production of Vaccine Virus in the United States,” Transactions of the American Medical Association, vol. XXIII, 1872, p. 200.
20.Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 24, Philadelphia, 1890, p. 25.
21.The Morning Chronicle, Wednesday, April 12, 1854.
22.“Vaccination,” New York Times, September 26, 1869.
23.Susan Wade Peabody, “Historical Study of Legislation Regarding Public Health in the State of New York and Massachusetts,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Supplement no. 4, February 1909, p. 50-51.
24.“Small-pox and Revaccination,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. CIV, no. 6, February 10, 1881, p. 137.
25.Dr. Olesen, “Vaccination in the Philippine Islands,” Medical Sentinel, April 1911, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 255.
26.“Vaccination,” New York Times, September 26, 1869.
27.G. W. Harman, MD, “A Physician’s Argument Against the Efficacy of Virus Inoculation,” Medical Brief: A Monthly Journal of Scientific Medicine and Surgery: vol. 28, no. 1, 1900, p. 84.
28.The Parliamentary Debates, vol. CCCXXVI, June 1, 1888, p. 933.
29.“A Demonstration Against Vaccination,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, April 16, 1885, p. 380.
30.J. W. Hodge, MD, “Prophylaxis to be Realized Through the Attainment of Health, Not by the Propagation of Disease,” The St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. LXXXIII, July 1902, p. 15.
31.J. W. Hodge, MD, “How Small-Pox was Banished from Leicester,” Twentieth Century Magazine, vol. III, no. 16, January, 1911, p. 342.
32.Charles V. Chapin, “Variation in Type of Infectious Disease as Shown by the History of Smallpox in the United States,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 13, no. 2, September 1913, p. 173.
33.John Gerald Fitzgerald, Peter Gillespie, Harry Mill Lancaster, An introduction to the practice of preventive medicine, C.V. Mosby Company, 1922, p. 197.
34.John Price Crozer Griffith, The diseases of infants and children, Volume 1, W.B. Saunders Company, 1921, p. 370.
35.Audrey H. Reynolds MD and Howard A. Joos MD, Exczema Vaccinatum, Pediatrics, August 1958, pp. 259-267
36.David Koplow, Smallpox: The Right to Eradicate a Global Scourge, 2004, University of California Press, p.21.
37.The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 1968, vol. 41, p. 10.
38.Maggie Fox, 2007, Toddler Survives Smallpox Vaccine Reaction, Reuters.
39.Dr. Charles Cyril Okell, “From a bacteriological back-number,” Lancet, January 1, 1938, pp. 48-49.
40.“Acetic Acid in Scarlet Fever,” American homoeopathist—A Monthly Journal of Medical Surgical and Sanitary Science, vol. 1, no. 1, July 1877, p. 73.
41.“Vinegar to Prevent Smallpox,” The Critique, January 15, 1899, p. 289.
42.Cleveland Journal of Medicine, vol. VI, no. 1, 1901, p. 58.
43.William A. Guy, “Lectures on Public Health. Addressed to the Students of the Theological Department of King’s College,” Medical Times, vol. 23, January 4 to June 28, 1851, p. 283.
44.Roy Porter, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, Harper Collins, New York, 1997, p. 399.
45.Report of the Unveiling And Dedication of Indiana Monument at Andersonville, Georgia (National Cemetery), November 26 1908, pp. 73-102.

Australia – Health Freedom Outlawed – Health Fascism Winning – A Taste of the Future for Citizens of Other Nations

How low is the standard of politics, political life and journalism in Australia?  And why should that concern anyone who supports Health Freedom? What has it to do with Health Freedom ?

The Australian Vaccination Network [AVN] is a health freedom network in Australia which provides information about vaccinations which is not to the liking of Australian government health officials.

Meryl Dorey of AVN reports [see full post reproduced below] that not long after the AVN won a legal case against the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in the State Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia, the NSW state government passed legislation giving the HCCC power to investigate and cite nearly anyone they choose [and they started out choosing AVN]. The NSW state Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is considering now passing legislation which will make everyone in the community – especially those who practice and use natural therapies, liable to government sanctions just for discussing publicly issues which are not to  mainstream medicine’s liking.

The committee are seeking submissions about this. The closing date has been extended to February 7th, 2014. Ms Dorey states that whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your opinion will make a difference and that it would be helpful to submit a short 2-3 paragraphs.  Consult the terms of reference first set out in full below [and downloadable as a pdf file here].

And of course, if you don’t make submissions, there will be plenty of others who are happy to see health fascism and dumbing down succeed, who will make submissions.

Ms Dorey also reports that these recent developments in Australia were foreshadowed by the New South Wales state government in Australia permitting and encouraging hate tactics against AVN which include bullying, threats and intimidation.  Those tactics revealed the intent to suppress freedom of speech, inhibit the dissemination of information and thereby to disempower individual Australian citizens from considering issues for themselves to make up their own minds – a basic right in any democratic society.

That the quality of politics and standards in public life in Australia are low was highlighted a number of times this year.  Australia’s first woman Prime Minister Julia Gillard was told by a radio DJ her long-time male hairdresser partner “must be gay” for being male and a hairdresser. This was in the week after it was reported that a DJ behind last year’s prank call on the hospital of the UK’s mother-to-be Duchess of Cambridge that lead to a nurse’s suicide not only kept his job but won a top award for his stunt as well:  DJ is sacked for asking Australian PM Julia Gillard if her boyfriend is gay live on air… because he’s a hairdresser Matt Blake UK’s Daily Mail 14 June 2013. 

And Stephanie Banister 27 had to withdraw her candidacy for election to the Queensland Australia state Parliament after a TV interview went viral on the internet in August this year.  Aside from not knowing names of the candidates she was running against, Ms Banister thought believers in the Jewish religion followed Jesus, that she did not “oppose Islam as a country … “ but felt “their laws should not be welcome here in Australia“, confused the term “haram” [forbidden] with the Islamic religion’s holy book the Qur’an [Koran], and all whilst facing Court charges for allegedly taking part in an anti-Muslim vandalism campaign, in which it was alleged she stuck a sticker reading “Beware! Halal food funds terrorism” on Nestle products at her local Woolworths: ‘I don’t oppose Islam as a country’ – Australian politician withdraws from election after TV immigration gaffe interview goes viral Rob Williams The Independent Saturday 10 August 2013.

The case of Stephanie Banister shows how inured the Australian media are to such low standards of politics that the story was not particularly big news until after it was picked up on the internet and went viral.  With this kind of international reinforcement of the cliched stereotypical Australian, other Australians who want to shake that image of being descendents of convicts, cultural philistines and animal lovers [ie. sheep] have their work well and truly cut out for them.

The “must be gay” interview with Julia Gillard can be heard on YouTube:

Here in full are the Terms of Reference of the Parliament of New South Wales Committee on the Healthcare Complaints Commission Inquiry into the Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices:

TERMS OF REFERENCE

That the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission inquire into and report on possible measures to address the promotion of unscientific health-related information or practice s which may be detrimental to individual or public health.

The Inquiry will focus on individuals who are not recognised health practitioners, and organisations that are not recognised health service providers.

The Committee will have particular regard to :

(a) The publication and/or dissemination of false or misleading health-related information that may cause general community mistrust of, or anxiety toward, accepted medical practice;

(b) The publication and/or dissemination of information that encourages individuals or the public to unsafely ref use preventative health measures, medical treatments, or cures;

c) the promotion of health-related activities and/or provision of treatment that departs from accepted medical practice which may be harmful to individual or public health ;

(d) the adequacy of the powers of the Health Care Complaints Commission to investigate such organisations or individuals;

(e) the capacity, appropriateness, and effectiveness of the Health Care Complaints Commission to take enforcement action against such organisations or individuals ;

(f) any other related matter.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Here is Meryl Dorey’s article about this posted on AVN’s blog:

The HCCC, the Law and Morality

This entry was posted on December 23, 2013, in Vaccination. Bookmark the permalink.

by Meryl Dorey, AVN Public Officer

As many of you would know, both the AVN and I were under investigation by the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in 2009/2010. This investigation was brought about due to two complaints. One was filed by Mr Ken McLeod, a founding member of the hate group Stop the AVN (SAVN). The other complaint was filed by Toni and David McCaffery, parents of Dana McCaffery, a baby who tragically died in 2009.

The entire investigation process was most irregular (to say the least – you can read the complaints and the AVN’s responses by clicking this link) and it was clear from the start that the HCCC was acting outside of their jurisdiction. This was confirmed when our tiny, unfunded organisation prevailed against this government body with the deepest of deep pockets in the Supreme Court in 2011.

The decision of the court was that the HCCC did not have jurisdiction to either cite or warn against our group – a common-sense outcome which most people in the community who believe in freedom of speech applauded because, no matter what your opinion on the vaccination issue, the majority of thinking Australians would never want to silence debate or discussion on any matter of science.

Does the HCCC have the right to stifle political speech?

Recently, one of our members sent me an article from a scholarly publication called the Journal of Law and Medicine. In 2012, this journal published an article entitled, Civil Liberties and the Critics of Safe Vaccination: Australian Vaccination Network, Inc v Health Care Complaints Commission (2012) NSWSC 110. 

This was an article written by someone who wore his strongly pro-vaccination opinion on his sleeve for all to see. Despite this, his conclusion was very interesting and, in retrospect, ironic. What he advised the government not to do is exactly what they ended up doing. The government of NSW went ahead and introduced changes to legislation which specifically target the AVN and anyone who wishes to freely access or discuss both sides of scientific and medical issues.

Here is a quote from this article which I wanted to share with you. In my opinion, it speaks to the heart of the matter and why the actions of the current NSW government are dangerous and in direct opposition to the welfare and needs of the people of this State.

… Alternatively, Parliament could amend the Act to broaden the definition of “clinical” or “care” or to allow the HCCC to investigate complaints under s 7(1)(b) where there is a mere tendency for the conduct to affect a client. The court even suggested language for such a reform.

However, the current authors do not support legislative reform of the HCCC in the manner proposed above or by the court. In a free society, the views and opinions expressed by Ms Dorey and the AVN should be protected against government interference. Arguments against public immunisation programs are not simply debates over health policy; they are also political discussion. As such, the AVN’s website, and Ms Dorey’s statements, are to be protected from interference by Parliament or the Executive by the implied constitutional right of political communication.

Moreover, freedom of expression is an essential human right, protected under international and domestic human rights instruments, and should not be abridged except in the most limited of circumstances, such as a major pandemic. It would be inappropriate for a government agency to be given a standing mandate to censor debate or force an individual to include a statement on their website with which they do not agree. If the misleading information of the AVN is to be challenged, then it should be through the better dissemination of accurate information and the proper management of rare adverse events following immunisation.”

This is a common sense approach and one that the AVN has been suggesting for years. We have asked for an open and transparent debate in plain view of the public on the relative risks and benefits of vaccination. We have asked the government to remove the hate rhetoric and pressure currently being applied to this issue and bring the conversation back to the realm of scientific evidence and proof. We believe strongly that if the pro-vaccine lobby actually had the evidence on their side, they would be using it to do this. The fact is that both they and the government have permitted and, in some instances, encouraged the same tactics as the hate group, Stop the AVN – of name calling, threats and intimidation. This might indicate that they might be more concerned with suppressing information then they are with enabling the public to examine this issue and make up their own minds – such a basic right in any democratic society!

HCCC power-grab and your obligation to speak out

Not long after the AVN won their case in the highest court in the State, the government did exactly what this paper – written by legal experts who believe strongly in the benefits of vaccination and disagree with the information provided by the AVN – advised against. They passed legislation giving the HCCC an obscene amount of power to investigate and cite nearly anyone they choose. And of course, they chose us.

These powers were not enough for the HCCC however and the Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is now considering passing legislation which will make everyone in the community – especially those who practice and use natural therapies, liable to government sanctions for merely DISCUSSING any issues which are not to  mainstream medicine’s liking publicly.

The committee are seeking submissions from the public about this. The AVN has made a submission on behalf of our membership, but it would be incredibly helpful if everyone reading this would also write a short (2-3 paragraphs is enough and you can read the terms of reference at the Commission link above) submission of your own. The original closing date for this Inquiry was November 30th, 2013 but that has now been extended until February 7th, 2014. This is a rare opportunity to have your say on this vital issue and whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your opinion will make a difference.

What’s it got to do with you?

Why should you care about this issue? Why should even those who are opposed to the AVN give a damn about laws that are proposed to target our organisation?

Imagine the joy of some politicians or anyone else with an axe to grind who, in passing restrictive or unpopular legislation, can point to this precedent and say – nobody is allowed to criticise X-Y-Z policy because it is against the public interest and therefore, you will be gagged if you speak out against it.

This is the power the government has given to the HCCC. And you should be aware of this. And you should be afraid of allowing it to stand.

It is time for the silent majority – those Australians who support freedom and oppose invasive and oppressive government policies, to speak up by writing a submission – it need only be short – to the HCCC Committee.

Today, vaccination sceptics are the target. Tomorrow it may be the government targeting families that home school; or those who feed their children organic food.

We must all stand together for freedom and for our inalienable human rights. No government should ever be allowed to take them away for us.

Please note: Blog posts are opinion pieces which represent the views of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the AVN National Committee. The AVN is a forum, support and information organisation and outlet for discussion about the relative benefits and risks of vaccinations in particular – and medical procedures in general. We do not provide medical advice but believe that everyone has the opportunity and the obligation to do their own research before making decisions for their families. The information we provide (including your personal review of the references we cite) should be taken in conjunction with a range of other data, including that obtained from government, your health care provider and/or other medical source material to assist you in developing the knowledge required to make informed health choices.

Major Scientific “Breakthrough” – Autism Linked to Inflammation And The Bowel

Fox News in the US is breaking the “news” that autism, inflammation and children’s guts are linked: How parasitic worms and hot tubs may treat autism symptoms By Loren Grush Published December 12, 2013 Fox News.

And Pasadena News reports Autism may be linked to gastrointestinal issues, Caltech study says By Adam Poulisse, Pasadena Star-News 12/06/13.

This is apparently a “breakthrough”.  Really?  Is this a surprise? Hasn’t anyone else thought of that before?  Oh, Deer.  When Andrew Wakefield and a team of 12 other professional medical experts at the Royal Free Hospital in London, England published this news the establishment picked on Andrew Wakefield, pilloried him and destroyed his career. But:

• English Court Exonerates MMR/Autism Doctor – UK General Medical Given Sound Thrashing

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

• Wakefield’s Lancet Paper Vindicated – [Yet Again]

Could these new studies reflect legitimate science? They consider the reports of parents about their own children. Is that legitimate?  Oh, Deer, Deer, Deer.

Next they will be telling us its all caused by vaccines. ……. What’s that you say?  They already have?  Where?  Here?

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

All Studies Claiming No MMR Vaccine-Autism Link Invalid – According to Merck’s Vaccine Director, former US CDC Director & the US HRSA

MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

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

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Autism Caused by MMR Vaccine – Italian Government Tries To Avoid Paying Up – Just Like the UK

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV – Now Reported in English National Press

And what is the US Government and its Centers for Disease Control doing about this?

Yep.  Nothing.

Whooping Cough Vaccine Does Not Work – Says US FDA’s Research

CHS reports here on new research from the US Federal Drug Administration which the researchers claim confirms their hypothesis that whooping cough vaccine does not provide herd immunity and that the disease continues to be easily transmitted and flourishes.  CHS has previously reported that whooping cough [pertussis] vaccine does not work:

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

Vaccine Programmes Failing Worldwide – Homer Simpson and The World of Vaccines

A newly published paper of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America makes the claim that the vaccine fails to prevent individuals getting the bacterial infection and fails also to prevent the disease being transmitted to other individuals:  Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model  doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314688110 PNAS November 25, 2013.

The authors suggest the previous “whole cell” vaccine did work and that the acellular vaccine does not.  However, the “whole cell” vaccine caused large numbers of serious adverse reactions in children and had to be abandoned.

What is notable about this is no claim is being made that the failure to achieve herd immunity and prevent the circulation of the disease is because of under-vaccination – as is claimed in the UK with measles cases in South Wales this year.  Here it is being admitted that use of a vaccine does not create herd immunity.  

Despite these findings what is particularly bizarre is that instead of the authors suggesting research is needed into developing effective treatments for whooping cough, a basic childhood disease, and despite this new paper demonstrating 40 years of failure of vaccines in addressing whooping cough, they say we need improved vaccines.  Well, the US FDA and the drug industry have had 40 years to prove themselves and this paper, if it can be believed, suggests they have failed.  It is clearly time for a new improved and safer approach and especially one which does not kill or injure some children as vaccines do. 

The paper is by authors from the Division of Bacterial, Parasitic and Allergenic Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration [“FDA”], Bethesda, MD, 20892.  However, it also states “Edited by Rino Rappuoli, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Srl, Siena, Italy, and approved October 22, 2013 (received for review August 5, 2013)”.  This illustrates the close relationship the US drug safety regulator, the FDA, has with the drug industry when as the safety regulator responsible for approving [or supposedly not approving] drug industry products it should have an “arms length” relationship to help maintain its independence.

The abstract of the paper states:

Baboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than naïve animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. Vaccination with wP induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP-vaccinated animals. By comparison, previously infected animals were not colonized upon secondary infection. Although all vaccinated and previously infected animals had robust serum antibody responses, we found key differences in T-cell immunity. Previously infected animals and wP-vaccinated animals possess strong B. pertussis-specific T helper 17 (Th17) memory and Th1 memory, whereas aP vaccination induced a Th1/Th2 response instead. The observation that aP, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis and suggests that optimal control of pertussis will require the development of improved vaccines.”

Help Fight Oppressive Health Laws and Censorship of Public Debate in Australia – Sign Petition

Please help fight for freedom of health information in Australia by signing this petition

On Wednesday morning I signed an Avaaz petition Do not give the NSW HCCC powers of censorship over public and individuals opposing moves to silence criticism of the New South Wales health department. New South Wales is the most populace state of Australia. Within minutes my moderate and reasoned political statement which I had reposted to Facebook was being blocked, deemed “offensive or unsuitable”. It read:

It is simply the end of liberal democracy when government bureaucrats decide what the truth is and enforce a policy based on it. If people think their health is (a) marginal issue – that there are other matters of more political substance – they are in error. You will find there are not only bigger and bigger areas on which you cannot decide for yourself there are bigger and bigger areas in which the state is no longer accountable and can do anything it wants.”

Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network tells me that her Facebook posts are often disrupted in this way or with the enigmatic message “It looks like you were misusing this feature by going to fast. You’ve been blocked from using it.”

It is quite obvious that if anyone was spreading false information about health matters in New South Wales there would already be legal sanction: the problem is saying things the government does not like…(continue reading)

Governments Fake Flu and Measles Death Estimates

How could the UK have an official ‘flu deaths “estimate” which is 360 times higher than actual deaths? 

You know how it is when you hear we are all going to die horribly according to government or World Health Organisation “estimates” of a disease never previously considered a major public health problem? 

Well nowadays when it comes to ‘flu, if an airplane falls out of the sky over the UK and 300 people die, officially they all died from ‘flu according to the UK’s Department of Health.  Yep folks, not politburo propaganda speak of a communist dictatorship but the UK.

You might think – how can that be that true? How can we suddenly have a big problem – at least – according to “latest” government anonymous uncheckable “estimates“. [And by some “happy” coincidence it always seems to happen after the drug industry has some kind of drug claimed to treat the disease [if the drug trial data is to be believed]].  

The method of calculation of the UK’s official 12,000 annual deaths “estimate” was confirmed by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson in the British Medical Journal: [UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers.]  The true figures were no more than 33 Britons each year had died from flu over a 4 year period, despite the 12,000 annual officially “estimated” deaths claim. 

To get the estimate, if more people die than “estimated” the UK Department of Health use the excess death figure as their annual flu deaths figure.  So it does not matter what aircrash victims really die of – for official announcements in the press for the UK public – it was ‘flu.

So remember this when you hear claims like those of the US CDC that 36,000 Americans die annually from ‘flu or the UK Department of Health that 12,000 Britons die annually from ‘flu. 

More recently we noted on CHS that the US CDC claimed an estimate of 100 times more measles deaths than expected from published figures for another developed country [ie. UK] and were vastly higher than figures for reported cases from the World Health Organisation: [US Centers for Disease Control Caught Lying About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn]].

So what did Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum numerically challenged trolls do on a blog in a distant galaxy far far away and even further removed from reality?  First they claimed the difference was because of a 3 year difference in the figures: the US CDC figures were on a web page last reviewed in 2009 whereas the WHO figures were from 2012.

Hang on there guys.  A huge difference is because in 3 years the figures changed dramatically by orders of magnitude?

Well in fact no.  Additionally it seems Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls lied about the basis of their claim to a 3 year difference.  Well, Dr Goldacre does encourage the Forum’s trolls by saying pretty much anything goes [albeit he writes he “draws the line at kidnapping“]. 

The CDC web page [Overview of Measles Disease] provides no basis for a three year difference.  The US CDC webpage had been updated only one month earlier. 

Worse still, it looks like the claim to a three year difference was clearly and knowingly false when made. Whilst the US CDC webpage stated it was last reviewed in 2009 it stated clearly it had been updated on 12 September 2013:

Page last reviewed: August 31, 2009
Page last updated: September 12, 2013″

And that’s numberwang!

Dr Ben Goldacre’s whingeing BadScience Forum trolls headed up by James, a former unemployed barman and administrator [blogging as jdc325] also had some gripe about the figure of 1 in 25,000 as provided by the Department of Health for measles mortality rates.  So here again just for the record is the exact quote as provided by the UK Department of Health in a FOIA response:

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

Here is the deal.  Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls jump up and down like excited three year olds as if this is all CHS’ fault. But what is really going on which they completely ignore is CHS writes an article about how government figures are faked, used to mislead and cannot be trusted, and with hard evidence demonstrating that: US Centers for Disease Control Caught Lying About Disease [Yet Again – Yawn].  The article includes an exact quote from the UK Department of Health.  Dr Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls do not agree with the exactly quoted figure from the UK Department of Health which they claim on their reckoning incorrect [kind of the point of the CHS article].  Having then gone off and done “research” at the University of Google [where they seem to have received their qualifications] they assert CHS should have done that too.  They do not at any time criticise the UK Department of Health for putting out incorrect information.

LOL.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls do this kind of thing routinely.  They claimed previously that a news report should not have been published because it reported and quoted a doctor in the national leading Children’s hospital in Pakistan [which was also part of the national science institute for the country] reporting half the children from a large area of Pakistan who contracted measles had been vaccinated. 

Again, they did their University of Google research and claimed the story should not have been reported whereas it was quoting the doctor from this leading child health institution. Apparently for a news site to report that particular item of news was, according to the BadScience troll-spammers, “cherry-picking”. According to them that was because the reporter did not carry out an extensive review of all medical journal papers published on the topic.  Ha!

Can You Trust Known-to-be Corrupt Governments When They Also Push Useless Flu Vaccines – US Talk Radio Dr Michael Savage On The Savage Nation January 11, 2013

An excellent perspective on the webs of corruption in government and health industry to push useless pharmaceuticals and use health issues to try to exercise control over a population.

Dr. Michael Savage on The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013 on the dangers of and government lies involved with flu vaccines.

If you agree governments have lied about so much else, should you trust them with medical advice to take a ‘flu shot?

Why have US nurses rejected ‘flu vaccines and why do US labor unions oppose mandatory ‘flu shots?

Show starts 8 minutes into the mp3 recording which you can download here:

mp3 download – The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013

Or YouTube – The Savage Nation US talk radio January 11, 2013

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

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

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

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

So how reliable are these figures?

US CDC Figures:

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

Overview of Measles Disease

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

Compare World Health Organisation [WHO] Figures:

Total 2012 worldwide reported measles cases = 226,722.

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

Compare Measles Case Fatality Rates England 1960:

The UK Department of Health gave out these figures:

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

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

Compare Case Fatality Rates England 1993-2008:

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

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

…….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Rulings Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link – But US Forbes Magazine’s “Scientist” Blogger Emily “Daisy May Fatty-Pants” Willingham Disagrees

You may decide to never ever trust anything written in the US Forbes magazine on anything [and not just autism] after reading this.

Emily Willingham writes a blog for Forbes magazine in the US claiming to be authoritative about “how science filters to consumers and how consumers make decisions about science“.  [Although how she claims to do that without qualifications or research to back up her claims to expertise in the area is another matter.]

Emily [or “Daisy May Fatty-Pants” as she called herself when starting out as a junior blogger in the little league], got pretty hot under the collar about an article in the Whiteout press entitled “Courts quietly confirm vaccines cause autism”.

So Emily “Fatty-Pants” wrote a piece for her Forbes blog “Court Rulings Don’t Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link” [9th September 2013].  In that blog post Emily makes claims which are untrue.  So CHS is setting the record straight to help Emily understand that writing biased blogs which mislead consumers about “science” whilst claiming to do the reverse is something of a “no-no“.

Forbes magazine has a track record of backing writers who claim vaccines simply do not and cannot cause autistic conditions whilst at the same time such writers will typically claim what causes them is a mystery [which is a wholly contradictory and illogical position to take].  If you claim not to know what causes autistic conditions then you might have some difficulty claiming you do know vaccines never do.

We only have to take one paragraph of Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham’s blog to show it makes numerous claims which are not true – so misleading the consumers she is claiming to be putting right on the facts about science:

The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article is the 2012 finding of a local Italian court that a child was diagnosed with autism a year after receiving an MMR. The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper and the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari, it seems, has written a book on how vaccines cause autism and peddles an autism “cure” that he’s devised.”

If we dealt with all the false claims in her entire Forbes blog this would be an extremely long CHS article.  The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article was not the Italian case but two US cases.  

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Omitted Articles Centerpieces – Two US Court Cases – Children Awarded US$ Millions

The Whiteout Press story centered on two US Court decisions where two US children who developed autistic conditions after receiving MMR vaccines were awarded millions of US dollars in compensation. So Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham’s consumer readers were very seriously misled.

The Whiteout Press centerpiece was not the claimed Italian Court decision about the little Italian boy Valentino Bocca who developed autism after receiving the same MMR vaccine given to children in the USA – Merck’s MMR II.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” False Claim – Italian Court “Relied Heavily” on Biased Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Physician

Emily “Fatty-Pants” made another completely untrue claim that “[t]he court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on ….. the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari …“.

The Court appointed its own independent expert to write an independent report for the Court.  The Court relied on the report of its own independent expert.  This was not an expert hired by Valentino Bocca’s attorney.  So again, Emily “Fatty-Pants” seriously misled her consumer readers at Forbes magazine on issues of science.

The Court appointed independent expert was also not anyone called “Massimo Montinari” or anything even close.  So again Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham seriously misled her consumer readers at Forbes magazine on issues of science.

What Did The Court Appointed Independent Expert Rely On?

In a wide-ranging review of the literature the independent expert cited a large number of medico-scientific papers and publications.  These included publications from the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GAVCS), World Health Organization, the US Institute of Medicine [2001 and 2004], Brent Taylor, Fombonne, Madsen and many more too numerous to list here.

So yet again Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham demonstrates how she very seriously misled her consumer readers on their decisions about science and bases her misinformation on invention from anonymously published blogs.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” False Claim – The Court Relied Heavily on Wakefield’s MMR Lancet Paper

Another outright falsehood by Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham was the claim “The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper“.  That is purely and simply invention which Emily “Fatty-Pants” Willingham appears to have quoted from a blog she linked to which is published anonymously.  Bit of a Big Oops there for Emily “Fatty-Pants”.

The Italian Court did not rely on the Wakefield paper “heavily” or at all.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Failed to Tell Her Consumer Readers The Italian Government Did Not Dispute Merck’s MMR II Vaccine Caused The Child’s Autism

Emily “Fatty-Pants” misled her consumer readers in making their decisions on issues of science in that the evidence in the Valentino Bocca case was sufficiently clear that the Italian Health Ministry did not contest that the MMR vaccine had caused little Valentino Bocca’s autism.  They instead contested his entitlement to compensation because the vaccination was not compulsory [but of course heavily promoted to Italian parents to make them feel guilty if they did not vaccinate their child].

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Did Not Even Read the News Article She Criticised on Forbes

Worse is whilst Emily “Fatty-Pants” linked to a blog she relied on as her source Emily “Fatty-Pants” failed completely to link to the news story she was writing about.  She did link to a different blog which did not carry the original Whiteout Press article but a reblogged different and clearly edited version.

And yet even worse still for Emily “Fatty-Pants” is that it seems she did not even read the article at all.  She cited it by an incorrect title – omitting the word “quietly“.  That is what the blog she cited as her source did – used that incorrect title – omitting the word “quietly“.  So it looks very much like Emily “Fatty-Pants” just read the anonymous blog she used as her source and not the article she claimed to criticise at all.

The blog Emily “Fatty-Pants” cited, SkepticalRaptor is one of the dime-a-dozen negative “skeptic” attack blogs pumping out misinformation about health issues, contributing nothing of value to human knowledge, whilst claiming things like “hunting pseudoscience in the internet jungle“.  And like a bird-of-a-feather Emily “Fatty-Pants” claims to write about “how science filters to consumers and how consumers make decisions about science” with no proper sources to back it up – but plenty of invention and hot air.

And it gets worse.

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Missed Mentioning Another of the Article’s Centerpieces

A centerpiece was also this – which Emily failed to mention at all – and which led directly to the article being published:

It was a regular reader named Kathleen that brought this ongoing story to our attention here at Whiteout Press. When asked what her connection to the vaccine-autism battle was, the young reader replied, “I just researched it for a school project a while back and then I stayed on top of it, until I couldn’t stand it anymore. I’m not a parent, nor do I belong to any organization – a mere outside observer.”

This reader isn’t alone. The news that vaccines cause autism has spread across the US despite a coordinated media black-out. She takes her concerns one step further explaining, “All I want is to see this information where the public can access it. I’ve looked everywhere, and no one gives this dire Wakefield situation even ONE small mention.” She goes on to give us another motivation for her activism, “In Washington State, where I’m from, vaccines have become mandatory for school children, which is very frightening!”

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Calls Wakefield’s Paper Fraudulent But Fails to Mention it is Just An Allegation And Is Being Contested in the Texas State Court

Emily “Fatty-Pants” use of “fraudulent” is subject to defamation proceedings in the Texas State Court against the British Medical Journal.  She failed to mention that at all which is a bit of an oversight and is misleading to your consumer readers when making their decisions about science.  If any of them get into trouble with the law later for repeating that can they sue Emily for misleading them whilst claiming to be an authority on science and how consumers made decisions about science?

We thought we ought to mention that “fraudulent” appears to be an allegation made by the BMJ which may have been made without looking too carefully at the facts first.  The BMJ’s Texas “Anti-SLAPP” statute counter suit, predicted by the blogosphere to put an end to the case instantly as baseless, appears to have vanished and been dropped by the BMJ.  That seems to add some credence to the possibility that “fraudulent” is a less than appropriate description.  Maybe Emily you might care to mention that as a matter of accuracy?  But then it is Forbes magazine you write for and if we go by your blog then, who knows, maybe accuracy is not Forbes strong suit?

Emily “Fatty-Pants” Defames An Italian Doctor Too

Defamation seems to be a bit habit forming for Emily.  It appears there is an Italian doctor Massimo Montinari who has helped hundreds of children and families with treatments which have been working for many doctors in the US, UK and around the world: Vaccine and autism, alarm or psychosis? October 22, 2012 L’Unità

‘Good’ 5-in-1 vaccine kills 5 times more kids than anything else – “The unfortunate story of 37 deaths from a ‘good vaccine'”

CHS’ ED’S NOTE:  Infant deaths in India associated with this 5-in-1 vaccine [DPT, hepatitis B, H influenza b] are five times greater than the all-cause mortality rate.

Unlike the American Academy of Pediatricians, the British Medical Association and others like them who defend vaccines in general come what may against protestations of their customers – parents on behalf of their vaccine injured children – the Indian Academy of Pediatricians is asking embarrassing questions about this vaccine.  You can read them in this article.

Following article is By Jacob Puliyel via Indo-Asian News Service

The unfortunate story of 37 deaths from a ‘good vaccine’

Dr Puliyel is Head of Pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital, Delhi. He is a member of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on immunization and has published extensively on vaccines.  See http://jacob.puliyel.com

On October 11, two children died in Kashmir after receiving the Pentavalent vaccine, taking to six the total deaths there in one week and to eight the deaths over the last three weeks. According to reports appearing in local newspapers, the deaths were said to be an allergic reaction to the vaccine. These deaths come on the heels of a press release from the health ministry on October 10 that a committee that looked into the 15 deaths in Kerala after vaccinations has said they were not caused by the vaccine but were coincidental deaths. The press release also announced that the Pentavalent vaccine is to be rolled out nationwide. A week earlier, another ministry spokesperson had admitted there had been 29 deaths all over the country following the vaccine. The figure has now ballooned to 37.

The 29 deaths had happened when 82 lakh doses have been administered (and about 27 lakh children have been immunized). This works out to more than one death per 100,000 vaccinated and that 300 children would die each year from the vaccine when the birth cohort is vaccinated. It must be borne in mind that the adverse events are picked up by a system of passive surveillance which according to the US FDA picks up only a tenth of the real number of adverse events.

Co-morbidity as cause of death

It has been suggested that some of the deaths in Kerala had happened in children with an underlying heart disease. Many children who died in Sri Lanka after receiving the same vaccine also had a similar heart condition. Had they not been vaccinated, the death rate from the vaccine would have been less.

However this is no practical proposition. Vaccinations are given in distant rural areas by health workers who are barely literate. The detection of heart murmurs by auscultation is a skill that many pediatricians have to hone over many years of training. In the absence of such training for all vaccinators, can we justify continuation of the vaccination programme?

In Sri Lanka vaccination was stopped after five deaths. Under pressure from international organizations the programme was restarted. After that, there have been 12 more deaths. Dr. Yogesh Jain, who has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, has sought the court’s oversight to prevent such pressures from influencing decision-making in India.

The deaths from vaccine must be seen in the context of hard data from the best study on Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b bacteria) in the country called the Minz study which suggested that some 175 children die from Hib meningitis in the birth cohort over five years and perhaps an equal number from Hib pneumonia. These figures from this large, meticulous community based study done in a population of 600,000 with house visits every two weeks and conducted over two years are clearly inconvenient. This is a case of the cure (vaccine deaths) being worse than the disease. The government seldom quotes the Minz study data, but relies instead on estimates that are not based on empirical evidence.

Central team declares vaccine safe in Kashmir

With practiced efficiency, after the eight deaths in Kashmir, a central team under Dr. N.K. Arora, who works for Inclen Trust, went to the state, visited the hospital and the homes of the dead children and issued a press release that there was no conclusive evidence that the deaths were due to the vaccine. Septicemia, pneumonia and meningitis were blamed, without explaining how children who were completely asymptomatic and well enough to be given routine preventive vaccination by healthcare personnel, could die of septicemia or pneumonia immediately afterwards. In other words, how could children gasping for breath with pneumonia or in shock due to septicemia and about to die in the next few hours be given Pentavalent vaccine by the healthcare personnel?

To be sure that the vaccine is the cause of a reaction, the same reaction must recur in the same person if he/she is given the same vaccine a second time. As this type of re-challenge is impossible when the reaction results in death, the expert team declares that “causative relation to immunization cannot be established with certainty”. It is nearly as if we are saying we will not believe the vaccine is “causative related” unless one child is resuscitated from the dead and then re-challenged to see if he will die a second time!

We need to use the same strict criteria and apply the same burden of proof when we say the deaths are due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) or due to co-morbidity or due to preexisting septicemia or pneumonia. This we do not do.

Posers from the Indian Academy of Pediatrics

The Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) recently held a meeting to look into the deaths and posed the following questions to the health ministry:

* As the peak incidence of SIDS occurs in early infancy, a close temporal relationship between this and receiving Pentavalent vaccine is expected by simple chance and, therefore, it may not be right to attribute the deaths in Kerala to SIDS.

* The deaths attributed to SIDS in Kerala are five times greater than the all-cause mortality rate in the state. What is the possible explanation for this spurt of deaths after introduction of Pentavalent vaccine?

* The peak age of SIDS is the third month (corresponding to the second dose), but the majority of deaths were reported after the first dose.

* The co-morbid conditions resulting in death following vaccination have not been clarified.

* Why the vaccine is being given to sick children is not explained.

* Underlying congenital heart diseases used to explain away the deaths were not serious enough to cause cardiac failure and death.

* Some children had high fever and excessive crying; some had convulsions after vaccination which can definitely be attributed to adverse events following immunization.

* Autopsies suggested hypersensitivity and shock – how should that be interpreted? Does it mean hypersensitivity to the vaccine?

The IAP discussed these with Dr. Ajay Khera, deputy commissioner (Maternal and Child Health) at the health ministry, who was unable to give any clarifications saying the final report of the enquiry committee on the deaths was awaited.

Yet an IAP press release after the meeting endorsed the vaccine in spite of the unanswered questions!

If answers to these straightforward questions are not known to the health ministry, how can we push the vaccine in the rest of the country?

We need to understand that the mandate of the health services and doctors is to protect the lives of children and not to promote vaccines of doubtful utility and safety.

(10.10.2013 – Jacob Puliyel is Head of Pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital, Delhi. He is a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on immunization and has published extensively on vaccines. He can be reached at puliyel@gmail.com)

Silent Epidemic – New Documentary Film About Diseases Caused by Vaccines – Production By US Broadcaster Gary Null

This new Gary Null documentary – view it below – is only available for viewing online on Youtube for a limited time.  [Gary Null broadcasts on PRN and on WBAI].

In the developed world we have the sickest generations of children – with many new chronic disorders and the highest levels of vaccinations and vaccines ever.

This is not coincidence.  Vaccines affect the normal functioning of your and your child’s immune system and cause chronic disorders in a significant proportion of the population.  The medical profession remain in denial despite 98 in 100 adverse drug reactions going unreported: “Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.

And in Century 21 we do not have effective treatments for the most basic of childhood illnesses.  Millions in the third world die despite the vaccination programmes – they get disease because they do not have clean drinking water, adequate sanitation or diet and we give them vaccines instead.

UPDATE SUNDAY 6TH OCTOBER 2013:  THE FULL 1 HOUR 48 MINUTE DOCUMENTARY IS NOW ONLY FOR PRIVATE VIEWING ON YOUTUBE BUT IT HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING 34 MINUTE PREVIEW VERSION:

—–

THE FULL 1 HOUR 38 MINUTE DOCUMENTARY IS LINKED TO HERE IN CASE IT GOES BACK UP ON YOUTUBE:

—–

Political Manipulation + Unneeded Vaccines = Seriously Harmed Children & No Legal Protection – Simple Video Explains

A new short video [5 mins] from the US Canary Party shows simply how vaccine manufacturers rushed to bring out new vaccines after political manipulation created a system which insulate them from the consequence of harm to children and families and the people end up paying in all ways:

______________

7 Deaths In Bill Gates Foundation Funded HPV Vaccine Trials – Trials Were “Child Abuse” Says Parliamentary Panel – India, The Hindu

When reading the following ask yourself why the European and US news media do not report these issues.  They exist worldwide.  Which political systems are more corrupt: the developed west or the emerging nations?

Panel raps government over clinical trials, lapses Rupali Mukherjee, Times of India Aug 31, 2013

MUMBAI: In a further indication of the rot in the country’s healthcare system, a parliamentary panel has rapped the government for gross irregularities in drug trials, under-reporting and lapses in monitoring serious adverse events and lethargy in safeguarding health, in studies on cervical cancer prevention vaccine by a US-based non-governmental agency. Charging the government for inaction, the parliamentary committee on health says in a report that the issue has been diluted with no accountability fixed on erring officials for serious violations committed in the studies which led to the death of hapless tribal children three years back.”

A Businessworld [India] report included the following quote from the Parliamentary committee report:

Cervical Cancer Clinical Trials Violated Norms: Panel – Businessworld 30 Aug, 2013

Parliamentary panel seeks action against wrong-doers and wants government to tighten the regulatory vigil further

“Its sole aim (the conduct of trials) has been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers who would have reaped windfall profits had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the UIP (universal immunisation programme) of the Country”, the panel noted, calling it “a serious breach of trust by any entity” as the project involved life and safety of girl children and adolescents who were mostly unaware of the implications of vaccination.

The following report appeared today in The Hindu:

It’s a PATH of violations, all the way to vaccine trials: House panel – By Aarti Dhar – The Hindu 2nd September 2013

Committee questions roles of ICMR, Drug Controller in the “intriguing” 2010 episode

Accusing the international organisation PATH (Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health) of exploiting with impunity the loopholes in the system during a trial of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, a parliamentary panel has also questioned the roles of the Indian Council of Medical Research and the Drug Controller-General of India in the entire episode.

The issue pertains to trials conducted by two U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies through PATH on tribal school girls in Khammam district in Andhra Pradesh and Vadodara in Gujarat in 2010. The trials were stopped only after the matter received media attention following the death of seven girls.

In its report on “Alleged Irregularities in the Conduct of Studies using HPV Vaccines by PATH in India” presented to Parliament, the committee has said ICMR representatives apparently acted at the behest of PATH in promoting the interests of the vaccine manufacturers, and recommended that the Health Ministry review the activities of the functionaries of the Council involved in the PATH project

As for the DCGI, the approvals of clinical trials, marketing approval and import licences by the agency “appear to be irregular” and its role “in this entire matter should also be inquired into.”

The Department of Health Research/ICMR “have completely failed to perform their mandated role and responsibility as the apex body for medical research in the country. Rather, in their over-enthusiasm to act as a willing facilitator of the machinations of PATH, they have even transgressed into the domain of other agencies which deserves the strongest condemnation and strictest action against them.”

The committee failed to understand why the ICMR “took so much interest and initiative in this project when the safety, efficacy and introduction of vaccines in India are handled by the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.”

How could the ICMR commit itself to supporting “the use of the HPV vaccine” in an MoU signed in 2007, even before it was approved for use in the country, which actually happened in 2008? The committee also questioned the ICMR’s decision to commit itself to promoting the drug for inclusion in the Universal Immunisation Programme before any independent study on its utility and rationale of inclusion in the UIP was undertaken.

Describing the entire matter as “very intriguing and fishy,” the committee said the choice of countries and population groups (India, Vietnam, Uganda and Peru); the monopolistic nature, at that point of time, of the product being pushed; the unlimited market potential and opportunities in the universal immunisation programmes of the respective countries “are all pointers to a well-planned scheme to commercially exploit a situation.”

Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunisation programme of the countries concerned, windfall profits would have been generated for the manufacturer(s) by way of automatic sale, the committee said. It asked the government to take up the matter with these countries through diplomatic channels.

Flouting ethics

Drawing attention to gross violation of ethics during the conduct of trials, the committee members said that in Andhra Pradesh out of 9,543 consent forms, 1,948 had thumb impressions, while hostel wardens signed 2,763 others. In Gujarat, out of 6,217 forms, 3,944 had thumb impressions. The data revealed that a very large number of parents/guardians were illiterate and could not even write in their local language, Telugu or Gujarati.

It was shocking to find from one of the reports that out of 100 consent forms for Andhra Pradesh, project signatures of witnesses were missing in 69 forms. In many forms there were no dates. One particular person had signed seven forms. In fact, the legality of the State government directing headmasters of all private/government/ashram/schools to sign the consent forms on behalf of parents/guardians was highly questionable. The absence of photographs of parents/guardians/wardens on consent forms and of signatures of investigators, the fact that signatures of parents/guardians did not match with their names; and the date of vaccination being much earlier than the date of signature of parents/guardian in the consent forms spoke of grave irregularities, the report said.

The committee said PATH should be made accountable and the government should take appropriate steps in the matter, including legal action against it for breach of laws of the land and possible violations of laws of the country of its origin.

Describing this act of the PATH as a clear-cut violation of human rights and case of child abuse, the Committee has recommended that the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Protection of Children Rights take up this matter. The National Commission for Women should also take suo motu cognisance of this case as all the poor and hapless subjects were female.

The Health Ministry should report the violations indulged in by PATH to the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Children’s Fund so as to ensure that appropriate remedial action was initiated worldwide, the committee said.

All Studies Claiming No MMR Vaccine-Autism Link Invalid – According to Merck’s Vaccine Director, former US CDC Director & the US HRSA

A recent article in the Whiteout Press appears to have reignited the debate about vaccines causing autism and has now been reported  by Fox News in Austin Texas.  But what both appear to overlook is the direct evidence from leading US health agencies and health officials which discredits all the prior evidence they have used and which is still being used on the internet and in the media to claim there is no autism-MMR vaccine link.  [Full quotes and links below].

Fox News in Austin Texas reported yesterday on the Whiteout Press article: Article stirs autism and vaccine debate Aug 15, 2013 By Noelle Newton KTBC Fox 7 Austin Texas USA.  And here is the Whiteout Press article:  “Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism” 27th July 2013.

Here is the problem for health officials now.  The US Heath Resources Services Agency and vaccine maker Merck’s vaccine division Director Julie Gerberding when heading up the US Centers for Disease Control as its Director both separately confirmed on and to national broadcast US news channels back in 2008 that any vaccine can cause an autistic condition [full quotes and sources below]. 

That confirmation immediately made completely invalid and useless all the “tobacco-science” statistical studies health officials had used to claim there was no connection between a child developing autism from the MMR vaccine.

Because researchers claimed to find no difference they assumed no link.  But they found no link because all those studies were intentionally carried out on the basis that only the MMR vaccine was a cause of autism and not all vaccines.

So now all those previous studies compared kids with autism who had MMR vaccine against kids with autism who had other vaccines and got autism from the other vaccines.  If you go shopping and compare all the candy in one store with all the candy all other stores all you will find is that its all candy.  Some might be Hersheys and some not.  But it is still candy.  Autistic conditions are like candy just in the sense there are all kinds and flavors but in a spectrum.  Of course that is where the similarity ends because the spectrum of autistic conditions is from the most debilitating to the least.  There is nothing sweet or attractive about that.

And if you want evidence of this then watch the British rate of childhood autism diagnoses increase with each change in the vaccine schedule.  This is a chart from a peer reviewed paper by US authors and researchers which only looked at the MMR vaccine and not the other vaccines. 

You can see the MMR vaccination rate is stable throughout [see nearly horizontal black line near top of the chart] but the autism risk jumps up [see red line on the chart].  Here at CHS we have added the notes showing when the changes to the British vaccine schedule took place.  With each change the risk of an autism diagnosis for children increased substantially:

CLICK GRAPH – OPENS LARGER ONE IN NEW WINDOW

The graph above is adapted from a 2001British Medical Journal paper by Jick et al: Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis” BMJ 2001; 322 : 460 – 463 24 February.

The admissions by the US CDC Director Julie Gerberding and those by the US HRSA were not given voluntarily.  They only confirmed the true position when put under pressure by the media in 2008 when the Hannah Poling story broke about the US Court compensating a little girl who became autistic after getting NINE vaccines ALL ON THE SAME DAY.

But everyone overlooks that and the same old junk studies are being quoted all over the media and internet as evidence there is no link when they are completely useless as evidence for that proposition.

And then some studies looked for higher autism rates in the MMR vaccinated-autism kids. That is like looking to see whether under the wrapper of one brand like Hershey’s there is chocolate candy and under the wrappers of other brands like M&M’s it is chocolate candy or something of a different flavor or sweeter or less sweet.

The authors of the study into the British autism increase even admit the graph [see above] shows there must be environmental factors other than the MMR involved in the increases claiming [emphasis added]:-

“... the data provide evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of autism over time. The explanation for the marked increase in risk of the diagnosis of autism in the past decade remains uncertain. ….. The increase ….. could be due to …… environmental factors not yet identified.”

The data show when correlated with major changes in the UK childhood vaccination programme the most likely “environmental factors not yet identified” are the vaccines.  With each major change to the UK’s childhood vaccination programme cases of childhood autism increased substantially.

This is how the risk of a diagnosis increased [this is just childhood autism diagnoses – Aspergers is not included – note that 70% of UK ASDs are Aspergers]:

• it first increased by 3 times with the introduction of the MMR vaccine in October 1988 [from between 1 to 4 in 10,000 it increased to 12 in 10,000];

• then the increased risk became 5 times greater [to 20 in 10,000 – this was with MMR but now with the addition of the accelerated DTP programme: : [Persistence of antibody after accelerated immunisation with diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine: 1489 BMJ VOLUME 302 22 JUNE 1991]];

• then the increased risk was eight-fold [to 29 in 10,000 – this was MMR + accelerated DTP + HiB (Haemophilus Influenzae b) vaccine – three doses at 2, 3 and 4  months: Routine Hib Vaccine: 438 BMJ VOLUME 305 22 AUGUST 1992, Hib immunisation catch up programme in North East Thames: R17 Communicable Disease Report Vol 4 Review Number 2 4 February 1994]

As anyone can see from this, the studies needed to be done are comparing the total health of vaccinated kids with never vaccinated kids.   But the US CDC will never do them because never vaccinated kids are much healthier so showing the vaccine programmes pursued by the US CDC for decades do more harm than good.  The argument used to claim the studies cannot be done is junk – they claim it is unethical to prove a vaccine is safe to use or dangerous so we cannot do the studies.  This is on the basis it is unethical not to vaccinate a few kids to make sure millions upon millions of kids will be safe.  It cannot be unethical if done with consent and where the comparatively few kids who are not vaccinated can still be vaccinated after the studies are over. Surely, if “herd immunity” worked those few would still be protected by it?

And of course it is unethical to give any drug of unproven safety to any child.

Here is what the US HRSA told CBS news reporter Sharyl Attkisson back in 2008 about children compensated for injuries caused by a vaccine – any vaccine – not simply the MMR vaccine:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]

So according to the HRSA vaccines cause encephalopathies [general brain injuries] which result in autism and/or seizures in children.

Here is what US CDC Director Julie Gerberding said on national US broadcast TV back in 2008:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.“

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30   ET

You can even watch Gerberding saying it to Dr Sanjay Gupta of CNN here on YouTube.  If you watch the video [below on this page] you will then realise Dr Julie Gerberding is personally knowingly responsible for the biggest longest running programme of child abuse in the history of the planet – knowingly causing autism in hundreds of thousands of US children using vaccines [currently around 1 in 50 US kids depending on State]- and when she was in a position to stop it dead.  She then left the CDC and continued where she left off to join vaccine maker Merck as its vaccines division Director.  The CDC was officially castigated by the US Senate in an official report “CDC Off Center” as an agency which “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“  but which was managing to spend US$11 billion in US tax dollars every year not doing what even its name says it is supposed to – Center for Disease Control.

********** – **********

FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO READ IT HERE IS OUR PREVIOUS ARTICLE REPORTING THE FULL ISSUE

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

Posted on June 30, 2010 by ChildHealthSafety

A New Scientist article 29 June 2010 by Jim Giles states:-

We still do not know what causes autism.“

Desperate measures: The lure of an autism cure

That is not correct. Here we set out four ways autistic conditions are caused and confirmed by statements from the current President of pharmaceutical giant Merck’s Vaccines Division, by US Government agencies, by the US Federal Court and in formally published academic journal papers.

If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” [Text added 10 April 2011]

The first known cause of autism was rubella virus. So not only is New Scientist an unreliable source of information, this cause of autism has been known since the 1960s. And rubella virus is one of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine.

… rubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism.“  Walter A. Orenstein, M.D. US as Assistant Surgeon General, Director National Immunization Program in a letter to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer 15 February 2002.

rubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism.” US Center for Disease Control.
“FAQs (frequently asked questions) about MMR Vaccine & Autism”  [ED 8/Apr/12: This is the web archive of the CDC page – you will need to search in or scroll down the page to see the text.  As papers cited on the original page by the CDC as evidence for no link with the vaccine have been steadily discredited it seems the CDC has decided to remove the page and it seems someone has been deleting the archived versions of the page from the web archive too].

rubella can cause autism” The Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

Journal references:

Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1, 33-47 (1971).

Chess S. Follow-up report on autism in congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977;7:69 –81

Ziring PR. Congenital rubella: the teenage years. Pediatr Ann. 1997;6: 762–770

People who are pre-disposed to have a mitochondrial dysfunction can develop autistic conditions following vaccination.  The current President of Merck’s Vaccines Division, Julie Gerberding confirmed to CBS News when she was Director of the US Centres for Disease Control that:

….. if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.“

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30   ET

Mitochondrial dysfunction is claimed to be “rare” but is not.  It can apply to a minimum of 20% of cases.

And this was said when Gerberding was then head of the US Centres for Disease Control – budget US$11 billion.  It followed from  award winning author and journalist David Kirby breaking the story of the Hannah Poling case, secretly settled by the US Government.  It was after this story broke that it started to be acknowledged that autism has an “environmental” cause and is not solely an “internal” condition [ie not determined solely by genetics]: AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

[Gerberding went from the US agency charged with promoting vaccines [CDC] directly to become vaccine maker Merck’s Director of Vaccines Division: Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck Vaccines – 21 Dec 2009 – Merck & Co., Inc.

Autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination.  The US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) confirmed to CBS News that of 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in secret settlements:-

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” [PDF Download – Text of email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]

CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008

Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008

Measles and mumps are two of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine. Exposure to live measles or mumps viruses can cause encephalitis:-

measles and mumps can cause significant disability, including encephalitis“

The Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

So there is direct evidence that live measles, mumps or rubella viruses separately can cause encephalitis leading to autism.

More troubling is that this has been known for a long time.  So the risks of giving very young children a vaccine containing three live viruses all at once were known. These two World Health Organisation papers published nearly 40 years ago set out the hazards:

Virus-associated immunopathology : animal models and implications for human disease”:

1. Effects of viruses on the immune system, immune-complex diseases, and antibody-mediated immunologic injury Bulletin of The World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 257-264.

2. Cell-mediated immunity, autoimmune diseases, genetics, and implications for clinical research Bulletin of the World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 265-274.

Autistic conditions can result from acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following MMR vaccination as held by the US Federal Court in the case of Bailey Banks.  In his conclusion, US Federal Court Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

[Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)].

And what does not cause autism?

Autism is not “caused” by “genes”

Dr Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. the 16th and current Director of the US$30.5 billion budget National Institutes of Health [nominated by President Obama: NIH News Release 17th August 2009 ] stated in evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006 when Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute:

Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons.“

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006

Collins controls the US $30.5 billion annual medical research budget and is a leading medical doctor and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project.

Autistic conditions affect 1 in 100 US children.  They affect 1 in 64 British children [1 in 40 are boys] according to a Cambridge University study.

ESTIMATING AUTISM SPECTRUM PREVALENCE IN THE POPULATION: A SCHOOL BASED STUDY FROM THE UK

Conclusions: The prevalence estimate of known cases of ASC, using different methods of ascertainment converges around 1%. The ratio of known to unknown cases means that for every three known cases there are another two unknown cases. This has implications for planning diagnostic, social and health services.”

HPV Vaccine Destroys Australian Child’s Ovaries – Manufacturer Didn’t Check

Short link to this page http://wp.me/pfSi7-1Vb

Gardasil Destroys Girl’s Ovaries: Research on Ovaries Never Considered

The BMJ has published the case report of a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl whose womanhood appears to have been stolen by Gardasil vaccinations. She has been thrust into full-fledged menopause, her ovaries irrevocably shut down, before becoming a woman.

The authors, Deirdre Therese Little and Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward¹, draw direct attention to the fact that, though the girl has been thoroughly examined and tested, there is no known explanation other than the series of three Gardasil vaccinations she had. 

[1] Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination, BMJ Reports 2012, Deirdre Therese Little, Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward, doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879

CHS notes as is reported in the nsnbc.com report, the manufacturer provided information to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) on tests carried out on male rat testes from litters of newborn rats, but not for female rat ovaries.  There is no explanation why the manufacturer omitted this information.  There are likely to be as many female newborns as male in any litter and as the vaccine was to be given to women and girls this missing information is significant.

Additionally, the paper’s authors acknowledge that in 90% of cases the cause is unknown.  The authors draw attention to the fact that whilst it is a rare condition to occur in a teenage girl it is more unusual in a well teenage individual.  Whilst the predominant causes are different in the adolescent the cause is not proven to be the vaccine. However, the number of women with POF is increasing.

Re Posted by CHS.  Original Post: The Liberty Beacon™ Staff Published July 22, 2013, filed under HEALTH

Read on for more: Gardasil Destroys Girl’s Ovaries: Research on Ovaries Never Considered

________________________________

As Gardasil is the same vaccine given universally to all British 12 year-old schoolgirls since Sept 2012 and to US women and girls CHS is also reposting here the following world exclusive report published only two days ago. [Added July 30 @ 0511GMT / 29 July @2211PDT]

WORLD EXCLUSIVE – UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million – Millions of Children At Serious Risk

Posted on July 28, 2013 by ChildHealthSafety

Short link to this page: http://wp.me/pfSi7-1UC

This world exclusive report by CHS follows the decision by health authorities in Japan to withdraw their recommendation for human papilloma virus [HPV] vaccines because of high levels of serious adverse reactions in Japanese women and girls.  Japanese girls will still be able to be vaccinated at no charge, but from now on they will be informed by healthcare providers that the health ministry does not recommend the vaccines. 

Cervarix and Gardasil HPV vaccines were found to cause substantially higher rates of adverse reactions than other vaccines: Cervix vaccine issues trigger health notice Japan Times Jun 15, 2013 National Kyodo.

One report claims the rate of serious adverse reactions which Japanese women experienced after Cervarix injections are 52 times the rate of those reported after annual influenza vaccines: Urgent Request from Japan: Help Stop HPV Vaccinations July 27, 2013 By Norma Erickson SaneVax, Inc.

The UK media fail to report this kind of news affecting millions of British school children and families despite affecting their own families and networks of relatives in the UK.  Journalism is a dying profession.  So don’t buy newspapers or believe TV news reports.  The UK’s BBC has become the British Government’s press office.

British Parents Not Told Their Children Are Not At Risk of Cervical Cancer

The targeted vaccination group of 12-year-old British schoolgirls are at no risk of contracting cervical cancer.  Cervical cancer is an extremely rare disease.  The risk is normally zero up to age 20.  The risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine is therefore infinitely higher.  In the UK the disease is so rare there are just 3 deaths in every 100,000 women of all ages as figures from Cancer Research UK show.  What is worse is that by the time there is any risk for these schoolgirls any effect from the vaccine [if there ever was one] would have worn off yet these young women may then think they are protected and fail to undergo routine screening when they will still need it regardless of the vaccine. 

By the time there is any risk of mortality for these 12 year-old schoolgirls it is extremely low.  The risk of death from cervical cancer in the age range 20-24 is 3 in every million women of that age range.  The disease does not normally affect schoolgirls.  The highest number of deaths occur in women in their late seventies.

How UK Health Officials Tampered With the Adverse Reaction Reporting Systems

In the UK the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] first interference was to encourage health professional not to report adverse reactions.  This was done in formal advice issued in the name of Chief Executive Professor Sir Kent Woods telling health professionals that reactions can be “psychogenic” – or in simpler terms a figment of 12 year old schoolgirls’ imaginations and nothing to do with the vaccines [see more below for full details].

Next the data from over 6000 reports of suspected adverse reactions was systematically altered resulting in the MHRA declaring the vaccine safe when it was not. 

The third thing the MHRA staff did was to fix the final figures to make the rate of adverse reactions appear lower by substituting the number of doses given for the number of children receiving the vaccine.  Tampering with statistics by basing rates of adverse reactions on doses given reduced the numbers of adverse reactions per child by three times.  This is because each child was to receive three doses of the vaccine.  So whilst 6 million doses may have been given that represented only around one third of that figure in children receiving the vaccine – resulting in the rates of adverse reactions reported being calculated as 300% lower than they were per child. 

In other words if all children received all three doses then the crucial figure was not the number of doses but the number of children who suffered reactions compared to the total number of children.

The MHRA was headed at the time by Chairman Professor Alasdair Breckenridge [retired December 2012] and Professor Sir Kent Woods [MHRA Chief Executive but shortly expected to retire after 10 years service].

Questions For Heads Of UK Drug Regulatory Agency – MHRA

The first question for Professors Breckenridge and Woods is – if Japanese women suffered adverse reactions at a rate 52 times higher for GSK’s Cervarix vaccine than for flu vaccine how can possible adverse reactions just be figments of childrens’ imagination and so are not to be reported by medical professionals? [“psychogenic” was how Woods put it more formally – see his official advice to medical professionals – more below].

Clearly, that cannot be the case. Not only that but Woods and Breckenridge cannot claim to be ignorant of those facts. They must know that is the position. Nearly half of all reports included what the MHRA categorised as “psychogenic” symptoms which the MHRA say are “all in the mind” and could not therefore be caused by the vaccine.  A full list in a spreadsheet to enable further sorting and analysis can be downloaded here: 130728 Single list of all Cervarix Yellow Card Reports or browsed at the end of this article.  

You can also download the MHRA’s own published .pdf analyses listing the symptoms reported broken up into these five groups.  These are the reports used to declare the vaccine safe:

• Suspected Adverse Reaction AnalysisCERVARIX Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine29 July 2010

• Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (brand unspecified) 29 July 2010

Here are just a few examples of MHRA’s alleged “all in the mind” “psychogenic” reactions by “hysterical schoolgirls”:

• convulsions [which are serious reactions with risks of serious brain injury];
• grand mal convulsions;
• deafness
• circulatory collapse;
• acquired colour blindness;
• head banging;
• foaming at mouth;
• transient blindness;
• transient deafness;

The next question is: who instructed staff of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] systematically to tamper with the reporting systems and with data in reports of adverse reactions by medical professionals to Cervarix HPV vaccines given to millions British Schoolgirls from December 2008 to July 2012?

And the next question is who instructed that none of the adverse reaction reports should be followed-up and conditions of the children investigated?  There is little point having drug safety monitoring if the data obtained from it is ignored.  The MHRA hid the conditions in those cases which were reported.

Official Excuses for Withdrawal of GSK’s Cervarix HPV Vaccine Do Not Stand Up

In 2012 GSK’s Cervarix HPV vaccine was replaced by Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine.  At the time this was claimed to be a result of competitive tendering.  However it is a requirement that the Department of Health is required to ensure vaccine supply is not from a sole source.  This requirement was made following criticism in the English Parliament and by the UK National Audit Office over problems caused previously by the failure of a sole source of supply of a different vaccine.

Professor Sir Kent Woods Instructs Medical Professionals Not To Report Adverse Reactions.

In advice dated 2nd September 2008 issued by the UK MHRA in Professor Kent Woods name Professor Woods primed health professionals to expect the most common adverse reactions would be “psychogenic”.  Professor Woods then advised medical professionals not to report an adverse reaction if it “may” be psychogenic. 

“Psychogenic” means that the symptom of the adverse reaction is to be treated as “all in the minds” of the British schoolgirls receiving GSK’s Cervarix vaccine – that is: the result of emotional or mental stress from the administration of the vaccine.

In other words – and feminists please take note – the male dominated MHRA was telling medical professionals to dismiss adverse reactions in schoolgirls because women are prone to that sort of thing – you know – women are silly, emotional and prone to hysteria and mass hysteria.

This advice was not only counterproductive but unscientific and improper from a drug safety perspective.  Professors Woods and Breckenridge must know that. 

Adverse reactions to all pharmaceuticals are heavily under-reported.  Because of that medical professionals are constantly and generally encouraged to file adverse reaction reports to improve drug safety monitoring. Professor Woods’ advice was encouraging them not to.

An adverse reaction reporting system relies on the spectrum of adverse events to be reported so that it is possible to identify the “signal” of a previously unidentified adverse drug reaction against the background of known adverse reactions and reports. 

By encouraging medical professionals to expect and then not to report suspected “psychogenic” reactions would result in reactions which were not psychogenic being identified as such and which would then not be reported following Professor Kent Woods’ advice.  This would also make drug safety monitoring much less effective because if there were truly any “psychogenic” reactions, then subsequent analyses of the data could assist to identify which were likely to have been and which were not so likely or were not.  But the less data one has makes the task more difficult.

MHRA Systematically Tampered with 6000 reports of Adverse Reactions To Declare The Vaccine Safe

From April 2008 up to 31st July 2012, the MHRA received a total of 6213 reports of suspected adverse reactions documenting 14,300 symptoms or 2 1/2 symptoms per report.  Nurses contributed more than two-thirds of all reports.  Over 6 million doses of the vaccine were administered.

The way the reports of suspected adverse reactions to GSK’s Cervarix vaccine were tampered with was to ensure the underlying conditions indicated by the reported symptoms could not be identified.  In addition, no clinical follow-up was carried out on any Cervarix Yellow Card report of a suspected adverse reaction. 

To diagnose an individual it is essential to consider all symptoms suffered by that individual and carry out a clinical assessment on a case-by-case basis.  For example, how do you know if you might have flu?  If you have fever, cough, headache, aching muscles and tiredness then you may have flu.

What the MHRA did was to carry out a paper analysis of the Yellow Card reports.  They separated out the symptoms reported for each individual so that it would be impossible for anyone to identify the underlying conditions each individual suffered.  SOURCE: MHRA 29 July 2010 “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis”

Here are the 5 categories each symptom was separated into:

A. Injection-site reactions
B. Allergic reactions
C. ‘Psychogenic’ events
D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions
E. not currently recognised

So if we consider by analogy a disease most people know about, flu, if this approach was applied to infectious disease reports each symptom would be split up and put into one or more of these categories.  As the symptoms are no longer linked together it is impossible to say whether anyone was suffering from ‘flu or any other disease.  There would be no way of telling.

Thus, the MHRA set about hiding the numbers and types of suspected ADRs suffered by British schoolchildren. This was not a conspiracy but fact – that is what the MHRA did.

If this approach were adopted to reporting infectious diseases generally the public could have no idea which diseases are present in the population at any time.  There can be numerous infections diseases circulating simultaneously.

For example, a symptom of encephalitis is headache – in the period Sept 08 to 29 July 2010  information from MHRA recorded that in 4703 Yellow Card reports there were 848 reports  which included headache as one of the reported symptoms and  which might therefore be of encephalitis. A “quick and dirty” analysis of the MHRA data issued at that time shows that of just 5 of the 32 symptoms of encephalitis at least 2300 reports include at least one symptom of encephalitis.

But this is what the MHRA said having carried out no clinical investigation or analysis of any of the Yellow Card reports:-

The four cases of encephalitis reported so far, amongst the number of girls immunised, do not exceed  the numbers normally expected in the absence of vaccination. There is therefore no suggestion at present that the vaccine can cause encephalitis.”

SOURCE: MHRA 29 July 2010 “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis“

This shows

• MHRA only recorded a report as suspected encephalitis if those specific words appear on the Yellow Card report
• and confirms MHRA did not consider what underlying conditions are indicated by the symptoms reported on the Yellow Cards

Most reports were by school nurses who are likely only to report the symptoms and not diagnose underlying conditions.

School Head Teachers & Governors

It is obvious from these figures that UK parents are obliged under their Children Act 1989 legal duties to refuse consent.  This also puts head teachers and school governors in a remarkable position for putting children at risk by allowing these vaccination programmes to take place on school premises. Under English law they stand legally in “loco parentis” – in the place of the parents whilst children are under their care in school.

School Nurses & Other Medical Professionals.

Obviously medical practitioners bear a heavy duty of disclosure to obtain informed consent but they are not fulfilling it.  Additionally, it is obvious that anyone proposing to have this vaccine needs to be screened for 1) pre-existing medical conditions putting them at risk and 2) risk of adverse reactions based on prior clinical history.  That is not being done.

Properly informed consent is not being obtained – which legally can give rise to claims for “battery” – not simply negligence and easier to prove.

Parents are being told their 13-year-old girls may be given the vaccine even if the parents refuse consent. Girls of this age might be subject to pressure to persuade them even if parents have refused consent. There are reasons why this may not be lawful under “Gillick competence”.

ANNEX I

LIST OF MHRA REPORTED SYMPTOMS OF ADVERSE REACTIONS TO GSK’S CERVARIX HPV VACCINE – Source MHRA “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis” 29th July 2010

[Also downloadable as a spreadsheet from here 130728 Single list of all Cervarix Yellow Card Reports]

System Organ Class	Category A to E	Reported event (Preferred Term)	Number of cases
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain in extremity 485	485
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site swelling 113	113
	A. Injection-site reactions	Oedema peripheral 109	109
	A. Injection-site reactions	Limb discomfort 106	106
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypoaesthesia 105	105
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site erythema 85	85
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site pain 81	81
	A. Injection-site reactions	Erythema 45	45
	A. Injection-site reactions	Paraesthesia 37	37
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin discolouration 33	33
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site rash 32	32
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site mass 29	29
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site reaction 26	26
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain 23	23
	A. Injection-site reactions	Contusion 21	21
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 21	21
	A. Injection-site reactions	Peripheral coldness 20	20
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local reaction 19	19
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site inflammation 18	18
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site warmth 18	18
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain in extremity 16	16
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local swelling 15	15
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensation of heaviness 15	15
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haematoma 12	12
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site pruritus 11	11
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash macular 10	10
	A. Injection-site reactions	Oedema peripheral 9	9
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling cold 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site induration 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site nodule 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Livedo reticularis 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Swelling 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site anaesthesia 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site swelling 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscular weakness 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Myalgia 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Neck pain 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Erythema 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling hot 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site erythema 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pruritus 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Cyanosis 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling abnormal 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site infection 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pallor 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensory disturbance 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Tenderness 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Asthenia 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling hot 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Inflammation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discharge 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discolouration 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site irritation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site reaction 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site urticaria 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site vesicles 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Limb immobilisation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal pain 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Poor peripheral circulation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensory loss 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin warm 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Dry skin 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Grip strength decreased 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypoaesthesia 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injected limb mobility decreased 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site cellulitis 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site coldness 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discolouration 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site mass 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site pain 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Peripheral coldness 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pruritus 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensory loss 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin discolouration 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin reaction 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin reaction 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Tenderness 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Blister 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Complex regional pain syndrome 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Extensive swelling of vaccinated limb 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hyperaesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hyperaesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypokinesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypokinesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Immobile 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Impetigo 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site abscess 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site anaesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site coldness 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discomfort 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haematoma 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haemorrhage 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haemorrhage 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site joint movement impairment 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site joint pain 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site movement impairment 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site movement impairment 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site papule 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site paraesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site rash 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site scab 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Joint swelling 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Limb immobilisation 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local reaction 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local swelling 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Lymphoedema 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Mass 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Mobility decreased 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscle rigidity 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscle spasms 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscle tightness 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal pain 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Nausea 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Nodule 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain of skin 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Paraesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Peripheral vascular disorder 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash maculo-papular 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash pruritic 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Scab 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensation of heaviness 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensation of pressure 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Tremor 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Urticaria 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Urticaria 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash 130	130
	B. Allergic reactions	Urticaria 89	89
	B. Allergic reactions	Pruritus 60	60
	B. Allergic reactions	Erythema 47	47
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling face 42	42
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactic reaction 41	41
	B. Allergic reactions	Dyspnoea 33	33
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash generalised 31	31
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash pruritic 31	31
	B. Allergic reactions	Oedema peripheral 29	29
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip swelling 26	26
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash macular 24	24
	B. Allergic reactions	Dizziness 23	23
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypersensitivity 22	22
	B. Allergic reactions	Eye swelling 18	18
	B. Allergic reactions	Paraesthesia oral 17	17
	B. Allergic reactions	Malaise 15	15
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat tightness 14	14
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash 13	13
	B. Allergic reactions	Swollen tongue 13	13
	B. Allergic reactions	Chest discomfort 11	11
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash erythematous 11	11
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling hot 9	9
	B. Allergic reactions	Flushing 9	9
	B. Allergic reactions	Pruritus generalised 9	9
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis allergic 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Pallor 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Pharyngeal oedema 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Urticaria 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Fatigue 7	7
	B. Allergic reactions	Oropharyngeal pain 7	7
	B. Allergic reactions	Paraesthesia 7	7
	B. Allergic reactions	Angioedema 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Dysphagia 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Headache 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Inflammation 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Pyrexia 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat irritation 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Blister 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Dyspnoea 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Hyperventilation 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypoaesthesia oral 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Vomiting 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Wheezing 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactic shock 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyelid oedema 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypersensitivity 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypoaesthesia 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Local swelling 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Nausea 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Pain in extremity 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis allergic 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Erythema 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Eye pruritus 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyelid oedema 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Hyperhidrosis 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Laryngeal oedema 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Limb discomfort 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Nasopharyngitis 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Ocular hyperaemia 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Pain 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Petechiae 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash erythematous 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash macular 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash maculo-papular 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash pruritic 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin irritation 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin reaction 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Somnolence 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Vision blurred 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Abdominal pain 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Abdominal pain upper 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactic reaction 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Blister 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Body temperature increased 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Cold sweat 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis contact 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Dizziness 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Face oedema 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling cold 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Heart rate increased 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Heart rate irregular 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Heat rash 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip swelling 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Peripheral coldness 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Pharyngeal oedema 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Pruritus 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash generalised 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin discolouration 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin disorder 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Swollen tongue 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Tachycardia 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Type i hypersensitivity 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactoid reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Asthenia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Asthenopia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Asthma 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Back pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Breath sounds abnormal 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Bronchospasm 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Chest pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Chills 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Condition aggravated 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Confusional state 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Conjunctival hyperaemia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Contusion 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Convulsion 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Cough 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Dry throat 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Dysphagia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eczema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eczema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyelid disorder 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyes sunken 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Fatigue 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling abnormal 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling hot 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling jittery 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Generalised erythema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Gingival swelling 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Headache 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypersomnia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypertension 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypoventilation 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Increased bronchial secretion 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Infusion site swelling 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Laryngeal oedema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Lethargy 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip blister 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip ulceration 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Local reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Loss of consciousness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Migraine 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Muscle tightness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Myalgia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Mydriasis 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Nausea 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Neck pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oedema mouth 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oedema mouth 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oesophageal discomfort 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oral discomfort 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oral pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Palpitations 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Panic reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Paraesthesia oral 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Periorbital oedema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Photophobia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Piloerection 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Pulse absent 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Purpura 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Pyrexia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash follicular 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash papular 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Respiratory rate increased 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Sensation of foreign body 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Sneezing 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Somnolence 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Speech disorder 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Stridor 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling face 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Syncope 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Systemic lupus erythematosus rash 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Tenderness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Thirst 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat irritation 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat tightness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Tremor 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Type IV hypersensitivity reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Urticaria pigmentosa 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Visual impairment 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Vomiting 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dizziness 327	327
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Syncope 296	296
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nausea 151	151
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Headache 109	109
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pallor 108	108
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vomiting 77	77
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Malaise 74	74
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tremor 61	61
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vision blurred 46	46
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling hot 45	45
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Flushing 40	40
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Cold sweat 35	35
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Syncope 27	27
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperhidrosis 25	25
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Presyncope 23	23
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperventilation 21	21
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Loss of consciousness 19	19
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dyspnoea 18	18
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Paraesthesia 18	18
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chills 17	17
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Convulsion 17	17
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pyrexia 16	16
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Somnolence 16	16
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dizziness 15	15
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fatigue 15	15
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate increased 14	14
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Unresponsive to stimuli 14	14
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle twitching 13	13
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash 13	13
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Asthenia 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling cold 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoaesthesia 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Panic attack 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chest discomfort 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dyskinesia 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Eye rolling 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tachycardia 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tearfulness 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nervousness 10	10
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Erythema 9	9
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Headache 9	9
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash macular 9	9
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal pain 8	8
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chest pain 8	8
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Peripheral coldness 8	8
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal pain upper 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Anxiety 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fall 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypotension 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Lethargy 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscular weakness 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Photophobia 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Visual impairment 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Confusional state 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Deafness 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling of body temperature change 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle rigidity 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Musculoskeletal stiffness 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Mydriasis 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nasopharyngitis 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Throat tightness 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dizziness postural 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysgeusia 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling abnormal 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pallor 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Skin discolouration 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Urticaria 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal discomfort 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blindness transient 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Body temperature increased 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Decreased appetite 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hot flush 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Migraine 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle spasms 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pulse abnormal 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Respiratory rate increased 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tinnitus 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Urinary incontinence 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vomiting 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abasia 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Agitation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Balance disorder 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blindness 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure decreased 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Cyanosis 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Disorientation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Disturbance in attention 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dyspnoea 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysstasia 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Emotional disorder 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling drunk 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hearing impaired 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate irregular 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoventilation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nausea 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pain 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pain in extremity 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Panic reaction 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sensory loss 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Somnolence 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Throat irritation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vertigo 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Amnesia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure increased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Body temperature decreased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Bradycardia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Circulatory collapse 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Colour blindness acquired 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Consciousness fluctuating 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Diplopia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dry mouth 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dry throat 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysarthria 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysphagia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Emotional distress 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate decreased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate increased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypertension 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperventilation 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoacusis 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Malaise 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscular weakness 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Myalgia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Neck pain 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Oropharyngeal pain 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Paraesthesia oral 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Presyncope 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Procedural dizziness 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pruritus 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pulse pressure decreased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pupil fixed 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash generalised 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Retching 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Salivary hypersecretion 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Shock 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vision blurred 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal distension 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abnormal behaviour 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Altered state of consciousness 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Aphasia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Asthenia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Asthma 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Back pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blindness transient 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure increased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure systolic decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Body temperature decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Bruxism 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Burning sensation 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chills 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Condition aggravated 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Convulsion 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Cough 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Deafness transitory 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Depressed level of consciousness 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dissociation 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Disturbance in attention 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dry mouth 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Ear discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Ear pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Epistaxis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Eye pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Eyelid oedema 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Face injury 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Facial spasm 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fatigue 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fear 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling of despair 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Foaming at mouth 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Gait disturbance 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Grand mal convulsion 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Grip strength decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Head banging 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Head discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate irregular 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heat rash 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hemiparesis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hot flush 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperhidrosis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypersomnia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoaesthesia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoaesthesia facial 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypokinesia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypotonia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Incontinence 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Lip swelling 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Livedo reticularis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Migraine 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle contracture 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Myoclonus 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nervous system disorder 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Oral discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Palpitations 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Paraesthesia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Peripheral circulatory failure 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pharyngeal oedema 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Photophobia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Poor peripheral circulation 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pruritus 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Psychomotor hyperactivity 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pyrexia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Respiratory arrest 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Respiratory rate decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Seizure anoxic 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sensation of heaviness 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sensory loss 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sinus tachycardia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sleep attacks 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sudden onset of sleep 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tachypnoea 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tremor 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Urticaria 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Visual impairment 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nausea 631	631
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Headache 629	629
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dizziness 625	625
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Vomiting 260	260
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Malaise 220	220
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Fatigue 216	216
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pyrexia 175	175
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain 69	69
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Diarrhoea 55	55
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain upper 54	54
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Myalgia 49	49
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lethargy 48	48
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling hot 43	43
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature increased 36	36
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain 34	34
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Headache 30	30
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Influenza like illness 28	28
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nausea 28	28
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Oropharyngeal pain 28	28
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Arthralgia 25	25
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Malaise 25	25
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pyrexia 24	24
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pallor 22	22
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Somnolence 22	22
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Asthenia 21	21
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Chills 21	21
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain in extremity 21	21
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash 21	21
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Arthralgia 20	20
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lymphadenopathy 18	18
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Vomiting 16	16
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal discomfort 15	15
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dizziness 15	15
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Flushing 14	14
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Paraesthesia 14	14
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Fatigue 12	12
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Tremor 12	12
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pruritus 11	11
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Decreased appetite 10	10
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain 8	8
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Neck pain 8	8
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling cold 7	7
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Back pain 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Cough 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hyperhidrosis 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hypoaesthesia 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lethargy 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nasopharyngitis 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain upper 5	5
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Asthenia 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature increased 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Erythema 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling of body temperature change 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Migraine 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Myalgia 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nervousness 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Back pain 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Decreased appetite 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Diarrhoea 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lower respiratory tract infection 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscle fatigue 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscular weakness 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash generalised 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Somnolence 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Cold sweat 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dizziness postural 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling abnormal 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Gait disturbance 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Head discomfort 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hot flush 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Influenza like illness 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Joint swelling 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Limb discomfort 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Listless 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Local reaction 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nasal congestion 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Oropharyngeal pain 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pruritus generalised 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash macular 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Skin warm 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Throat irritation 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain lower 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain lower 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Arthralgia 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Axillary mass 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Bedridden 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature fluctuation 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature fluctuation 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Cough 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dyspnoea 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling of body temperature change 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Gastrointestinal disorder 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Generalised erythema 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Groin pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hot flush 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hypoaesthesia 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hypotension 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Ill-defined disorder 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Immunisation reaction 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Induration 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Insomnia 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Limb discomfort 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Local reaction 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Local swelling 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Loss of consciousness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lymphadenopathy 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Mobility decreased 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscle spasms 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscle twitching 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal chest pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal discomfort 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal discomfort 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Neck pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Night sweats 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain in extremity 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Peripheral coldness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pharyngitis 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash erythematous 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Respiratory disorder 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Respiratory tract infection 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Restlessness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rhinorrhoea 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Sensation of heaviness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Sudden onset of sleep 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Swelling 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Swelling face 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Syncope 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Thirst 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Throat tightness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Upper respiratory tract infection 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Urticaria 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Weight decreased 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Headache 47	47
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Syncope 35	35
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Influenza like illness 32	32
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness 29	29
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia 29	29
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Convulsion 28	28
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pain in extremity 27	27
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Nausea 24	24
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paraesthesia 20	20
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyspnoea 19	19
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lethargy 19	19
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Malaise 19	19
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Drug exposure during pregnancy 18	18
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Fatigue 18	18
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pyrexia 18	18
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest pain 17	17
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vomiting 17	17
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Migraine 16	16
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pain 16	16
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Back pain 15	15
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Somnolence 14	14
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tremor 14	14
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness 12	12
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscular weakness 12	12
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Abortion spontaneous 11	11
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Asthenia 11	11
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Headache 11	11
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Loss of consciousness 11	11
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain 10	10
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Myalgia 10	10
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Oropharyngeal pain 10	10
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Amenorrhoea 9	9
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest discomfort 9	9
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Peripheral coldness 9	9
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia 8	8
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cough 8	8
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Decreased appetite 8	8
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Epistaxis 8	8
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Fatigue 8	8
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Influenza like illness 8	8
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vision blurred 8	8
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Asthma 7	7
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diarrhoea 7	7
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling cold 7	7
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia 7	7
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia facial 7	7
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photophobia 7	7
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Syncope 7	7
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vaginal haemorrhage 7	7
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Viral infection 7	7
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vision blurred 7	7
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysarthria 6	6
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ear pain 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Epilepsy 6	6
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hallucination 6	6
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Insomnia 6	6
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Lower respiratory tract infection 6	6
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal stiffness 6	6
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neck pain 6	6
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Palpitations 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paraesthesia 6	6
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Post viral fatigue syndrome 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensory disturbance 6	6
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Visual impairment 6	6
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Abasia 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyskinesia 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysstasia 5	5
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eczema 5	5
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema multiforme 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Facial palsy 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Grand mal convulsion 5	5
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation irregular 5	5
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Oedema peripheral 5	5
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pallor 5	5
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensation of heaviness 5	5
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Weight decreased 5	5
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Anxiety 4	4
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthralgia 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Blister 4	4
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood glucose increased 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chills 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chronic fatigue syndrome 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Condition aggravated 4	4
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Confusional state 4	4
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Contusion 4	4
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cyanosis 4	4
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysmenorrhoea 4	4
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Encephalitis 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling hot 4	4
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Guillain-barre syndrome 4	4
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypotension 4	4
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lethargy 4	4
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menorrhagia 4	4
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Nasopharyngitis 4	4
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Nausea 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin discolouration 4	4
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Wheezing 4	4
Surgical and medical procedures	E. not currently recognised	Abortion induced 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aphonia 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Convulsion 3	3
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Disorientation 3	3
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ear pain 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Epilepsy 3	3
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling abnormal 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Head discomfort 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hemiparesis 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperhidrosis 3	3
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Infectious mononucleosis 3	3
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Live birth 3	3
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation delayed 3	3
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Mouth ulceration 3	3
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle twitching 3	3
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Mydriasis 3	3
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Peripheral coldness 3	3
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Premature baby 3	3
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pyrexia 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensory loss 3	3
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tearfulness 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tremor 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Unresponsive to stimuli 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urticaria 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urticaria chronic 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Visual field defect 3	3
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Abasia 2	2
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain upper 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abnormal behaviour 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia areata 2	2
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Amenorrhoea 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Angioedema 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Balance disorder 2	2
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Body temperature increased 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Circulatory collapse 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Complex regional pain syndrome 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Complex regional pain syndrome 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Confusional state 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Crying 2	2
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dehydration 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depressed mood 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diplegia 2	2
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diplopia 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Disturbance in attention 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness postural 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Drooling 2	2
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Drug exposure before pregnancy 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysgeusia 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Emotional disorder 2	2
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye pain 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Facial paresis 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling cold 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Gait disturbance 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Gait disturbance 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Grand mal convulsion 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Groin pain 2	2
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Haemoptysis 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Haemorrhage 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Herpes zoster 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Hordeolum 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hot flush 2	2
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperventilation 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypokinesia 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Influenza 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Joint swelling 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Livedo reticularis 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Livedo reticularis 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Local swelling 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Loss of consciousness 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Malaise 2	2
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstrual disorder 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Mobility decreased 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle spasms 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscular weakness 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal pain 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal stiffness 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Optic neuritis 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pain in extremity 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pallor 2	2
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paraesthesia oral 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Petit mal epilepsy 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Pharyngitis 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photosensitivity reaction 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photosensitivity reaction 2	2
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pilonidal cyst congenital 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Purpura 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash generalised 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rheumatoid arthritis 2	2
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rhinorrhoea 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin exfoliation 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sleep disorder 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Swelling face 2	2
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tachycardia 2	2
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urinary incontinence 2	2
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urinary retention 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Urinary tract infection 2	2
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vertigo 2	2
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Visual impairment 2	2
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vulval ulceration 2	2
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Weight increased 2	2
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal discomfort 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal discomfort 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain lower 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain upper 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abnormal faeces 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abnormal sleep-related event 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Abscess 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Acarodermatitis 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Accommodation disorder 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acne 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acne 1	1
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)	E. not currently recognised	Acute myeloid leukaemia 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acute psychosis 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acute respiratory failure 1	1
Endocrine disorders	E. not currently recognised	Adrenocortical insufficiency acute 1	1
Endocrine disorders	E. not currently recognised	Adrenocortical insufficiency acute 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aggression 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Alanine aminotransferase increased 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia areata 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Anaemia 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Anogenital warts 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aphasia 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aplastic anaemia 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Application site pustules 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Areflexia 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arteriovenous malformation 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthritis 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthritis reactive 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthropathy 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Asthenia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ataxia 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Axillary nerve injury 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Axillary pain 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Back pain 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Balance disorder 1	1
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)	E. not currently recognised	Benign hydatidiform mole 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Beta haemolytic streptococcal infection 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Blindness unilateral 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood cortisol decreased 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood pressure decreased 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood pressure increased 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Body temperature increased 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Bone pain 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Breast pain 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Breast swelling 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Breast tenderness 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Bronchitis 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Burning sensation 1	1
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cardiac arrest 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Cell marker increased 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cerebral palsy 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cervix inflammation 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest discomfort 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest pain 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chills 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Chorea 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cleft palate 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cold sweat 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Colitis 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Colitis ulcerative 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Condition aggravated 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Conjunctival hyperaemia 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Constipation 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Coordination abnormal 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Csf cell count increased 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dark circles under eyes 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Deafness 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Deafness bilateral 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Decreased appetite 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Decreased interest 1	1
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Deep vein thrombosis 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depressed level of consciousness 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depression 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depression 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depressive symptom 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dermatitis allergic 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diabetes mellitus inadequate control 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diabetes mellitus inadequate control 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diabetic ketoacidosis 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diarrhoea 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diarrhoea haemorrhagic 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Discomfort 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dissociation 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness postural 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dry eye 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dry skin 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysgeusia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyskinesia 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysphemia 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyspnoea 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ear discomfort 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eating disorder 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eczema vesicular 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Emotional distress 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Encephalitis 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eosinophilia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema multiforme 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Excessive eye blinking 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Exercise tolerance decreased 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye discharge 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye disorder 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye pain 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye swelling 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eyelid oedema 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Facial palsy 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Fall 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Fear 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling abnormal 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Flank pain 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Flatulence 1	1
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Flushing 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Folliculitis 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Frequent bowel movements 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Furuncle 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Gastrointestinal disorder 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Gaze palsy 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Gingival disorder 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Guillain-barre syndrome 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Guttate psoriasis 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Haemolytic uraemic syndrome 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hallucination, auditory 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hallucination, visual 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Heart disease congenital 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Heart rate decreased 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Henoch-schonlein purpura 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Henoch-schonlein purpura 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Hepatitis viral 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Herpes zoster 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperacusis 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperglycaemia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperhidrosis 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Hyperpyrexia 1	1
Immune system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypersensitivity 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypertonia 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoacusis 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia facial 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia oral 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoglycaemia 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypomania 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypospadias 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoventilation 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Inappropriate schedule of drug administration 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Incorrect dose administered 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Increased appetite 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Increased upper airway secretion 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Infection 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Inflammation 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Injection site erythema 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Injection site injury 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Injection site swelling 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Insomnia 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Intestinal functional disorder 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Irritable bowel syndrome 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ivth nerve paralysis 1	1
Hepatobiliary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Jaundice 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Joint stiffness 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Joint stiffness 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Kidney infection 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Labyrinthitis 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Laryngitis 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Limb malformation 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lip blister 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lip swelling 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Local swelling 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Meningism 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menorrhagia 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstrual disorder 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation delayed 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation irregular 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Metrorrhagia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Migraine 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Migraine with aura 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Molluscum contagiosum 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Monoplegia 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle rigidity 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle twitching 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal chest pain 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Myoclonic epilepsy 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Nasal congestion 1	1
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)	E. not currently recognised	Neoplasm malignant 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neuritis 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neurogenic bladder 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neutropenia 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Neutrophil count decreased 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Oedema peripheral 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Oropharyngeal blistering 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Oropharyngeal pain 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Osteitis 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Otitis media 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pain 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Palindromic rheumatism 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pancytopenia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paralysis 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paranoia 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Peak expiratory flow rate decreased 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Petechiae 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photopsia 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Platelet count decreased 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Pneumonia viral 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pollakiuria 1	1
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pregnancy with injectable contraceptive 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Presyncope 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Productive cough 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psoriasis 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psychiatric symptom 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psychomotor hyperactivity 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psychotic disorder 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Radial pulse 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Radiculitis brachial 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash erythematous 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash maculo-papular 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash vesicular 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Renal failure 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Respiratory rate increased 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Respiratory syncytial virus infection 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Respiratory tract infection 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Screaming 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sedation 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Sensation of foreign body 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Sensation of pressure 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensory loss 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Sepsis 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Severe acute respiratory syndrome 1	1
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sinus tachycardia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin burning sensation 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin disorder 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin hypertrophy 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Skin infection 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin irritation 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin lesion 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Somatisation disorder 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Somnolence 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Speech disorder 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Staphylococcal infection 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Status epilepticus 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Streptococcal sepsis 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Swelling 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Swollen tongue 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Systemic inflammatory response syndrome 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Temperature intolerance 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Tenderness 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Thirst 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Throat tightness 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tinnitus 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Trichorrhexis 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Type 1 diabetes mellitus 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Upper airway obstruction 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Upper respiratory tract infection 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urinary retention 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urticaria 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vaginal discharge 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vaginal lesion 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Varicella 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Viraemia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vitiligo 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vitreous floaters 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vomiting 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Weight bearing difficulty 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Weight decreased 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Wheezing 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Wrong technique in drug usage process 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Yellow skin 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Stevens-johnson syndrome 1

UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data For 6 Million

Short link to this page: http://wp.me/pfSi7-1UC

[See also “Japan’s Suspension of Recommendation for Gardasil & Cervarix HPV Vaccines for Women – Caused by Large Numbers of Unexplained Serious Adverse Reactions“]

This world exclusive report by CHS follows the decision by health authorities in Japan to withdraw their recommendation for human papilloma virus [HPV] vaccines because of high levels of serious adverse reactions in Japanese women and girls. 

But in the UK data from over 6000 reports of suspected adverse reactions in British schoolgirls was systematically altered resulting in the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] declaring the vaccine safe when it was not.   With 6 million doses given to nearly 2 million British schoolgirls the MHRA’s actions are serious but benefit British Cervarix vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline. 98 in 100 adverse drug reactions go unreported: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.

In Japan Cervarix and Gardasil HPV vaccines were found to cause substantially higher rates of adverse reactions than other vaccines: Cervix vaccine issues trigger health notice Japan Times Jun 15, 2013 National Kyodo.

One report claims the rate of serious adverse reactions which Japanese women experienced after Cervarix injections are 52 times the rate of those reported after annual influenza vaccines: Urgent Request from Japan: Help Stop HPV Vaccinations July 27, 2013 By Norma Erickson SaneVax, Inc.  Japanese girls will still be able to be vaccinated at no charge, but from now on they will be informed by healthcare providers that the health ministry does not recommend the vaccines.

The UK media fail to report this kind of news affecting millions of British school children and families despite affecting their own families and networks of relatives in the UK.  Journalism is a dying profession.  Don’t buy newspapers or believe TV news reports.  The UK’s BBC has become the British Government’s press office.

British Parents Not Told Their Children Are Not At Risk of Cervical Cancer

The targeted vaccination group of 12-year-old British schoolgirls are at no risk of contracting cervical cancer.  Cervical cancer is an extremely rare disease.  The risk is normally zero up to age 20.  The risk of serious adverse reactions from the vaccine is therefore infinitely higher.  In the UK the disease is so rare there are just 3 deaths in every 100,000 women of all ages as figures from Cancer Research UK show.  What is worse is that by the time there is any risk for these schoolgirls any effect from the vaccine [if there ever was one] would have worn off yet these young women may then think they are protected and fail to undergo routine screening when they will still need it regardless of the vaccine. 

By the time there is any risk of mortality for these 12 year-old schoolgirls it is extremely low.  The risk of death from cervical cancer in the age range 20-24 is 3 in every million women of that age range.  The disease does not normally affect schoolgirls.  The highest number of deaths occur in women in their late seventies.

How UK Health Officials Tampered With the Adverse Reaction Reporting Systems

In the UK the MHRA’s first interference was to encourage health professional not to report adverse reactions.  This was done in formal advice issued in the name of Chief Executive Professor Sir Kent Woods telling health professionals that reactions can be “psychogenic” – or in simpler terms a figment of 12 year old schoolgirls’ imaginations and nothing to do with the vaccines [see more below for full details].

Next the data from over 6000 reports of suspected adverse reactions was systematically altered resulting in the MHRA declaring the vaccine safe when it was not. 

The third thing the MHRA staff did was to fix the final figures to make the rate of adverse reactions appear lower by substituting the number of doses given for the number of children receiving the vaccine.  Tampering with statistics by basing rates of adverse reactions on doses given reduced the numbers of adverse reactions per child by three times.  This is because each child was to receive three doses of the vaccine.  So whilst 6 million doses may have been given that represented only around one third of that figure in children receiving the vaccine – resulting in the rates of adverse reactions reported being calculated as 300% lower than they were per child. 

In other words if all children received all three doses then the crucial figure was not the number of doses but the number of children who suffered reactions compared to the total number of children.

The MHRA was headed at the time by Chairman Professor Alasdair Breckenridge [retired December 2012] and Professor Sir Kent Woods [MHRA Chief Executive but shortly expected to retire after 10 years service].

Questions For Heads Of UK Drug Regulatory Agency – MHRA

The first question for Professors Breckenridge and Woods is – if Japanese women suffered adverse reactions at a rate 52 times higher for GSK’s Cervarix vaccine than for flu vaccine how can possible adverse reactions just be figments of childrens’ imagination and so are not to be reported by medical professionals? [“psychogenic” was how Woods put it more formally – see his official advice to medical professionals – more below].

Clearly, that cannot be the case. Not only that but Woods and Breckenridge cannot claim to be ignorant of those facts. They must know that is the position. Nearly half of all reports included what the MHRA categorised as “psychogenic” symptoms which the MHRA say are “all in the mind” and could not therefore be caused by the vaccine.  A full list in a spreadsheet to enable further sorting and analysis can be downloaded here: 130728 Single list of all Cervarix Yellow Card Reports or browsed at the end of this article.  

You can also download the MHRA’s own published .pdf analyses listing the symptoms reported broken up into these five groups.  These are the reports used to declare the vaccine safe:

• Suspected Adverse Reaction AnalysisCERVARIX Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine29 July 2010

• Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (brand unspecified) 29 July 2010

Here are just a few examples of MHRA’s alleged “all in the mind” “psychogenic” reactions by “hysterical schoolgirls”:

• convulsions [which are serious reactions with risks of serious brain injury];
• grand mal convulsions;
• deafness
• circulatory collapse;
• acquired colour blindness;
• head banging;
• foaming at mouth;
• transient blindness;
• transient deafness;

The next question is: who instructed staff of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] systematically to tamper with the reporting systems and with data in reports of adverse reactions by medical professionals to Cervarix HPV vaccines given to millions British Schoolgirls from December 2008 to July 2012?

And the next question is who instructed that none of the adverse reaction reports should be followed-up and conditions of the children investigated?  There is little point having drug safety monitoring if the data obtained from it is ignored.  The MHRA hid the conditions in those cases which were reported.

Official Excuses for Withdrawal of GSK’s Cervarix HPV Vaccine Do Not Stand Up

In 2012 GSK’s Cervarix HPV vaccine was replaced by Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine.  At the time this was claimed to be a result of competitive tendering.  However it is a requirement that the Department of Health is required to ensure vaccine supply is not from a sole source.  This requirement was made following criticism in the English Parliament and by the UK National Audit Office over problems caused previously by the failure of a sole source of supply of a different vaccine.

Professor Sir Kent Woods Instructs Medical Professionals Not To Report Adverse Reactions.

In advice dated 2nd September 2008 issued by the UK MHRA in Professor Kent Woods name Professor Woods primed health professionals to expect the most common adverse reactions would be “psychogenic”.  Professor Woods then advised medical professionals not to report an adverse reaction if it “may” be psychogenic. 

“Psychogenic” means that the symptom of the adverse reaction is to be treated as “all in the minds” of the British schoolgirls receiving GSK’s Cervarix vaccine – that is: the result of emotional or mental stress from the administration of the vaccine.

In other words – and feminists please take note – the male dominated MHRA was telling medical professionals to dismiss adverse reactions in schoolgirls because women are prone to that sort of thing – you know – women are silly, emotional and prone to hysteria and mass hysteria.

This advice was not only counterproductive but unscientific and improper from a drug safety perspective.  Professors Woods and Breckenridge must know that. 

Adverse reactions to all pharmaceuticals are heavily under-reported.  Because of that medical professionals are constantly and generally encouraged to file adverse reaction reports to improve drug safety monitoring. Professor Woods’ advice was encouraging them not to.

An adverse reaction reporting system relies on the spectrum of adverse events to be reported so that it is possible to identify the “signal” of a previously unidentified adverse drug reaction against the background of known adverse reactions and reports. 

By encouraging medical professionals to expect and then not to report suspected “psychogenic” reactions would result in reactions which were not psychogenic being identified as such and which would then not be reported following Professor Kent Woods’ advice.  This would also make drug safety monitoring much less effective because if there were truly any “psychogenic” reactions, then subsequent analyses of the data could assist to identify which were likely to have been and which were not so likely or were not.  But the less data one has makes the task more difficult.

MHRA Systematically Tampered with 6000 reports of Adverse Reactions To Declare The Vaccine Safe

From April 2008 up to 31st July 2012, the MHRA received a total of 6213 reports of suspected adverse reactions documenting 14,300 symptoms or 2 1/2 symptoms per report.  Nurses contributed more than two-thirds of all reports.  Over 6 million doses of the vaccine were administered.

The way the reports of suspected adverse reactions to GSK’s Cervarix vaccine were tampered with was to ensure the underlying conditions indicated by the reported symptoms could not be identified.  In addition, no clinical follow-up was carried out on any Cervarix Yellow Card report of a suspected adverse reaction. 

To diagnose an individual it is essential to consider all symptoms suffered by that individual and carry out a clinical assessment on a case-by-case basis.  For example, how do you know if you might have flu?  If you have fever, cough, headache, aching muscles and tiredness then you may have flu.

What the MHRA did was to carry out a paper analysis of the Yellow Card reports.  They separated out the symptoms reported for each individual so that it would be impossible for anyone to identify the underlying conditions each individual suffered.  SOURCE: MHRA 29 July 2010 “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis”

Here are the 5 categories each symptom was separated into:

A. Injection-site reactions
B. Allergic reactions
C. ‘Psychogenic’ events
D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions
E. not currently recognised

So if we consider by analogy a disease most people know about, flu, if this approach was applied to infectious disease reports each symptom would be split up and put into one or more of these categories.  As the symptoms are no longer linked together it is impossible to say whether anyone was suffering from ‘flu or any other disease.  There would be no way of telling.

Thus, the MHRA set about hiding the numbers and types of suspected ADRs suffered by British schoolchildren. This was not a conspiracy but fact – that is what the MHRA did.

If this approach were adopted to reporting infectious diseases generally the public could have no idea which diseases are present in the population at any time.  There can be numerous infections diseases circulating simultaneously.

For example, a symptom of encephalitis is headache – in the period Sept 08 to 29 July 2010  information from MHRA recorded that in 4703 Yellow Card reports there were 848 reports  which included headache as one of the reported symptoms and  which might therefore be of encephalitis. A “quick and dirty” analysis of the MHRA data issued at that time shows that of just 5 of the 32 symptoms of encephalitis at least 2300 reports include at least one symptom of encephalitis.

But this is what the MHRA said having carried out no clinical investigation or analysis of any of the Yellow Card reports:-

The four cases of encephalitis reported so far, amongst the number of girls immunised, do not exceed  the numbers normally expected in the absence of vaccination. There is therefore no suggestion at present that the vaccine can cause encephalitis.”

SOURCE: MHRA 29 July 2010 “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis“

This shows

• MHRA only recorded a report as suspected encephalitis if those specific words appear on the Yellow Card report
• and confirms MHRA did not consider what underlying conditions are indicated by the symptoms reported on the Yellow Cards

Most reports were by school nurses who are likely only to report the symptoms and not diagnose underlying conditions.

School Head Teachers & Governors

It is obvious from these figures that UK parents are obliged under their Children Act 1989 legal duties to refuse consent.  This also puts head teachers and school governors in a remarkable position for putting children at risk by allowing these vaccination programmes to take place on school premises. Under English law they stand legally in “loco parentis” – in the place of the parents whilst children are under their care in school.

School Nurses & Other Medical Professionals.

Obviously medical practitioners bear a heavy duty of disclosure to obtain informed consent but they are not fulfilling it.  Additionally, it is obvious that anyone proposing to have this vaccine needs to be screened for 1) pre-existing medical conditions putting them at risk and 2) risk of adverse reactions based on prior clinical history.  That is not being done.

Properly informed consent is not being obtained – which legally can give rise to claims for “battery” – not simply negligence and easier to prove.

Parents are being told their 13-year-old girls may be given the vaccine even if the parents refuse consent. Girls of this age might be subject to pressure to persuade them even if parents have refused consent. There are reasons why this may not be lawful under “Gillick competence”.

ANNEX I

LIST OF MHRA REPORTED SYMPTOMS OF ADVERSE REACTIONS TO GSK’S CERVARIX HPV VACCINE – Source MHRA “Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis” 29th July 2010 

[Also downloadable as a spreadsheet from here 130728 Single list of all Cervarix Yellow Card Reports]

System Organ Class	Category A to E	Reported event (Preferred Term)	Number of cases
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain in extremity 485	485
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site swelling 113	113
	A. Injection-site reactions	Oedema peripheral 109	109
	A. Injection-site reactions	Limb discomfort 106	106
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypoaesthesia 105	105
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site erythema 85	85
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site pain 81	81
	A. Injection-site reactions	Erythema 45	45
	A. Injection-site reactions	Paraesthesia 37	37
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin discolouration 33	33
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site rash 32	32
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site mass 29	29
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site reaction 26	26
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain 23	23
	A. Injection-site reactions	Contusion 21	21
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 21	21
	A. Injection-site reactions	Peripheral coldness 20	20
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local reaction 19	19
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site inflammation 18	18
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site warmth 18	18
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain in extremity 16	16
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local swelling 15	15
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensation of heaviness 15	15
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haematoma 12	12
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site pruritus 11	11
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash macular 10	10
	A. Injection-site reactions	Oedema peripheral 9	9
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling cold 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site induration 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site nodule 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Livedo reticularis 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Swelling 8	8
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site anaesthesia 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site swelling 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscular weakness 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Myalgia 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Neck pain 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash 6	6
	A. Injection-site reactions	Erythema 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling hot 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site erythema 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pruritus 5	5
	A. Injection-site reactions	Cyanosis 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling abnormal 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site infection 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pallor 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensory disturbance 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Tenderness 4	4
	A. Injection-site reactions	Asthenia 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Feeling hot 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Inflammation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discharge 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discolouration 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site irritation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site reaction 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site urticaria 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site vesicles 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Limb immobilisation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal pain 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Poor peripheral circulation 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensory loss 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin warm 3	3
	A. Injection-site reactions	Dry skin 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Grip strength decreased 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypoaesthesia 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injected limb mobility decreased 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site cellulitis 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site coldness 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discolouration 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site mass 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site pain 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Peripheral coldness 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pruritus 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensory loss 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin discolouration 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin reaction 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Skin reaction 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Tenderness 2	2
	A. Injection-site reactions	Blister 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Complex regional pain syndrome 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Extensive swelling of vaccinated limb 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hyperaesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hyperaesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypokinesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Hypokinesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Immobile 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Impetigo 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site abscess 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site anaesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site coldness 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site discomfort 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haematoma 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haemorrhage 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site haemorrhage 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site joint movement impairment 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site joint pain 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site movement impairment 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site movement impairment 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site papule 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site paraesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site rash 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Injection site scab 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Joint swelling 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Limb immobilisation 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local reaction 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Local swelling 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Lymphoedema 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Mass 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Mobility decreased 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscle rigidity 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscle spasms 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Muscle tightness 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Musculoskeletal pain 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Nausea 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Nodule 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Pain of skin 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Paraesthesia 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Peripheral vascular disorder 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash maculo-papular 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Rash pruritic 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Scab 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensation of heaviness 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Sensation of pressure 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Tremor 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Urticaria 1	1
	A. Injection-site reactions	Urticaria 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash 130	130
	B. Allergic reactions	Urticaria 89	89
	B. Allergic reactions	Pruritus 60	60
	B. Allergic reactions	Erythema 47	47
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling face 42	42
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactic reaction 41	41
	B. Allergic reactions	Dyspnoea 33	33
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash generalised 31	31
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash pruritic 31	31
	B. Allergic reactions	Oedema peripheral 29	29
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip swelling 26	26
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash macular 24	24
	B. Allergic reactions	Dizziness 23	23
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypersensitivity 22	22
	B. Allergic reactions	Eye swelling 18	18
	B. Allergic reactions	Paraesthesia oral 17	17
	B. Allergic reactions	Malaise 15	15
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat tightness 14	14
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash 13	13
	B. Allergic reactions	Swollen tongue 13	13
	B. Allergic reactions	Chest discomfort 11	11
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash erythematous 11	11
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling hot 9	9
	B. Allergic reactions	Flushing 9	9
	B. Allergic reactions	Pruritus generalised 9	9
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis allergic 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Pallor 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Pharyngeal oedema 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Urticaria 8	8
	B. Allergic reactions	Fatigue 7	7
	B. Allergic reactions	Oropharyngeal pain 7	7
	B. Allergic reactions	Paraesthesia 7	7
	B. Allergic reactions	Angioedema 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Dysphagia 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Headache 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Inflammation 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Pyrexia 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat irritation 6	6
	B. Allergic reactions	Blister 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Dyspnoea 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Hyperventilation 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypoaesthesia oral 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Vomiting 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Wheezing 5	5
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactic shock 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyelid oedema 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypersensitivity 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypoaesthesia 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Local swelling 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Nausea 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Pain in extremity 4	4
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis allergic 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Erythema 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Eye pruritus 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyelid oedema 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Hyperhidrosis 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Laryngeal oedema 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Limb discomfort 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Nasopharyngitis 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Ocular hyperaemia 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Pain 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Petechiae 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash erythematous 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash macular 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash maculo-papular 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash pruritic 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin irritation 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin reaction 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Somnolence 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Vision blurred 3	3
	B. Allergic reactions	Abdominal pain 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Abdominal pain upper 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactic reaction 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Blister 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Body temperature increased 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Cold sweat 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis contact 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Dizziness 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Face oedema 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling cold 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Heart rate increased 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Heart rate irregular 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Heat rash 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip swelling 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Peripheral coldness 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Pharyngeal oedema 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Pruritus 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash generalised 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin discolouration 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Skin disorder 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Swollen tongue 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Tachycardia 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Type i hypersensitivity 2	2
	B. Allergic reactions	Anaphylactoid reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Asthenia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Asthenopia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Asthma 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Back pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Breath sounds abnormal 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Bronchospasm 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Chest pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Chills 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Condition aggravated 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Confusional state 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Conjunctival hyperaemia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Contusion 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Convulsion 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Cough 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Dermatitis 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Dry throat 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Dysphagia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eczema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eczema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyelid disorder 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Eyes sunken 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Fatigue 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling abnormal 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling hot 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Feeling jittery 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Generalised erythema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Gingival swelling 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Headache 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypersomnia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypertension 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Hypoventilation 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Increased bronchial secretion 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Infusion site swelling 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Laryngeal oedema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Lethargy 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip blister 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Lip ulceration 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Local reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Loss of consciousness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Migraine 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Muscle tightness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Myalgia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Mydriasis 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Nausea 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Neck pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oedema mouth 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oedema mouth 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oesophageal discomfort 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oral discomfort 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Oral pain 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Palpitations 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Panic reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Paraesthesia oral 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Periorbital oedema 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Photophobia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Piloerection 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Pulse absent 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Purpura 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Pyrexia 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash follicular 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Rash papular 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Respiratory rate increased 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Sensation of foreign body 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Sneezing 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Somnolence 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Speech disorder 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Stridor 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Swelling face 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Syncope 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Systemic lupus erythematosus rash 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Tenderness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Thirst 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat irritation 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Throat tightness 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Tremor 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Type IV hypersensitivity reaction 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Urticaria pigmentosa 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Visual impairment 1	1
	B. Allergic reactions	Vomiting 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dizziness 327	327
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Syncope 296	296
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nausea 151	151
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Headache 109	109
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pallor 108	108
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vomiting 77	77
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Malaise 74	74
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tremor 61	61
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vision blurred 46	46
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling hot 45	45
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Flushing 40	40
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Cold sweat 35	35
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Syncope 27	27
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperhidrosis 25	25
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Presyncope 23	23
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperventilation 21	21
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Loss of consciousness 19	19
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dyspnoea 18	18
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Paraesthesia 18	18
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chills 17	17
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Convulsion 17	17
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pyrexia 16	16
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Somnolence 16	16
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dizziness 15	15
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fatigue 15	15
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate increased 14	14
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Unresponsive to stimuli 14	14
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle twitching 13	13
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash 13	13
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Asthenia 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling cold 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoaesthesia 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Panic attack 12	12
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chest discomfort 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dyskinesia 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Eye rolling 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tachycardia 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tearfulness 11	11
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nervousness 10	10
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Erythema 9	9
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Headache 9	9
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash macular 9	9
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal pain 8	8
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chest pain 8	8
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Peripheral coldness 8	8
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal pain upper 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Anxiety 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fall 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypotension 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Lethargy 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscular weakness 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Photophobia 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Visual impairment 7	7
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Confusional state 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Deafness 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling of body temperature change 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle rigidity 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Musculoskeletal stiffness 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Mydriasis 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nasopharyngitis 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Throat tightness 6	6
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dizziness postural 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysgeusia 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling abnormal 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pallor 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Skin discolouration 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Urticaria 5	5
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal discomfort 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blindness transient 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Body temperature increased 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Decreased appetite 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hot flush 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Migraine 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle spasms 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pulse abnormal 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Respiratory rate increased 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tinnitus 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Urinary incontinence 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vomiting 4	4
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abasia 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Agitation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Balance disorder 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blindness 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure decreased 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Cyanosis 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Disorientation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Disturbance in attention 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dyspnoea 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysstasia 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Emotional disorder 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling drunk 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hearing impaired 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate irregular 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoventilation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nausea 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pain 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pain in extremity 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Panic reaction 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sensory loss 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Somnolence 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Throat irritation 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vertigo 3	3
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Amnesia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure increased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Body temperature decreased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Bradycardia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Circulatory collapse 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Colour blindness acquired 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Consciousness fluctuating 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Diplopia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dry mouth 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dry throat 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysarthria 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dysphagia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Emotional distress 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate decreased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate increased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypertension 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperventilation 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoacusis 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Malaise 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscular weakness 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Myalgia 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Neck pain 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Oropharyngeal pain 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Paraesthesia oral 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Presyncope 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Procedural dizziness 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pruritus 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pulse pressure decreased 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pupil fixed 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Rash generalised 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Retching 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Salivary hypersecretion 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Shock 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Vision blurred 2	2
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal distension 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abdominal pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Abnormal behaviour 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Altered state of consciousness 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Aphasia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Asthenia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Asthma 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Back pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blindness transient 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure increased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Blood pressure systolic decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Body temperature decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Bruxism 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Burning sensation 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Chills 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Condition aggravated 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Convulsion 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Cough 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Deafness transitory 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Depressed level of consciousness 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dissociation 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Disturbance in attention 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Dry mouth 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Ear discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Ear pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Epistaxis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Eye pain 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Eyelid oedema 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Face injury 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Facial spasm 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fatigue 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Fear 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Feeling of despair 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Foaming at mouth 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Gait disturbance 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Grand mal convulsion 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Grip strength decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Head banging 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Head discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heart rate irregular 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Heat rash 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hemiparesis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hot flush 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hyperhidrosis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypersomnia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoaesthesia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypoaesthesia facial 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypokinesia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Hypotonia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Incontinence 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Lip swelling 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Livedo reticularis 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Migraine 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Muscle contracture 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Myoclonus 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Nervous system disorder 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Oral discomfort 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Palpitations 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Paraesthesia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Peripheral circulatory failure 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pharyngeal oedema 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Photophobia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Poor peripheral circulation 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pruritus 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Psychomotor hyperactivity 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Pyrexia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Respiratory arrest 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Respiratory rate decreased 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Seizure anoxic 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sensation of heaviness 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sensory loss 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sinus tachycardia 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sleep attacks 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Sudden onset of sleep 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tachypnoea 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Tremor 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Urticaria 1	1
	C. ‘Psychogenic’ events	Visual impairment 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nausea 631	631
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Headache 629	629
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dizziness 625	625
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Vomiting 260	260
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Malaise 220	220
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Fatigue 216	216
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pyrexia 175	175
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain 69	69
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Diarrhoea 55	55
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain upper 54	54
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Myalgia 49	49
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lethargy 48	48
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling hot 43	43
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature increased 36	36
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain 34	34
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Headache 30	30
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Influenza like illness 28	28
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nausea 28	28
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Oropharyngeal pain 28	28
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Arthralgia 25	25
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Malaise 25	25
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pyrexia 24	24
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pallor 22	22
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Somnolence 22	22
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Asthenia 21	21
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Chills 21	21
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain in extremity 21	21
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash 21	21
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Arthralgia 20	20
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lymphadenopathy 18	18
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Vomiting 16	16
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal discomfort 15	15
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dizziness 15	15
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Flushing 14	14
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Paraesthesia 14	14
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Fatigue 12	12
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Tremor 12	12
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pruritus 11	11
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Decreased appetite 10	10
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain 8	8
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Neck pain 8	8
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling cold 7	7
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Back pain 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Cough 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hyperhidrosis 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hypoaesthesia 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lethargy 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nasopharyngitis 6	6
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain upper 5	5
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Asthenia 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature increased 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Erythema 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling of body temperature change 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Migraine 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Myalgia 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nervousness 4	4
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Back pain 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Decreased appetite 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Diarrhoea 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lower respiratory tract infection 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscle fatigue 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscular weakness 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash generalised 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Somnolence 3	3
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Cold sweat 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dizziness postural 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling abnormal 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Gait disturbance 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Head discomfort 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hot flush 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Influenza like illness 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Joint swelling 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Limb discomfort 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Listless 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Local reaction 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal stiffness 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Nasal congestion 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Oropharyngeal pain 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pruritus generalised 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash macular 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Skin warm 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Throat irritation 2	2
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain lower 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Abdominal pain lower 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Arthralgia 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Axillary mass 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Bedridden 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature fluctuation 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Body temperature fluctuation 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Cough 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Dyspnoea 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Feeling of body temperature change 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Gastrointestinal disorder 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Generalised erythema 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Groin pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hot flush 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hypoaesthesia 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Hypotension 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Ill-defined disorder 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Immunisation reaction 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Induration 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Insomnia 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Limb discomfort 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Local reaction 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Local swelling 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Loss of consciousness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Lymphadenopathy 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Mobility decreased 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscle spasms 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Muscle twitching 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal chest pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal discomfort 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal discomfort 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Musculoskeletal pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Neck pain 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Night sweats 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pain in extremity 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Peripheral coldness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Pharyngitis 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rash erythematous 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Respiratory disorder 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Respiratory tract infection 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Restlessness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Rhinorrhoea 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Sensation of heaviness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Sudden onset of sleep 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Swelling 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Swelling face 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Syncope 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Thirst 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Throat tightness 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Upper respiratory tract infection 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Urticaria 1	1
	D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions	Weight decreased 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Headache 47	47
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Syncope 35	35
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Influenza like illness 32	32
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness 29	29
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia 29	29
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Convulsion 28	28
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pain in extremity 27	27
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Nausea 24	24
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paraesthesia 20	20
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyspnoea 19	19
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lethargy 19	19
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Malaise 19	19
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Drug exposure during pregnancy 18	18
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Fatigue 18	18
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pyrexia 18	18
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest pain 17	17
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vomiting 17	17
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Migraine 16	16
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pain 16	16
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Back pain 15	15
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Somnolence 14	14
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tremor 14	14
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness 12	12
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscular weakness 12	12
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Abortion spontaneous 11	11
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Asthenia 11	11
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Headache 11	11
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Loss of consciousness 11	11
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain 10	10
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Myalgia 10	10
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Oropharyngeal pain 10	10
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Amenorrhoea 9	9
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest discomfort 9	9
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Peripheral coldness 9	9
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia 8	8
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cough 8	8
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Decreased appetite 8	8
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Epistaxis 8	8
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Fatigue 8	8
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Influenza like illness 8	8
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vision blurred 8	8
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Asthma 7	7
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diarrhoea 7	7
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling cold 7	7
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia 7	7
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia facial 7	7
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photophobia 7	7
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Syncope 7	7
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vaginal haemorrhage 7	7
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Viral infection 7	7
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vision blurred 7	7
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysarthria 6	6
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ear pain 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Epilepsy 6	6
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hallucination 6	6
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Insomnia 6	6
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Lower respiratory tract infection 6	6
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal stiffness 6	6
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neck pain 6	6
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Palpitations 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paraesthesia 6	6
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Post viral fatigue syndrome 6	6
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensory disturbance 6	6
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Visual impairment 6	6
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Abasia 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyskinesia 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysstasia 5	5
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eczema 5	5
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema multiforme 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Facial palsy 5	5
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Grand mal convulsion 5	5
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation irregular 5	5
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Oedema peripheral 5	5
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pallor 5	5
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensation of heaviness 5	5
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Weight decreased 5	5
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Anxiety 4	4
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthralgia 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Blister 4	4
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood glucose increased 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chills 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chronic fatigue syndrome 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Condition aggravated 4	4
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Confusional state 4	4
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Contusion 4	4
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cyanosis 4	4
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysmenorrhoea 4	4
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Encephalitis 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema 4	4
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling hot 4	4
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Guillain-barre syndrome 4	4
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypotension 4	4
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lethargy 4	4
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menorrhagia 4	4
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Nasopharyngitis 4	4
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Nausea 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash 4	4
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin discolouration 4	4
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Wheezing 4	4
Surgical and medical procedures	E. not currently recognised	Abortion induced 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aphonia 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Convulsion 3	3
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Disorientation 3	3
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ear pain 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Epilepsy 3	3
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling abnormal 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Head discomfort 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hemiparesis 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperhidrosis 3	3
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Infectious mononucleosis 3	3
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Live birth 3	3
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation delayed 3	3
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Mouth ulceration 3	3
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle twitching 3	3
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Mydriasis 3	3
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Peripheral coldness 3	3
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Premature baby 3	3
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pyrexia 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensory loss 3	3
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tearfulness 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tremor 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Unresponsive to stimuli 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urticaria 3	3
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urticaria chronic 3	3
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Visual field defect 3	3
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Abasia 2	2
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain upper 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abnormal behaviour 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia areata 2	2
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Amenorrhoea 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Angioedema 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Balance disorder 2	2
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Body temperature increased 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Circulatory collapse 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Complex regional pain syndrome 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Complex regional pain syndrome 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Confusional state 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Crying 2	2
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dehydration 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depressed mood 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diplegia 2	2
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diplopia 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Disturbance in attention 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness postural 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Drooling 2	2
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Drug exposure before pregnancy 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysgeusia 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Emotional disorder 2	2
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye pain 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Facial paresis 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling cold 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Gait disturbance 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Gait disturbance 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Grand mal convulsion 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Groin pain 2	2
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Haemoptysis 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Haemorrhage 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Herpes zoster 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Hordeolum 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hot flush 2	2
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperventilation 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypokinesia 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Influenza 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Joint swelling 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Livedo reticularis 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Livedo reticularis 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Local swelling 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Loss of consciousness 2	2
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Malaise 2	2
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstrual disorder 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Mobility decreased 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle spasms 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscular weakness 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal pain 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal stiffness 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Optic neuritis 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pain in extremity 2	2
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pallor 2	2
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paraesthesia oral 2	2
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Petit mal epilepsy 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Pharyngitis 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photosensitivity reaction 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photosensitivity reaction 2	2
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pilonidal cyst congenital 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Purpura 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash generalised 2	2
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rheumatoid arthritis 2	2
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rhinorrhoea 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin exfoliation 2	2
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sleep disorder 2	2
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Swelling face 2	2
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tachycardia 2	2
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urinary incontinence 2	2
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urinary retention 2	2
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Urinary tract infection 2	2
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vertigo 2	2
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Visual impairment 2	2
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vulval ulceration 2	2
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Weight increased 2	2
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal discomfort 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal discomfort 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain lower 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abdominal pain upper 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abnormal faeces 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Abnormal sleep-related event 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Abscess 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Acarodermatitis 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Accommodation disorder 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acne 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acne 1	1
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)	E. not currently recognised	Acute myeloid leukaemia 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acute psychosis 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Acute respiratory failure 1	1
Endocrine disorders	E. not currently recognised	Adrenocortical insufficiency acute 1	1
Endocrine disorders	E. not currently recognised	Adrenocortical insufficiency acute 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aggression 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Alanine aminotransferase increased 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Alopecia areata 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Anaemia 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Anogenital warts 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aphasia 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Aplastic anaemia 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Application site pustules 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Areflexia 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arteriovenous malformation 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthritis 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthritis reactive 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Arthropathy 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Asthenia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ataxia 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Axillary nerve injury 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Axillary pain 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Back pain 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Balance disorder 1	1
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)	E. not currently recognised	Benign hydatidiform mole 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Beta haemolytic streptococcal infection 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Blindness unilateral 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood cortisol decreased 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood pressure decreased 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Blood pressure increased 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Body temperature increased 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Bone pain 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Breast pain 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Breast swelling 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Breast tenderness 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Bronchitis 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Burning sensation 1	1
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cardiac arrest 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Cell marker increased 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cerebral palsy 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cervix inflammation 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest discomfort 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chest pain 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Chills 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Chorea 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cleft palate 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Cold sweat 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Colitis 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Colitis ulcerative 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Condition aggravated 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Conjunctival hyperaemia 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Constipation 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Coordination abnormal 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Csf cell count increased 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dark circles under eyes 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Deafness 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Deafness bilateral 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Decreased appetite 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Decreased interest 1	1
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Deep vein thrombosis 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depressed level of consciousness 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depression 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depression 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Depressive symptom 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dermatitis allergic 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diabetes mellitus inadequate control 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diabetes mellitus inadequate control 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diabetic ketoacidosis 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diarrhoea 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Diarrhoea haemorrhagic 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Discomfort 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dissociation 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dizziness postural 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dry eye 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dry skin 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysgeusia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyskinesia 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dysphemia 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Dyspnoea 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ear discomfort 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eating disorder 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eczema vesicular 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Emotional distress 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Encephalitis 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eosinophilia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Erythema multiforme 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Excessive eye blinking 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Exercise tolerance decreased 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye discharge 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye disorder 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye pain 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eye swelling 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Eyelid oedema 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Facial palsy 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Fall 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Fear 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Feeling abnormal 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Flank pain 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Flatulence 1	1
Vascular disorders	E. not currently recognised	Flushing 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Folliculitis 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Frequent bowel movements 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Furuncle 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Gastrointestinal disorder 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Gaze palsy 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Gingival disorder 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Guillain-barre syndrome 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Guttate psoriasis 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Haemolytic uraemic syndrome 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hallucination, auditory 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hallucination, visual 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Heart disease congenital 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Heart rate decreased 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Henoch-schonlein purpura 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Henoch-schonlein purpura 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Hepatitis viral 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Herpes zoster 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperacusis 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperglycaemia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hyperhidrosis 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Hyperpyrexia 1	1
Immune system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypersensitivity 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypertonia 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoacusis 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia facial 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoaesthesia oral 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoglycaemia 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypomania 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypospadias 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Hypoventilation 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Inappropriate schedule of drug administration 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Incorrect dose administered 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Increased appetite 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Increased upper airway secretion 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Infection 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Inflammation 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Injection site erythema 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Injection site injury 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Injection site swelling 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Insomnia 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Intestinal functional disorder 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Irritable bowel syndrome 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Ivth nerve paralysis 1	1
Hepatobiliary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Jaundice 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Joint stiffness 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Joint stiffness 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Kidney infection 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Labyrinthitis 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Laryngitis 1	1
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders	E. not currently recognised	Limb malformation 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lip blister 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Lip swelling 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Local swelling 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Meningism 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menorrhagia 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstrual disorder 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation delayed 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Menstruation irregular 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Metrorrhagia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Migraine 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Migraine with aura 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Molluscum contagiosum 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Monoplegia 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle rigidity 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Muscle twitching 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Musculoskeletal chest pain 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Myoclonic epilepsy 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Nasal congestion 1	1
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)	E. not currently recognised	Neoplasm malignant 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neuritis 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neurogenic bladder 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Neutropenia 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Neutrophil count decreased 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Oedema peripheral 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Oropharyngeal blistering 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Oropharyngeal pain 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Osteitis 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Otitis media 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pain 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Palindromic rheumatism 1	1
Blood and lymphatic system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pancytopenia 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paralysis 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Paranoia 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Peak expiratory flow rate decreased 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Petechiae 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Photopsia 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Platelet count decreased 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Pneumonia viral 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Pollakiuria 1	1
Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions	E. not currently recognised	Pregnancy with injectable contraceptive 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Presyncope 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Productive cough 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psoriasis 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psychiatric symptom 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psychomotor hyperactivity 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Psychotic disorder 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Radial pulse 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Radiculitis brachial 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash erythematous 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash maculo-papular 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Rash vesicular 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Renal failure 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Respiratory rate increased 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Respiratory syncytial virus infection 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Respiratory tract infection 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Screaming 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sedation 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Sensation of foreign body 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Sensation of pressure 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sensory loss 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Sepsis 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Severe acute respiratory syndrome 1	1
Cardiac disorders	E. not currently recognised	Sinus tachycardia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin burning sensation 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin disorder 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin hypertrophy 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Skin infection 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin irritation 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Skin lesion 1	1
Psychiatric disorders	E. not currently recognised	Somatisation disorder 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Somnolence 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Speech disorder 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Staphylococcal infection 1	1
Nervous system disorders	E. not currently recognised	Status epilepticus 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Streptococcal sepsis 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Swelling 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Swollen tongue 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Systemic inflammatory response syndrome 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Temperature intolerance 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Tenderness 1	1
General disorders and administration site conditions	E. not currently recognised	Thirst 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Throat tightness 1	1
Ear and labyrinth disorders	E. not currently recognised	Tinnitus 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Trichorrhexis 1	1
Metabolism and nutrition disorders	E. not currently recognised	Type 1 diabetes mellitus 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Upper airway obstruction 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Upper respiratory tract infection 1	1
Renal and urinary disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urinary retention 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Urticaria 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vaginal discharge 1	1
Reproductive system and breast disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vaginal lesion 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Varicella 1	1
Infections and infestations	E. not currently recognised	Viraemia 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vitiligo 1	1
Eye disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vitreous floaters 1	1
Gastrointestinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Vomiting 1	1
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Weight bearing difficulty 1	1
Investigations	E. not currently recognised	Weight decreased 1	1
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders	E. not currently recognised	Wheezing 1	1
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	E. not currently recognised	Wrong technique in drug usage process 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Yellow skin 1	1
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	E. not currently recognised	Stevens-johnson syndrome 1	1

Japanese girls will still be able to be vaccinated at no charge, but from now on they will be informed by healthcare providers that the health ministry does not recommend the vaccines. 

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

Ginger Taylor’s List of Research Linking Vaccines to Autism

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

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

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

Current Status of Aluminum Adjuvant Research March 26, 2013

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

The topics covered in the summary and report include:

• Aluminum as a neurotoxin.

• Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.

• The in vivo data.

• Aluminum in vaccines and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

• Connecting pediatric vaccines with aluminum.

• Where we go from here?

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

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

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

POST MOVED:

This post is now found here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1 – Vaccination News Citations – Evidence for Thimerosal Risk

Page 2 – Vaccination News Citations – Evidence for Thimerosal Risk

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

Beyond Conformity – Useful Vaccine Information

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

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

Well worth reading and noting for future reference.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Drug marketing in New Zealand is a fact.

Gardasil, fairywands and bulldust.

FDA questioned about genetically engineered HPV DNA in Gardasil worldwide.

Whipping up fear.

Does the plot thicken?

More HPV vaccine lies

Toxic Metals found in Sweden’s Pandemrix Swine Flu vaccine

What about you?

More autism/vaccination questions

Oh my darling Portia

Paracetamol should not be used for infectious fevers – revisited

Does Nikki Turner live in Gaga land?

Windmills of my mind

Lessons from Ernest Shackleton

Antisystematosis and Plurasideaffects

Getting to the Point.

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

Part 2: Unanswered questions about the Hepatitis B vaccine

Everyone knows who dunnit…

Cognitive dissonance or “being deceived”

Insight Documentary 19 June 2011

Influenza vaccines, KOPS, and the truth

Pneumonia vaccine not only useless, but dangerous

Polio and lemmings

A few voices are waking up to the fact that …

Did Gardasil kill Jasmine?

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

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

Vaccines and neonatal immune development (part 1 of 3)

A reader writes in – B4 school check

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

It’s all about money

Serenity’s grandmother wants answers

IMAC’s new minions

Just do it

Nikki Turner’s Science Friction

Paul Offit’s Science Friction

Pneumovax 23 – an emperor with no clothes

E.coli vaccine and other related nonsense

Who exactly is mad, Dr Holt?

It’s all your fault!

Medical error and hypocrisy

Ministry of Health seriously misled the Immunisation Select Committee

The coming adult needle cushion

Deadly choices – Paul’s porkies.

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

Gardasil – in the quest for evidence.

On Breastfeeding and idiots.

So who is the fanatic?

Puppets, fanatics, nuts and sluts.

Nutrition. Again.

Rheumatic Fever and common sense.

Blog posts from previous years

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

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

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

Letter to the Editor HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism Lucija Tomljenovic^1*, 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 are “optimistic” and contrary to the evidence and largely are from “significant misinterpretation of available data” which is “presented to the public as factual evidence“. 

That translates to:

drug industry and government health officials making up BS“

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors show:

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

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

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

Merck’s Gardasil vaccine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts

The Deer Crusade and Collateral Damage  10 Mar 2013

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

General

• Dr. Yazbak’s speech at “Hear Their Silence Rally” 2000
• Letter supporting Wakefield & Murch from Maureen & F. Edward Yazbak
• About F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
• Comments in the BMJ by Dr. Yazbak

Autism

• 1 in 88 – Autism/ASD among Children of Military Families by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP & Raymond W. Gallup
• An Investigation of the Association Between. MMR Vaccination and Autism in Denmark. G.S. Goldman, Ph.D. F.E. Yazbak, M.D., F.A.A.P
• Appeal to the Autism Community 2005
• Autism 2000: A Tragedy
• Autism 2001: The Silent Epidemic
• Autism 99: A National Emergency
• Autism and Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Finland: A Recent Increase 2002
• Autism in the United States: a Perspective 2003
• AUTISM SKYROCKETS IN QUEBEC: A SECRET NO MORE 2004
• Autism, Vaccination and Immigrants – Yet Another Clear Correlation by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
• Commentary on the Work of F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP by Dr. Boyd Haley
• Conflicting Reports on Autism Data 2005 (by subscription only)
• Direct Individualized Funding for Autism: What is that (by subscription only0
• Epidemiological Autism Studies: Why parents of children with autism are so upset!
• Looking Out of Olmsted County 2005
• Open Letter to Autism Speaks by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, Feb. 2007
• So what else happened in Denmark? 1 October 2004
• The CDC, Autism And Elastic Statistics
• The CDC, Spinach and Autism 2007
• The Expert and Decorum (on Cedillo Autism Hearing)
• The Unconvincing Thimerosal Epidemiological Studies
• There Goes That Argument! by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP – February 28, 2011
• When 1 in 150 is really 1 in 67 By Raymond W. Gallup & F. Edward Yazbak, MD
• Why Don’t Children Regress Before They Turn One? by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, January 10, 2011

MMR & Autism

• ‘Not Really’ (Letter to British Medical Journal/BMJ) 2004
• A Black Spot …on a Good Journal
• A Tale of Two Cities: Flawed Epidemiology By F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
• Alive and Well: The MMR-Autism Connection
• An Investigation of the Association Between MMR Vaccination and Autism in Denmark
• AN OPEN LETTER from Dr Andrew J Wakefield, Dr Peter Fletcher, Dr Peter Harvey, Dr Richard Halvorsen GP, F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, Jane Maroney El-Dahr M.D.
• An Unconvincing Finnish Study
• Autism, MMR and 60 Minutes Another Pediatrician’s Perspective 2000
• CDC-sponsored MMR study supports Wakefield’s findings
• Double Standards (Part 1 of 3) by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP (Part 1 of 3)
• Double Standards – Busting Rules by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP (Part 2 of 3)
• Double Standards – Intimidation in the Courts
• Double Standards – Translation in the Court by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP (Part 3 of 3)
• DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD IS BEING BLAMED FOR THE DECLINE IN MEASLES, MUMPS AND RUBELLA VACCINATION IN THE UK. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
• MMR – Autism Epidemiological Studies: Just a distraction
• MMR cannot be exonerated without explaining increased incidence of autism
• MMR Studies that Count, Studies that Don’t
• MMR, Autism and Thanksgiving
• Over Here & Over There By F. Edward Yazbak , MD , FAAP
• REGRESSIVE AUTISM AND MMR VACCINATION
• The Doctor Over There (Rapid Response to British Medical Journal/BMJ) 2004
• The Price of Saving Face By F. Edward Yazbak , MD , FAAP
• These Researchers Seem Never Finish-ed (re: 2002 Finnish Study)
• When Finding Nothing Is Wonderful By F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
• Yazbak responds to BMJ article: Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

SIDS/Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

• SIDS, VACCINES AND VAERS: A FOLLOW-UP
• SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME IN VAERS: A REVIEW By , F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP

Shaken Baby Syndrome

• Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. F. Edward Yazbak (Shaken Baby Syndrome lies), Feb. 2011
• Multiple Vaccinations And the Shaken Baby Syndrome by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
• Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalomyelitis? The Story of Baby Alan
• Shaken Baby Syndrome: Pitfalls in Diagnosis and Demographics
• Shaken Or Not: That Is The Question 2005
• The NON-Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Rest Of The Cases (by subscription only)

Hepatitis B Vaccine

• Neonatal Hepatitis B Vaccination: Acceptance in Israel
• THE SAGA OF PEDIATRIC HEPATITIS B VACCINATION

Influenza

• DELIVERING INFLUENZA VACCINE TO PREGNANT WOMEN (letter to the editor)
• Fatal pre/perinatal outcomes following flu vaccine in pregnancy
• Flu Vaccine Safety: Creating a Myth
• Flu Vaccine Safety: Creating a Myth by F. Edward Yazbak MD
• Flu-46 (by subscription only)
• Influenza Vaccination – Is It Worth The Risk?
• Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the ACIP by David M. Ayoub, M.D. & F. Edward Yazbak, M.D
• Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
• Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Very Bad Idea By F. Edward Yazbak
• Influenza Vaccination of Infants: A Useless Risk (1/2 way down page)
• The Birth Of A Pandemic
• The Flu Shot — Or Not (subscription only)
• THE FLU VACCINE CRISIS: DID WE MISS A RED FLAG?
• The Flu Vaccine Saga: The Latest Twist 2005

Autism & Rubella Vaccine

• Autism : Is there a vaccine connection? Part I. Vaccination after delivery
• Autism : Is There a Vaccine Connection? Part II. Vaccination around Pregnancy
• Autism : Is There a Vaccine Connection?: Part 3 Vaccination Around Pregnancy, The Sequel

Miscellaneous

• A NOT-SO-PERFECT VACCINE: THE DIPHTHERIA, TETANUS AND ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS VACCINE: AN INVESTIGATION
• Adverse Outcomes Associated with Postpartum Rubella or MMR Vaccine
• An investigation of infant deaths following initial hepatitis B vaccination based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS, 1992-2002)
• Combination and Multiple Vaccinations: A Mixed Reaction 3 and [1 +1] ? 5 (subscription only)
• HYPING VACCINES: AN INVESTIGATION: Chickenpox, Lyme, Rotavirus, And A Highly Revealing Analysis Of Flu Statistics
• Is Mandatory Vaccination Destroying An Important Bond? 2006
• Kicking It Up A Notch, CDC Style (subscription only)
• LET JUSTICE BE DONE by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
• Live virus vaccination near a pregnancy: flawed policies, tragic results
• Peer Review: A Slippery Slope (subscription only)
• ProQuad: The new kid on the block
• RIP: NIP Quietly Slips Away (subscription access only)
• The Chickenpox Vaccine by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP – January 13, 2011
• The Difference: Bruesewitz v Berkovitz by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, March 8, 2011
• The Infant Mortality Rate: An Index of a Nation’s Health 11 February 2005
• The Infant Mortality Rate: An Index of a Nation’s Health 2005
• Trust Me: I Have The Statistics To Prove It (by subscription only)
• UNRELIABILITY OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AS EVIDENCE 17 March 2004
• Vaccinate Johnny To Protect Grammy — And Other Wild Ideas
• Vaccination of Very Premature Infants
• VACCINATION, RUBELLA AND CONGENITAL RUBELLA SYNDROME 2004
• Vaccines – Like Apple Pies On A Conveyor Belt
• VIOXX and Vaccines: Vive La Difference

Vaccination News Articles

• Vaccination News Articles

Mercury

• The Battle Of The States: What Happened In Illinois?
• The Mercury Memo 2005
• Thimerosal Containing Vaccines, Part I – n the Dark, March 2011
• Thimerosal Containing Vaccines, Part II — WHO
• Thimerosal Containing Vaccines, Part III — The Convincing Evidence April 2011
• Thimerosal: The “safe” mercury!

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

Press Release March 8, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

Decision Awarding Damages 21 July 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[x] For Affidavits see www.DrWakefieldJusticeFund.org

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

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

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

See BMJ and press reports:

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

[html online version here]

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

Media reports:

Swine flu jab raises risk of narcolepsy in children

Telegraph.co.uk – ‎3 hours ago‎

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

UK study confirms GSK flu shot link to rare sleep disorder

Reuters UK – ‎1 hour ago‎

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

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

Daily Mail – ‎9 hours ago‎

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

Swine flu jab linked to narcolepsy

Belfast Telegraph – ‎10 hours ago‎

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

Research shows link between narcolepsy and Pandemrix flu vaccine

Nursing Times – ‎40 minutes ago‎

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

GSK flu vaccine linked to sleep disorder

Financial Times – ‎10 hours ago‎

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

Swine flu vaccine linked to narcolepsy in kids

Channel 4 News – ‎11 hours ago‎

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

Higher risk of narcolepsy in children who had swine flu vaccine

OnMedica – ‎1 hour ago‎

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

Flu vaccination linked to narcolepsy

Practice Business – ‎1 hour ago‎

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

Swine flu jab narcolepsy risk

ITV News – ‎8 hours ago‎

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

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

Businessweek – ‎10 hours ago‎

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

Flu vac may cause sleep disorder

iAfrica.com – ‎2 hours ago‎

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

Swine flu findings ‘consistent’ with European studies

ITV News – ‎7 hours ago‎

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

Increased risk of narcolepsy from swine flu jab

ITV News – ‎8 hours ago‎

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

Pandemrix Vaccine Triggers Narcolepsy

TopNews United States – ‎3 hours ago‎

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

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:

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

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

• UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Polio the Problem In the First Place

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

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

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

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

… with this from the US CDC:

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

[BLUE TEXT ADDED 30 JAN 2012]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flu Shot Linked to Child Narcolepsy – Reuters Reports

Reuters reports that GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine has caused 800 cases of narcolepsy in children.  Taking under-reporting into account, this could amount to between at least 5,600 cases or a figure around up to 40,000 in the countries concerned. Cases have been recorded in children from Sweden, Finland, Norway, Ireland and France. Narcolepsy is a serious condition which can debilitate a child for life.  Sufferers can fall asleep on the spot any time without warning.

To gain an idea of the potential extent of this adverse reaction in children caused by this vaccine and to adjust for under-reporting it is necessary to multiply by up to 50 times.  [Under-reporting in all drugs and not just vaccines is 98 in every 100 adverse reactions – hence multiply by 50: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.]

Read the Reuters’ report here:

Insight: Evidence grows for narcolepsy link to GSK swine flu shot – By Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent, Reuters, STOCKHOLM | Tue Jan 22, 2013

See also our CHS article today:

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

And these selected CHS articles:

Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

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

Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths

Flu Vaccine Cripples Healthy US Cheerleader for Life

Most UK Medics Refusing Flu Vaccines

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

UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers

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

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

Watch the video below of Piers Morgan on US TV getting the flu jab.  And then watch him on his show just days later.  He is pale and sick and complaining with a croaky voice to a star guest who advises him “Don’t ever take a ‘flu shot again“.

Even Piers and his guest say the shot caused his ‘flu symptoms.

See also our CHS article today: Flu Shot Linked to Child Narcolepsy – Reuters Reports and these selected CHS articles:

Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

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

Flu Vaccine Caused 3587 US Miscarriages & Stillbirths

Flu Vaccine Cripples Healthy US Cheerleader for Life

Most UK Medics Refusing Flu Vaccines

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

UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers

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

Piers Morgan Gets Flu Shot – Ten Days Later He’s Sick!

How UNICEF Harms Third World Children And Misleads About Their Deaths

An Associated Press story shows how UNICEF harms the interests of third world children by using the media to mislead the world. 

UNICEF, a United Nations organisation (originally called United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) exaggerates the effect on the health of third world children of its activities.  UNICEF’s efforts are effectively insignificant compared to the effect of continuing economic growth in the developing world.  Economic growth delivers dramatic health effects.  It brings cleaner water and improved nutrition which are long proven to be the key factors in improving child health and preventing deaths from infectious disease.

UNICEF airbrushes out the effect of economic growth.  UNICEF thus seeks to gain the credit: “the global number of under-five deaths has fallen from around 12 million in 1990 to an estimated 6.9 million in 2011.”: Child deaths fell below 7 million in 2011 – Associated Press September 13, 2012.

The interests of third world children are inevitably harmed.  Avoidable child deaths will occur.  Scarce resources will be and are diverted from the most effective measures as a result of such overt direct manipulation and misleading of the world’s media, politicians and public.

Citing Bangladesh as an example of when “a country’s location and economic status need not be a barrier to reducing child deaths” UNICEF fails to mention that the economy of Bangladesh has grown 5-6% per annum since 1996: Bangladesh Economy Overview The World Fact Book CIA. UNICEF fails to make clear that in Bangladesh “…. the economy accelerated from 1990, driven by a remarkable turnaround …“: Economic growth in Bangladesh: experience and policy priorities.

UNICEF fails to give credit to Bangladesh for using its economic success to deliver clean water to its citizens: The path through the fields – “Bangladesh … has been surprisingly good at improving the lives of its poor” The Economist, Nov 3rd 2012.

UNICEF instead claims vaccines and technology can change things when their effect is marginal in comparison to economic development.  UNICEF claims [emphasis added]:

…. youngsters from disadvantaged and marginalized families in poor and fragile nations are the most likely to die before their fifth birthday, but their lives can be saved with vaccines, adequate nutrition and basic medical and maternal care.

The world has the technology and know-how to do so”  …  “that there is “unfinished business” ….. “That’s why we have this global movement …. to end child deaths. This decline shows we can make this happen.“

The following superb BBC FOUR broadcast by Professor Hans Rosling shows how health improved in step with wealth over the last 200 years “200 countries over 200 years using 120,000 numbers – in just four minutes“:

The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water.  Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research:

• “The questionable contribution of medical measures to the decline of mortality in the United States in the twentieth century“. McKinlay JB, McKinlay SM, Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Summer; 55(3): 405-28.

• “Symposium: Accomplishments in Child Nutrition during the 20th Century.  Infant Mortality in the 20th Century, Dramatic but Uneven Progress” Myron E. Wegman School of Public Health, University of Michigan: J. Nutr. 131: 401S–408S, 2001.

This can also be seen from the graphs here: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

UNICEF is an agency of a political organisation, the United Nations, which is dominated by developed nations.  And it has for decades been harming the interests of third world children by buying cheap and known-to-be dangerous vaccines like Urabe strain MMR as well as mercury laced vaccines like DTP and giving them to third world children. 

In addition, third world children still die from infectious diseases despite vaccines.  It is a scandal of the 21st Century that organisations like UNICEF do nothing to develop effective treatments for basic childhood diseases.  With such treatments we could save up to 7 million needless deaths annually.  UNICEF is doing nothing to ensure such treatments are developed.

The AP story was based on a UNICEF report.  No doubt UNICEF’s Director and other senior staff will use reports  like that to continue to seek a substantial annual budget and issue more similar reports in future to justify their existence and annual salaries.

What can also be said is that media reports and news releases emanating from UNICEF are not to be trusted.

American parents awarded £600000 in compensation after their son developed autism as a result of MMR vaccine

The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper has reported on a recent US Federal Court decision:

American parents awarded £600,000 in compensation after their son developed autism as a result of MMR vaccine

By David Gardner, Daily Mail [UK] 15 January 2013

• Saeid and Parivash Mojabi claimed their son suffered a ‘severe brain injury’
• The Californian couple said that son Ryan was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder

CHS has reported on this breaking news here:

US Court Awards Multi-Million Dollar Payouts To Two More US Children With Vaccine Caused Autism

The story has been covered in The Huffington Post here by David Kirby, the journalist who broke the Hannah Poling story in 2008:

Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism David Kirby Huffington Post 14th January 2013.

US Court Awards Multi-Million Dollar Payouts To Two More US Children With Vaccine Caused Autism

This breaking news is reported by award winning journalist David Kirby, who in 2008 broke the Hannah Poling story.

The two new cases are reported here:  Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism David Kirby Huffington Post 14th January 2013.

The children in the successful new cases are Ryan Mojabi aged 10 from Northern California and Emily Moller.

Hannah Poling developed an autistic condition after receiving 9 vaccines in one day.  Following the US government conceding her case in 2008, her damages award over her lifetime is reported to be US$20 million:  US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case

After the story broke in 2008, the US Centres for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding conceded on US national broadcast TV that vaccines can cause autistic conditions.  And the US Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA] also confirmed to CBS News that vaccines can cause autistic conditions: Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

In 2012 the UK’s Daily Mail reported the Italian Court decision on an Italian child, Valentino Bocca, awarded damages for autism caused by the MMR vaccine.  This is the same MMR vaccine, Merck’s MMR II, used in the USA and in the UK: 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 Reid – Daily Mail 15 June 2012

The UK’s Independent further reported another 100 cases are pending in Italy: Italian court reignites MMR vaccine debate after award over child with autism Paul Bignell The Independent on Sunday 17 June 2012.

The UK’s previous Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP was reported in British media saying that the Italian Court’s decision was “potentially significant”.

With these new US cases the position must be more significant still.

This issue will not go away – in the USA there are now 1 in 88 children with autistic conditions – and higher in other states like New Jersey:  Shocking New US Official Autism Figures – Kids With Autistic Conditions At Record High 1 in 88, 1 in 54 Boys

In the UK it is 1 in 64 children according to Cambridge University research: “Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study” Baron-Cohen S, Scott FJ, Allison C, Williams J, Bolton P, Matthews FE and Brayne C (2009) British Journal of Psychiatry, 194: 500-509.

If children went blind at this rate it would be being treated as an international disaster.

The world also has a short memory.  People forget what CDC Director Julie Gerberding stated on US national broadcast news and what the US HRSA told CBS News in writing.

The Hannah Poling story was one of the top ten US news stories in 2008 and continued to be reported coast to coast in 2009.

All 2008 US presidential candidates were quoted publicly on the autism issue – trying to gain votes:  AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

But their expressions of interest appear to have been no more than vote catching – particularly in the case of US President Barak Obama whose administration is proposing unethical anthrax vaccine tests on underprivileged US children:  Anthrax Vaccine Tests On Underprivileged US Children Planned By Obama Administration – Public Meeting 14-15th January – University of Miami

Vaccinated Children Over 5 Times More Prone to Disease

CHS has previously reported on a unique survey with data predominantly from children from the USA:

New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism

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

The most recent results published during 2012 can be seen summarised here from the original website:-

Anthrax Vaccine Tests On Underprivileged US Children Planned By Obama Administration – Public Meeting 14-15th January – University of Miami

According to the respected NY USA Charity, AHRP [the Alliance for Human Research Protection] President Obama’s administration is proposing to change US law to test anthrax vaccines and other bioterrorism counter-measures on underprivileged US children.  Obama’s proposals appear to violate fundamental medical ethical principles mandated under the Nuremberg Code after the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II, 1939-45.

These US children are also more likely than not to be black US children due to the inequalities in the US social, economic and political systems.

There is action you can take about this – see below for where to send emails and to download and read yourself the official US government documents announcing consultations on these issues.

Also remember when reading the following CHS previously asked HERE “How can you know how dangerous the vaccines given to your child are?  Should you trust government health officials’ assurances?  What can you do to protect your child from your own government?”

If AHRP is correct, this is serious.  The official warnings for the anthrax vaccine [full details below] include that:

Approximately 6% of the reported events were listed as serious. Serious adverse events include those that result in death, hospitalization, permanent disability or are life-threatening. ”

Also remember that when Barak Obama first came to the American people to get your votes he stated:

We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.“

Obama Climbs On The Vaccine Research Bandwagon David Kirby Huffington Post 22 April 2008

But now it is being suggested he is ready to sell underprivileged US children down the river to be used as test fodder for experimental vaccines.  The USA has a history of using underprivileged people and particularly black people for medical experiments.  It is not a country with a good human rights record.  This does not do much for Obama’s US human and civil rights record.

CHS Edited Version – Republished from AHRP Infomail 9/Jan/2013

Alliance for Human Research Protection – www.ahrp.org [AHRP ]
Advancing Honest and Ethical Medical Research

A public meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has been scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, January 14-15, to be held at the University of Miami Hospital Seminar Center, Florida:

The stated topic for discussion is “ethical issues associated with the development of medical countermeasures for children.” For full details download this official document http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-26/pdf/2012-31037.pdf 

The Obama Administration is seeking approval to conduct morally impermissible, wholly non-therapeutic medical experiments that would expose healthy children to risks of serious harm. Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services is seeking to test the highly controversial, dangerous Anthrax vaccine, on children.

Express Your Views to the Commission’s Director: Hillary.Viers@bioethics.gov

For over a year, the Commission has been attempting to find a rationale for endorsing a proposed government policy that would violate fundamental medical ethics principles. Principles mandated under the Nuremberg Code after the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime came to light.

Under US Law, research involving greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to individual [child] subjects, is prohibited in healthy children. (45 CFR 46, subpart D).

If not stopped, the US government would override ethical and legal prohibitions by testing “medical countermeasures” on unprotected children who are legally incapable of giving informed consent.

The government would subject healthy but socioeconomically deprived American children to unjustifiable risks of harm–to be exploited as human guinea pigs.

The overarching question — not specified by the Commission or the Administration — is, WHOSE CHILDREN ARE TO BE SELECTED for experiments that violate ethical and moral standards?

If history is a guide, underprivileged children’s best interest will sacrificed to serve as a means to an end that will benefit powerful commercial and government entities.

More than a decade has passed since the US was attacked by terrorists, Sept. 11, 2001. No biochemical weapon has ever been shown to pose a threat to Americans — neither military personnel nor civilians. The only exception was the mailing of anthrax laced envelopes in October, 2001, by a US military scientist, from a US military laboratory – who is now dead.

There is no evidence whatsoever of an anthrax threat to American children.

Therefore, those who even consider exposing children to the documented harmful effects of the anthrax vaccine suffer from a “moral deficit disorder.”

Express Your Views to the Commissions Director, Hillary.Viers@bioethics.gov

Overarching all considerations are the questions:

WHOSE CHILDREN WILL BE EXPOSED TO THE SERIOUS RISKS OF THE ANTHRAX VACCINE–WITHOUT ANY POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR THEM?

WHOSE CHILDREN WILL BE USED AS HUMAN GUINEA PIGS?

Below are the warnings on the Anthrax Vaccine label.

FDA-Approved Label Warning (31 JAN 2002) ANTHRAX VACCINE ADSORBED (BIOTHRAX™)

EXCERPT

Approximately 6% of the reported events were listed as serious. Serious adverse events include those that result in death, hospitalization, permanent disability or are life-threatening.

The serious adverse events most frequently reported were in the following body system categories: general disorders and administration site conditions, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, and musculoskeletal, connective tissue and bone disorders.

Anaphylaxis and/or other generalized hypersensitivity reactions, as well as serious local reactions, were reported to occur occasionally following administration of BioThrax. None of these hypersensitivity reactions have been fatal.

Other infrequently reported serious adverse events that have occurred in persons who have received BioThrax have included:

cellulitis, cysts, pemphigus vulgaris, endocarditis, sepsis, angioedema and other hypersensitivity reactions, asthma, aplastic anemia, neutropenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, lymphoma, leukemia, collagen vascular disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, polyarteritis nodosa, inflammatory arthritis, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, immune deficiency, seizure, mental status changes, psychiatric disorders, tremors, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), facial palsy, hearing and visual disorders, aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, syncope, glomerulonephritis, renal failure, spontaneous abortion and liver abscess. Infrequent reports were also received of multisystem disorders defined as chronic symptoms involving at least two of the following three categories: fatigue, mood-cognition, musculoskeletal system.

Reports of fatalities included sudden cardiac arrest (2), myocardial infarction with polyarteritis nodosa (1), aplastic anemia (1), suicide (1) and central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma (1).

Revised  package insert (May 2012) provides additional cause for alarm.

http://www.biothrax.com/prescribinginformation_biothrax_us.pdf

EXCERPT

1.  The vaccine is dangerous in pregnancy.  (Pregnancy Category D*:  evidence of harm exists)

BioThrax can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.”

Of women who received vaccine within 90 days of the estimated date of conception (n = 14), 2 spontaneous abortions and a first trimester intra-utero fetal death were reported, along with one report of a healthy term infant with mild right clubbed foot abnormality. ”  page 6

Fifty-one pregnancies occurred during the trial. The package insert states,

Advise women of the potential risk to the fetus.”  page 15

2.  The Gulf War Syndrome definition remains a reported adverse event in the most recent version of the package insert:

Infrequent reports were also received of multisystem disorders defined as chronic symptoms involving at least two of the following three categories:

fatigue, mood-cognition, and musculoskeletal system.” page 9

3.  The vaccine hurts more than other vaccines.

“Up to 11% of subjects rated the brief pain or burning they experienced immediately after vaccine injection as 8 out of 10 or greater.” page 5

4. The “Information for Patients” page states, on page 16:

What are the possible or reasonably likely side effects of BioThrax?

• Pain, tenderness, redness, bruising, or problems moving the arm in which you got the shot
• Muscle aches
• Headaches
• Fatigue
• Fainting”

Court Fines Doctor Who Did Not Tell Patient Hepatitis B Vaccine Causes Multiple Sclerosis

A French Court has fined a doctor 3000 Euros for failing to inform a patient of all side effects of a vaccination.  This included the risk of multiple sclerosis from the Hepatitis B vaccine.

This is an important decision which reinforces in law the doctor’s obligation to obtain informed consent from a patient.

The full story can be read in this Google translation from a French law website for French lawyers:

Vaccination against hepatitis B and multiple sclerosis: the patient must know!

By William COLLART – Lawyer | 24-12-2012

Commercially Corrupted Medicine Leading Cause of Death in USA – Washington Post

Consider the following and then ask – “How can you know how dangerous the vaccines given to your child are?  Should you trust government health officials’ assurances?  What can you do to protect your child from your own government?”

Can Medical Research be Trusted? – Washington Post

Republished from AHRP Infomail 4/Jan/2013

From NY USA charity – Alliance for Human Research Protection – www.ahrp.org [AHRP ]
Advancing Honest and Ethical Medical Research

Commercially corrupted medicine is the leading cause of death in the US—and it is bankrupting the US budget.  The Washington Post is addressing both issues in a powerful hard hitting investigative series by Peter Whoriskey titled: Can Medical Research be Trusted?

The focus of the series is on Pharma’s – orchestrated corruption in collaboration with academic scientists and prestigious journals—e.g., The New England Journal of Medicine–provided the authority and veneer of legitimacy to fraudulent, often ghostwritten research reports that claimed that lethal drugs were safe and beneficial while concealing the most severe, lethal adverse effects of prescription drugs, which are a leading cause of death.

The series shines a light on industry manipulated data that was used to gain FDA approval and to “negotiate” the content of FDA- approved labels.  And on medical practice guidelines—such as the recently revised, American Psychiatric Association (DSM5) diagnostic and treatment manual—have been crafted by scientists with copious financial ties to companies whose products they promote.

The resounding verdict—much as our own five-part series, America’s Healthcare Crisis — is that medical research, medical journals, medical practice guidelines, FDA advisory panels, and doctors—all of who are bankrolled by the pharmaceutical industry—cannot be trusted!

Unfortunately, the entire evidence base has been perverted,” said Joseph Ross, a professor at Yale Medical School who has studied the issue. 

Another insightful, prominent critic who has examined internal company data, Dr. David Healy, describes the evolution of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that came into favor in the wake of thalidomide as a method to evaluate drugs and their risks.

They were supposed to keep ineffective drugs off the market, but companies have learned that you can do any number of trials and if even some show a marginal benefit they can get their drug on the market and the others can be suppressed so no one has a true picture of the effects of the drug. Once on the market, the favorable RCTs are turned into a turbo-charger to boost sales even for debatably effective drugs. The risks get written out of the script by ghostwriters and creative publication strategies.”

Those “creative publication strategies” provided a reassuring message to physicians: do not hesitate to prescribe patented drugs widely, at high doses, for approved and unapproved conditions.Doctors have readily adopted commercially driven medical practices–they do not suffer any harm from the harmful drugs they prescribe or recommend—they are shielded by their professional status.

Thus, harmful drugs of no demonstrable clinical value have been catapulted into billion dollar blockbuster sellers. These are not bloodless crimes: there are hundreds of thousands of human casualties whose lives were sacrificed to increase profits.

You could say these marketing tactics are merely concerning.  But I think of them as satanic. What the data are telling us is that these drugs are ruining people’s lives,” said  Phillip Prior, MD

Indeed, the most recent report in series, focusing on the skyrocketing prescriptions of opiates–from 76 million prescriptions in 1991 to 219 million prescriptions in 2011 (December 30, 2012). Peter Whoriskey notes:

“The label on the drug, which was approved by the FDA, said the risks of addiction were “reported to be small.”  The New England Journal of Medicine, the nation’s premier medical publication, informed readers that studies indicated that such painkillers pose “a minimal risk of addiction.” 

Another important journal study, which the manufacturer of OxyContin reprinted 10,000 times, indicated that in a trial of arthritis patients, only a handful showed withdrawal symptoms. Those reassuring claims, which became part of a scientific consensus

But Lisa Roberts, the public health nurse, whose primary job is to reduce the fatalities associated with drug use, said:

Around here, we call it ‘pharmageddon.’ “This has been absolutely devastating to Appalachia. From what we’ve seen, the risks of addiction were tremendous.”

Not only has the profession sold its integrity, its leaders and practitioners have become partners in fraud and deception—doctors have become accessories to manslaughter.Each report in the series provides details about hidden relationships of prominent physicians who participate in criminal marketing of prescription drugs. The perversion of medical science is the root cause that led the FDA to grant marketing approval to deadly drugs and continued for years to turn a blind eye to catastrophic deadly consequences.

At least 22 drugs that had been approved since 1993 were withdrawn after causing hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. See list at: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/861/56/
The deadly examples highlighted in The Washington Post investigation include drugs that were withdrawn after they killed hundreds of thousands of people, and drugs that continue to kill:

Painkillers Vioxx (Merck) and OxyContin (Purdue); antidepressants  Wellbutrin (GlaxoSmithKline);  diabetes, Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline); osteoperosis, Fosamax (Merck); heart failure, Natrecor (Scios); anemia drugs, Epogen / Procrit / Aranesp ( Amgen and Johnson & Johnson).

• Bingeing on prescription painkillers  (December 30, 3012)  

• also posted at: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/894/150/

• Antidepressants to treat grief? (December 26, 2012)
  

• As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias (November 24, 2012)
  

• Medicare overspending on anemia drug (August 9, 2012)
  

• Anemia drug made billions, but at what cost?
  

• Graphic: The rise and fall of a billion-dollar drug

Other issues that the Washington Post should examine is the unprecedented encouragement to prescribe powerful psychotropic drugs widely for children and pregnant women–even as there is data showing increased risk of serious harm.  A long overdue examination is called for about the role–if any–that psychotropic drugs have played in random school shooting rampages.It is extremely frustrating to realize that no matter how compelling the accumulation of evidence demonstrating that medicine has been perverted from a  healing profession that focused on patients’ best interest, into a profession of licensed accomplices in a vast commercially-driven enterprise, doctors continue to abuse their professional status and license for cash with impunity. Doctors pathologize normal behavior, including childhood and grief,  and doctors promote the prescribing of highly addictive drugs, drugs that trigger life-shortening disease, and drugs that precipitate violent , suicidal, murderous outbursts.

Thus, harmful drugs of no demonstrable clinical value have been catapulted into billion dollar blockbuster sellers. These are not bloodless crimes: there are hundreds of thousands of human casualties whose lives were sacrificed to increase profits.

Secret EU Government Report – Wide Range of Child Vaccine Deaths & Injuries – From Just One Six-In-One Vaccine

The Belgian organisation Initiative Citoyenne [IC] has published in the public interest a secret vaccine manufacturer’s 1271 page report to an EU government drug safety licensing agency.

The report sets out a wide range of multiple numerous wide-ranging vaccine adverse reactions, including deaths and injuries to children from side effects identified at European level and associated with just one six-in-one vaccine.  These were recorded by the manufacturer between 23 October 2009 and 22 October 2011.

The 1,742 reports of side effects do not take into account under-reporting.  So the figures in the report need to be multiplied by 50 times to get an idea of the potential extent of the adverse reactions in children.  [Under-reporting in all drugs and not just vaccines is 98 in every 100 adverse reactions – hence multiply by 50: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.]

The vaccine is a diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b and hepatitis B.

IC prepared a thorough and detailed news release which can be read HERE  [English translation].  The secret report can be downloaded from their website.  The link to the relevant IC webpage is found HERE [English translation].

To protect children from the very serious harms now presented by more and more vaccines, parents and medical professionals must demand of their politicians and governments that effective treatments be developed as a matter of urgency for all of these so-called “vaccine preventable diseases”.  It is a scandal in the 21st Century that such treatments do not exist.  It is because we have the vaccines and the profits for the drug industry from them and the conditions they cause that we do not have effective treatments.  If we had them only the sick would need treatment and the healthy majority of children, who do not have any serious risks from these common childhood diseases, are not put at such serious risk from vaccines.

Highlights of The Report

[All are original figures – uncorrected for under-reporting]:

• there are 73 child deaths reported, 36 in the two year period covered by the report and another 37 prior to that time;

• most deaths occurred very soon after vaccination;

• the reports also include autism, sudden infant death and, remarkably, where child abuse instead of vaccine injury was originally alleged to be the cause;

• taking under-reporting into account, the number of sudden infant deaths exceed the number expected from other causes [and that means including sudden infant deaths associated with other vaccines];

• the other serious adverse reactions cover a wide range of 825 different kinds, affecting every system and organ of the body: the circulatory system, the cardiovascular system, nervous system, immune system, lungs, the skin, but also the sense organs (sight, hearing, etc), the bones and joints, the urinary system, digestive system and the hormonal system;

Proof Some Docs, Drug Companies, Politicians & Government Officials Work To Make Your Kids Sick – To Get Your MONEY – News From NY USA Charity AHRP

If you ever wanted the clearest of proof then the US statewide national Federal TeenScreen programme is it.  So when some docs and health officials are trying to shove yet another vaccine into your child, remember that body and mind, they are harming too many children with vaccines and mind and body altering drugs whilst telling you they are all safe.

TeenScreen was a programme to screen all US teenage children for mental illness so Big Pharma could sell more dangerous mental “health” drugs to perfectly healthy kids which those children did not need and should not have had whilst labelling them for life as mentally ill.  [And that is with some of these people also trying to make you believe that health foods, herbal treatments and vitamins are dangerous in a bid to eliminate any kind of competition].

Teenscreen has only now been shut down after years of hard campaigning and exposure including deaths of and injury to children from psychiatric drugs they could have done without.

This programme was a legacy of George Bush Jnr from the US Republican Party.  So when some Republicans get all doe-eyed and go on about the importance of children, family values and America, this tells you just what they mean.

Read this and then ask “How Can We Trust Government Officials And What They Say”?

Edited Version Republished from Infomail 20/Nov/12 from NY USA charity

Alliance for Human Research Protection – www.ahrp.org [AHRP ]
Advancing Honest and Ethical Medical Research

TeenScreen Operations Have Shut Down

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

The following announcement was posted on TeenScreen’s website (November 15, 2012):

Important Announcement for Schools & Communities:  We are sorry to inform you that the TeenScreen National Center will be winding down its program at the end of this year. Accordingly, we will no longer train or register new programs.”  

http://www.teenscreen.org/

No explanation was given.

TeenScreen was a highly controversial, aggressive, medically dubious mental health screening protocol  developed with federal funding.

From its inception, TeenScreen was a flawed tool that misidentified 83% of the time, normal adolescents as having undiagnosed mental illnesses which (it was claimed) put them at risk of suicide.

In 2004, it was acknowledged that  “in practice a specificity of 0.83 would deliver many who were not at risk for suicide, and that could reduce the acceptability of a school-based prevention program.”  See Ref 7

Despite its acknowledged unreliability as a screening tool, President Bush’s New Freedom Commission for Mental Health recommended (in 2003) the use of TeenScreen for all school-aged children in the 50 states. The NFC also recommended adhering to the TMAP mental health prescribing guidelines (TMAP = Texas Medication Algorithm Project).

TMAP was exposed as an industry-initiated marketing scam by Allen Jones, a whistleblower who uncovered the evidence of corrupt marketing practices–including fraudulent claims of safety and efficacy, and kickbacks to some government officials and some prominent academic psychiatrists that led to the meteoric profits generated TMAP.

In essence, these two radical “test and treat” protocols vastly increased the client roster for Big Pharma and mental health providers, providing cover for an unconscionable, ruthless business model.

TeenScreen facilitated a steady flow of  adolescents deemed “at risk” who would be prescribed psychotropic drugs recommended by the TMAP Guidelines.  These highly toxic drugs carry Black Box label warnings because they have been linked to irreversible, debilitating, chronic or fatal injury in patients at normal prescribed doses.    To combat the  adverse effects of any one of these drugs led to presribing additional drugs (drug cocktails) ensuring life-long psychotropic drug dependence.

The question that remains is, what led to the dissolution of TeenScreen?

Read more:  http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/886/9/

See Full US Congress Hearings On The Autism Pandemic – Web Links Here – Video & Transcripts

Official Title for Congressional Oversight Committee Hearings:

1 in 88 Children: A Look Into the Federal Response to Rising Rates of Autism

Oversight Committee Mission Statement

We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them.  Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights.

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, ……. We will work tirelessly …. to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform ……..”

TO SHARE – shortlink to this article: http://wp.me/pfSi7-1Fe

Part 1

Chairman’s Preview Statement

2:00 P.M. in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building November 29, 2012

Congress spends a lot of time discussing and debating issues that are determined by our own philosophical belief on what the role of government should be. Today we are drawing attention to something that has no political affiliation, no partisan allegiance, something much more fundamental and something much more personal.

Right now, 1 in 88 children are identified with Autism Spectrum Disorder or ASD. At the start of this century, that ratio was 1 in 150. The truth is we don’t know enough about ASD.  We do know, however, that it is being diagnosed far more frequently than it was just a few years ago.

In recognition of this increase and of the reality that we don’t know enough about ASD, the Congress passed the Combating Autism Act in 2006 to establish the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee so we could facilitate an exchange of information and coordination in the hopes of raising awareness and understanding of ASD research and services. In Fiscal Year 2012, Congress directed $230 million for ASD-specific research and services.

Today, we will get a clearer picture on what is being done, what questions still need to be answered and what needs exist for those children, adults and families who live with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.

###

Part 2

Part 3

Witnesses

Alan Guttmacher, M.D. (testimony)

Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

National Institutes of Health

---

Coleen Boyle, Ph.D. (testimony)

Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

---

Mr. Bob Wright (testimony)

Co-Founder

Autism Speaks

---

Mr. Scott Badesch (testimony)

President

Autism Society

---

Mr. Mark Blaxill (testimony)

Board Member

SafeMinds

---

Mr. Bradley McGarry (testimony)

Coordinator of the Asperger Initiative at Mercyhurst

Mercyhurst University

---

Mr. Michael John Carley (testimony)

Executive Director

Global & Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership

---

Mr. Ari Ne’eman (testimony)

President

Autistic Self Advocacy Network

World Autism Pandemic – US Congressional Hearings 29th November 2012

Reposted from Age of Autism.

You can read the Comments and subscribe to the Comment Feed by clicking Here.

___________ * ___________

Landmark Autism Hearing: “The Troops Have Landed on Normandy Beach”

By  Dan Olmsted

Thursday’s hearing before the House oversight committee (view the autism hearing here: “US Lawmakers Look into Federal Response to Rising Rates of Autism”) will surely be remembered as a landmark. By the end of the day, the government spokesmen from the NIH and the CDC seemed to be the ones people were looking at funny, while those who raised concerns about autism and vaccines seemed positively mainstream.

It didn’t help that the CDC’s Coleen Boyle testified under oath that fraudster Poul Thorsen  had only been involved in a couple of studies with the CDC. Shortly thereafter, a congressman introduced into evidence a list of more than 20 he had worked on. I feel like calling the CDC and asking: “Has Ms. Boyle retained counsel in anticipation of a possible perjury charge?”

The questions were tough and bipartisan — from Republicans like longtime thimerosal foe Dan Burton (above, with Mark Blaxill) to Chairman Darrell Issa, who said no topic would be out of bounds as the committee continues to probe. Democrat Carolyn Maloney, who has tried to get a vax-unvax study through the House for years, gave ’em the what-for once again. And while I have seen Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings on TV, I wasn’t prepared for the common-sense and deeply troubled approach he brought to the proceedings. The look on his expressive face was priceless. His comment, “There’s something wrong with this picture,” may go down in history with gems like Jim Carey’s “The problem is the problem.”

Cummings pointed out the animated, frustrated faces of the audience, many of whom I know quite well. Their collective eye-rolling served as a great backdrop for the in-credible defense of the federal response to autism and vaccine safety worries. And while CDC-types consider individuals as little more than walking anecdoctal evidence, to elected officials they are the voters who put them there and can kick ’em out.

As a general proposition, it is fair to say that the people responsible for running the country do not like hearing that we have double any other nation’s vaccine schedule, with a miserable infant mortality rate and an autism epidemic to show for it.

The interagency autism coordination committee (IACC) began to look like the villain it is in this disaster. One congressman even asked for questions that the panel could use if it decided to bring in the IACC for questioning.

It was just one day, but it had the feel of a new one. Our own Mark Blaxill did a fabulous job of presenting the key elements in the argument that autism is environmental, and that mercury and vaccines are so far the most plausible suspects. Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey asked him to submit evidence of scientists who have been blackballed or shoved aside for tackling uncomfortable subjects.

It’s been said that the only way to win this battle was to storm the halls of Congress. We saw a version of that Thursday: “The troops have landed on Normandy Beach,” Brooke Potthast e-mailed me afterward, and it seems like the perfect metaphor. “It may take more time, but today was significant and historic.”

—

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism

USA Openly Starts BioWars Arms Race – With Big Pharma’s Help

Would you be happy to learn the US government has control over what appears to be being claimed is the first rapid production facility for pandemic vaccines, if you were the Premier of China, India, Pakistan, any Arabic country, Russia and many others not being one of the USA’s close allies or partners?  Might you see this as the start in earnest of an open biodefense arms race, which is one half of a bioweapons arms race?  After all, the technology is nearly at the stage where people can make their own pandemic viruses in their kitchen – albeit these would have to be sophisticated kitchens with a few added extras.  Scientific American reported 9 December 2011: Contagion:  Controversy Erupts over Man-Made Pandemic Avian Flu Virus – Two teams of scientists have independently constructed a deadly strain of flu.  Some say the results should never be published.

The national security implications of vaccines are not much discussed.  But there are national security implications.  Mostly it is focussed on crude and unlikely to be used bioweapons like smallpox.  And as CHS has reported, the “science”  behind that is shaky: Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication.

So when we have the bizarre abrupt about turn by the US and UK media to report flu vaccines are useless and don’t work on the back of the less well publicised [to Jo Public] news that Uncle Sam has cornered the market in pandemic vaccine production preparedness with its direct investment with Pharma in a brand new US$1 billion manufacturing plant all just approved by the US Food and Drug Administration it all starts to get a bit more interesting.

In the past the US has waged wars around the world with the cash registers of US arms manufacturers and commercial suppliers of logistics and support happily ringing their merry tune.  It is considered the US long involvement in the Vietnam war was possibly the first of the really large commercial money makers for the arms industries and other for-full-profit private sector war support companies.  The experience of the involvement of commercial companies in the “liberation” of Iraq is another example.

This time around it looks like for the first time the big commercial biowar opportunities have arrived for big pharma.

But wait a moment.  Hasn’t the US Pharma been involved previously in releasing deadly pandemic viruses in the EU?  Yep they sure have.  One certain way to get the Europeans to line up for their pandemic bird or swine flu vaccines is to create panic by making sure there is a pandemic.  And hey, let’s not do it back home in good old US of A but let’s make it close enough to Americans so they will get real scared and line up too.

Is this just the crazies talking or what?

Barely covered in the world’s media was the news that US Pharma company and flu vaccine manufacturer Baxter Pharmaceuticals was responsible for the “accidental” supply to the EU of a large quantity of pandemic flu vaccines which contained live pandemic flu viruses instead.  CHS covered this here with links to original sources: US Drug Company Released Deadly Virus In EU In Vaccine. Natural News fortunately also covered the story with useful links to other original sources about a journalist Jane Burgermeister endeavoured to commence legal action:  Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder Wednesday, June 24, 2009 by: Barbara L. Minton Natural News.

Scary stuff boys and girls.

Who is the greater threat to our modern western society?  Is it all the enemies our governments dream up for us like Iraq and the invention of fake non-existent  weapons of mass destruction?  Or is it our governments themselves and the string pullers standing behind the bureaucracies?

And if your child and your family are suffering the serious consequences of vaccines like autism, remember, if Uncle Sam is to be able to vaccinate America in an emergency, it sure can’t have you scaring folks that the vaccines cause autism or any other serious health problems.  Who would line up for their shots?  And the same goes for other countries: make sure their populations are conditioned to be ready and willing to line up and roll up their sleeves for one of Uncle Sam’s favourite vaccines.

So if you thought it was just big Pharma on its own out there to make bucks, it looks like you were wrong.

Government Media Manipulation? – With Leveson Inquiry Reports On Murdoch and UK Media Standards Due Next Week

This is would be hoot if there was no serious side.

Up to Sunday this week the British press were in full flood about the importance of giving flu vaccines to pregnant women, little children, OAPs.  Medical professionals were being openly bullied into it with news stories about it being irresponsible of them not to have the vaccine.

Yesterday suddenly – in a complete volte face [u-turn] the British media report that the flu vaccine is useless and a waste of money.  CHS reported this here along with other vaccines which were not working either: Vaccine Programmes Failing Worldwide – Homer Simpson and The World of Vaccines

This was also reported in the New York Times and other US media three weeks ago.

Why should the US media suddenly decide three weeks ago to report that the current flu vaccines are useless?  This has been know for years and is well covered in respectable medical journal publications.  But the media have not been reporting when they should have been warning the public of the issues of vaccine adverse reactions every year with each new promotion of a government flu campaign.

So what has changed?

Two days ago the US FDA approved a new kind of vaccine technology: AP news story – Flucelvax, A Flu Vaccine Made With Cell Culture Technology Approved By FDA.

Follow The Money

Who is behind this new vaccine technology? The US Department of Health and Human Services has invested in the US$1 billion facility for manufacturing flu vaccines with Swiss drug firm Novartis and using a completely new type of vaccine technology totally different to competitor current vaccines [emphasis added]:

Novartis has partnered with the US Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for the development of the cell-culture manufacturing technology, as well as for construction of the state-of-the-art facility in Holly Springs, North Carolina. Total public or private investment in the technology development and facility is more than $1 billion. Flucelvax will be produced in Holly Springs once the facility is ready for full-scale commercial production. The facility is the first-of-its-kind in the US and also allows for enhanced domestic pandemic preparedness.

Novartis gets FDA nod for influenza vaccine 21 November 2012 News By BioSpectrum Bureau.

So clearly a great idea for the US DHHS to make sure they trash their competitors products with their new vaccines to be on stream shortly.  Would the US DHHS have had some idea three weeks ago the US FDA was going to approve the new vaccine technology they had invested so much money in?  Surely they could not have been living in ignorance.

So what was the origin of the news story that existing flu vaccines are useless?

University of Minnesota Press Release and Report

On 15th October a news release  was issued by University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP): New U of M led analysis finds urgent need for new influenza vaccine.   It was accompanied by a report: The Compelling Need for Game-Changing Influenza Vaccines: An Analysis of the Influenza Vaccine Enterprise and Recommendations for the Future  and an executive summary.

As flu vaccination is a big thing with the US CDC and hence the US public, this report was news.    The key theme was that current vaccines provide sub-optimal benefits and that

Only with new game-changing vaccines can we ever really be prepared for the next influenza pandemic.”

The news release and report was ignored by the media.  Nothing was published.  This has the appearance that editors are not willing to run stories critical of vaccines – including vaccines which do not work and are useless and especially ones government agencies engage in active campaigns to promote.

Then it seems, and CHS will be happy to be corrected, that a New York Times blog on 5th November openly reported the story but not in a news report.  The story was then picked up by other US news outlets and reported more widely.

Clearly, there was no need for any contact between CIDRAP and any other agency nor is it suggested there was.  It could all be coincidental.

At the same time the whole thing has a curious appearance to it.  The story was a good news story on 15th October but did not run.  It goes out on an NYT blog on 5th November some three weeks later.  It then takes another 2 1/2 weeks to get into the British media.  And it all coincides with the US DHHS rolling out this new US$1 billion flu vaccine manufacturing facility using what looks like it might be promoted as the kind of “game-changing” technology CIDRAP called for.

Maybe a journalist or three whose work can be trusted might seek to get to the bottom of this.  If there is no collusion and it is all coincidental then fine and dandy.  But if that is not the case then the US public and people in other countries should be informed.

Vaccine Programmes Failing Worldwide – Homer Simpson and The World of Vaccines

Are some docs and health officials the Homer Simpsons of vaccines?  Or is it worse?

CHS looks at recent news on both sides of the pond and asks is real life and fiction distinguishable in the crazy mixed-up world of vaccine promotions, sales and marketing?

THE SIMPSONS – EPISODE 10,000,000 – HOMER MEETS VACCINES

Location:  Simpsons’ home. TV on:

DR NICK: Hi everybody, its Dr Nick Riviera and  Professor John Nerdelbaum Frink, Jr. here to tell you all about all the new vaccine shots we are planning for you.  These new ones are because they did not work the first time ….. or the second time ….. or the third time.  Hey, they probably won’t work again, but whats the big deal? If it only keeps docs in a job and off the streets and in their pools and hot tubs its worth it. 

Times are tough and your little ones are helping our economy big time – Merck, GSK, big and small pharma everywhere are really grateful.  Heh.  You thought the banks screwed you.  Wait ’til you find out what our vaccines have been doing – you’re going to love it – no, really.

So moms and dads, when the little ones are asleep – you keep up the good work in the middle of the night.  We need more and more junior citizens to help the economy – so do your duty.  Uncle Sam needs you.  Don’t ask what can America do for you, but what can you do for America.  And hey, so what if the ceiling needs painting – what you doing with the lights on anyways.”  

[CUT TO HOMER SIMPSON TRIMMING MAGGIE’S TOENAILS WITH A BEER CAN].

When CHS was engaged in charity work educating some of the poor delusional characters who seem to number amongst those who visit the cranky  pseudo-science world of Dr David Dorski’s Science Blogs dot Com a question arose.  Could it be possible that some government health officials around the world involved in selling vaccines on behalf of the drug industry to you and your kids might be like some of Dr Gorski’s cranky Dorkskis?

Yep, you all know how some of them zombie-like follow the dribbling scribble written there and post abusive comments to satiate the personality types some sadly appear to suffer the rest of us with.  Epidemiologically it must be something to do with them being mainly under 25 childless males.

So let’s cut to real-life?  Or is it?  Is this all just a delusional dream.  Are these things going on in the real world?  Can it be true?

The Whooping Cough Vaccine Which Isn’t Working – So Lets Shoot-Up Pregnant Moms Instead

This follows from the recent news of the panic measures by health officials that pregnant moms are to get the whooping cough vaccine.  This is supposedly to “protect” their unborn child.  The reality of course is that there are outbreaks of whooping cough in the vaccinated populations.  This is because the vaccine does not work.  Yep even in all those who have already had four and sometimes more shots of it as children and sometimes as adults.

Sadly folks, the promises of eradication of basic childhood diseases like whooping cough are all false – all those wasted decades when the Dr Nick Rivieras and  Professor John Nerdelbaum Frink, Jrs. of “science-based medicine” should have been working on effective treatments instead.

Now history has told us with Thalidomide and all else that one thing we should avoid is medicating pregnant moms.  But does that put these guys off?  Nah.  Who ya kidding?   The solution of the Homer Simpsons of the vaccine world instead is – give them more shots.  And hey, when it comes to flu vaccines, the multi-dose vials have a massive mercury laden dose which is toxic and neurotoxic in parts per billion.

Why keep on with something that is failing and seriously toxic to kids and adults?  Isn’t this beginning to look to you like the crazy pseudo-science world of Dr David Gorski’s cranky Dorkskis?   Zombiefied they will keep going until they get you.  There is no escape.

It gets worse.  And this is aside from all the adverse vaccine reactions which go massively unreported, ignored and buried by health officials the world over so that the claims of safety for vaccines are little more than hype.  A general benchmark for under-reporting in all drugs and not just vaccines is 98 in every 100 adverse reactions – so multiply by 50: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.

Millions of third world children still die despite vaccines when if we had effective treatments they could be saved.   Those kids die because of modern mainstream medicine and our drug industry.  Those guys have been killing those kids as surely as if they went over there and did it themselves – whilst of course living well and relaxing in their hot tubs and pools.  So when Bill Gates accuses anyone concerned about vaccine safety of being murderers, its time for Bill to buy a mirror  He’d better hurry before he gets too old and loses his looks.  But hey, maybe he won’t like what he sees – true – we mean, well, do you like it?

The ‘Flu Vaccine Which Isn’t Working – So Lets Shoot-Up Pregnant Moms And Little Kids Instead

Guess what else has happened recently?  We originally had proposals – repeated again this year – that pregnant moms and all kids are to get the flu shot [see eg. US CDC and UK Daily Mail and Telegraph].

This is medically unethical – because it was being done supposedly to protect the elderly – and that was because the vaccine also did not work for them either – yes – truly so.  But hey, why let a little thing like ethics and lack of health benefits hold back the roll out of vaccines?  It sure is nice in the hot tub.  Looks like docs and health officials just don’t want to give them up.

But of course that did not stop health officials giving the British Media completely false massively exaggerated figures on the thousands who die annually when in many years there are no deaths and an average when there are is 33 in a population of 66 million with 600,000 deaths overall annually: 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.

The US CDC does the same – CDC claims like 36,000 die in the USA annually from flu are out of Alice in Wonderland – so what is in those funny looking cigarettes some of those CDC guys smoke.  The United States Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management asked similar questions but in a different way in their report condemning the US$11 billion pa budget CDC as useless:  CDC Off Center.  The report is :

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.”

We also had the news about the EU and Canadian bans on ‘flu vaccines following from the quite separate withdrawal of Crucell vaccines.  The bans went pretty much unreported in the British press although covered by CHS – see eg.

• EU Flu Vaccine Bans Still Unreported – Medics Sick After Vaccine Refuse More
• Now UK Recalls Another Novartis Flu Vaccine – Agrippal – Recall Follows EU and Canadian Bans of Agriflu and Fluad Flu Vaccines
• Canada and Switzerland lift Novartis flu vaccine bans – Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Spain Yet to Decide
• EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

And of course the medical professions were rejecting the vaccine in droves but whilst CHS covered this properly, the British media spun it the other way – about how irresponsible they were to refuse.  Here is the CHS article:  Most UK Medics Refusing Flu Vaccines – UK’s New Chief Medical Officer Resorts To Bullying

The Sudden Big Vaccine “U-Turn”

At the beginning of November headlines in USA were about the flu shot not working.  Yes, really.  Its true.  See for example the New York Times.  CHS covered the story November 7.

Well hey, cut to big headlines in the UK yesterday – after only a small delay of two to three weeks later.  The British media finally got around to telling the truth about just one of the vaccines – ‘flu – reporting what the scientists say and that the ‘flu vaccine programmes are a waste of taxpayers’ money: eg. Independent, Telegraph, Daily Mail.

So what is wrong with that?  First, this has been known for years.  Whilst the British press was not covering this, CHS has repeatedly as have others on the web.  So the reality is people are getting the real news from the web because the press just don’t report it either at all or properly.

But there is worse.  Right up to last week there was a mountain of articles pushing the flu vaccine and how healthcare providers should have it and the at risk groups ie elderly and those with respiratory conditions. There was concern that none of the groups were reaching the target uptake and there was a definite attempt at a further push to get everyone on board.

And this was even though the news was out in the US three weeks ago, the British press was silent on it.

But hey, suddenly they’re now allowing publicity (which clearly was not being permitted previously) pointing to the fact the ‘flu vaccine  isn’t the numero uno top of the range vaccine they hyped it up to be.

So what might be behind this?  Is there another vaccine in the pipeline to replace the failing flu vaccine?  The drug industry realising its mistakes wants to create the good vac/bad vac scenario to get people to switch and readily accept the new one as if that is the one which really works and we can forget about the old rubbish flu vaccines.

The idea that they’ve suddenly had a prick of their conscience and want to be honest about the true state of things re the flu vaccine doesn’t sit well with the history of all this.  What’s cooking behing this sudden burst of honesty?  How come after years of silence, not be covering the story …………….. they would just ignore it, suddenly in just a couple of weeks it is all change.

Part of the reason without doubt is that the credibility of all vaccine programmes with the world’s public is getting hit with all the vaccines which are now being shown not to have worked.  After all it’s a bit like the health officials shouting ‘rotten fish‘ for sale.

Its enough to make you a conspiracy theorist – right Homer?  But just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you – heh.

Mumps and Other Vaccines Failing Too

If you want to see health officials actively discussing the introduction of vaccines for adolescents, precisely because the vaccines don’t do what they are supposed to, you can see the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation discussing a raft of vaccines to be introduced for adolescents at one of their many meetings: JCVI sub-committee on adolescent vaccinations meeting: January 2012

Now, what is interesting about this development is that it was predictable years back.  The vaccines even then were not working as they were claimed to and just do not confer lasting protection.  So what is going on?

Follow the Money

This has less to do with protecting children and adults from disease.  It is much much more about the drug industry making money.  And we are being let down badly by the mainstream media.  They are like puppets and their strings look easy peasy for the well-heeled to shell out what is to them pocket change to get those strings pulled.

And you do not have to go far to find out what is behind all of this but the British, US and other media are letting us all down badly.  And they are paying the price for it.  Why read their manipulated tosh stories when you can get the real news off the up and coming websites on the web.  Maybe you might like Alex Jones Info Wars Site for example?

It is not like they have to go far from their own screens to get hard info.  They can like you, read upon on the pharma trade press on vaccine markets and they and you can see stuff like this:

… vaccines ….. have become the darling of many drug manufacturers’ portfolios over the past few years …. With vaccines continuing to be the big success story for the pharmaceutical industry, the world market for preventative vaccines reached $22.1 billion in 2009, up from $19 billion in 2008. Kalorama Information predicts the market will increase at a compound annual rate of 9.7% during the next five years, reaching $35 billion by 2014, as new product introductions continue and the use of current products expands further.

Vaccines Continue to Bolster Pharma Market By Andrea Hiller, Kalorama Information Thursday, December 2, 2010

So there you have it folks.  The crazy cranky world of Dr David Gorski’s dorkskis over at Science Blogs dot Com does not look isolated but a reflection of some of the bizarre world of some health officials the world over.

Even if in health terms the vaccines are failing – for the drug industry and the medical professions who make lots of money out of them – they have never had it so good – the cash registers are playing their tune loud and clear the world over.

Don’t ya just love if folks.

CHS Medical Myth Smasher #1 – “The Plural of Anecdote is Data” – Is The Correct Original Quotation

As we have recently been examining the science-free zone over at Science Blogs dot Com, here is another howler from the pseudo-science pseudo-skeptics over there.  Science Blogs dot Com is the home of bloggers like Dr David Gorski and P Z Myers [and he is supposed to be a professor of biology – ha!!].

There are hundreds of references on Science Blogs dot Com to the phrase “the plural of anecdote is not data“.  They repeat it like a religious mantra to slap people down when they give examples of numerous personal experiences.

It seems they do not like the fact that what they seem to think is anecdote – namely the oral testimony of human witnesses – is in fact the primary source of evidence in common law jurisdictions around the world.

So what is the real quote?  And why is it relevant?

You see if human testimony can be reliable – and it can be and is – and it can be tested and is tested – including in Court – then medicine should take note of it.  Medicine should therefore also take note of case series even when based on oral testimony of patients.  You see when you have 10 people coming along separately and independently telling pretty much the same story but of what each of them experienced personally, you have to sit up and take notice.  But drug companies don’t like that.  You see, if medics had to take notice of oral accounts, then it would be much easier to establish a particular drug caused a particular adverse effect.  No fancy tests needed – just careful analysis of the accounts of the victims, their parents and/or physicians and maybe clinical history and any documentary and other witness corroboration.

And yep you guessed it – the pseudo-scientists like Gorski misquote the quote to say it is the opposite of the original quote.

So why would anyone want to do that?  Why would anyone running a set of blogs claiming to provide reliable information on science want to mislead everyone about something so basic?

The correct quote is “The plural of anecdote is data“.

So where is the correct quote recorded?

Raymond Wolfinger’s brilliant aphorism “the plural of anecdote is  data” never inspired a better or more skilled researcher”

Nelson W. Polsby PS, Vol. 17, No. 4. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 778-781. Pg. > 779.

And how do we know that is a true account of the original?  It is confirmed in an exchange of emails between Wolfinger and Fred Shapiro.

 Fred Shapiro happens to be Editor of The Yale Book of Quotations, The Oxford Dictionary of American Legal Quotations, and several other books and was clearly checking his sources.  If you want to see confirmation of the source from an original source document here it is in a linguistlist.org listserv post by Shapiro – you can click on the listserv link and look it up yourself:-

Subject: Re: “Plural of anecdote is data” (Ray Wolfinger) From: Fred Shapiro <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: American Dialect Society <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:21:27 -0400 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Parts/Attachments: TEXT/PLAIN (34 lines)

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 [log in to unmask] wrote: > Nelson W. Polsby PS, Vol. 17, No. 4. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 778-781. Pg. > 779: Raymond Wolfinger's brilliant aphorism "the plural of anecdote is > data" never inspired a better or more skilled researcher. I e-mailed Wolfinger last year and got the following response from him: "I said 'The plural of anecdote is data' some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student's dismissal of a simple factual statement--by another student or me--as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder. Since then I have missed few opportunities to quote myself. The only appearance in print that I can remember is Nelson Polsby's accurate quotation and attribution in an article in PS: Political Science and Politics in 1993; I believe it was in the first issue of the year." I also e-mailed Polsby, who didn't know of any early printed occurrences. What is interesting about this saying is that it seems to have morphed into its opposite -- "Data is not the plural of anecdote" -- in some people's minds. Mark Mandel used it in this opposite sense in a private e-mail to me, for example. Fred Shapiro -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred R. Shapiro Editor Associate Librarian for Collections and YALE DICTIONARY OF QUOTATIONS   Access and Lecturer in Legal Research Yale University Press, Yale Law School forthcoming e-mail: [log in to unmask] http://quotationdictionary.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ginger Taylor’s List of Research Linking Vaccines to Autism

Over at Adventures in Autism, Ginger Taylor has compiled an impressive list of research linking vaccines to autistic conditions.

You can find it here: “No Evidence of Any Link“.

And if that is not enough for you, she says that:

TACA has blown my puny list out of the water with their master list that is approaching 600 citations.  So if you have exhausted my list, and are hungry for more, they should keep you busy for quite some time

And I don’t want to hear “No evidence of any link” ever again!”.

You may want to make a note of Ginger’s site for the list and she also does write some exceedingly good factual blog posts.

New Book – Inspiring True Stories of Parents Rescuing Their Children From Autism

The Thinking Moms’ Revolution: Autism beyond the Spectrum: Inspiring True Stories from Parents Fighting to Rescue Their Children [Hardcover]

Helen Conroy (Compiler), Lisa Joyce Goes (Compiler)

The Thinking Moms’ Revolution (TMR) is a group of twenty-three moms (and one awesome dad) from Montana to Malaysia who all have children with developmental disabilities. Initially collaborating online about therapies, biomedical intervention, alternative medicine, special diets, and doctors on the cutting edge of treatment approaches to an array of chronic and developmental disabilities, such as autism, sensory processing disorders, food allergies, ADHD, asthma, and seizures, they’ve come together into something far more substantial. Suspecting that some of the main causes may be overused medicines, vaccinations, environmental toxins, and processed foods, they began a mission to help reverse the effects. In the process, they became a tight-knit family dedicated to helping their kids shed their diagnoses.

Here, collected by Helen Conroy and Lisa Joyce Goes, are the stories of their fights to recover their kids from autism and related disorders. With each chapter written by a different TMR member, they share how they discovered each other, what they learned from each other, and why it’s important to have close friends who understand what it’s like to parent a child with special needs. You’ll read about the their experiences, and learn how their determination and friendships have become a daily motivation for parents worldwide.

Helen Conroy is president of The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, LLC. After a fifteen-year career as a vice president at a Fortune 500 company, she became the development director for The ABLE Academy, a private school for children with developmental disabilities in Naples, Florida. Helen is married to Doug and has three beautiful children, including Harrison, who is diagnosed with autism and apraxia and is on the path to healing.

Lisa Joyce Goes is a contributing editor for Age of Autism, an executive board member of The Canary Party, and head of public relations for The Thinking Moms’ Revolution. She and her husband Dave are actively working for healthcare reform in America, and have three children, one of whom suffers the tragic effects of iatrogenic autism.

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Skyhorse Publishing; 1 edition (April 1, 2013)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1620878844
• ISBN-13: 978-1620878842

New MIT/Phynet Research – Links Autism To Vaccines

[NB: For lists of other research on the links between vaccines and autism see this CHS article: List of Research Linking Vaccines to Autism]

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure

Download PDF Full-Text [441 KB, Updated Version, uploaded 8 November 2012 16:12 CET]

^† Note added by the Publisher: This paper attracts great attention. Please refer to our policy regarding possibly controversial articles.

Abstract: Autism is a condition characterized by impaired cognitive and social skills, associated with compromised immune function. The incidence is alarmingly on the rise, and environmental factors are increasingly suspected to play a role. This paper investigates word frequency patterns in the U.S. CDC Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines. We propose that children with the autism diagnosis are especially vulnerable to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury due to insufficient serum sulfate and glutathione. A strong correlation between autism and the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is also observed, which may be partially explained via an increased sensitivity to acetaminophen administered to control fever.

Keywords: autism; vaccines; MMR; HEP-B; glutathione; sulfate; cholesterol sulfate; aluminum; mercury; acetaminophen

Stephanie Seneff ¹ Robert M. Davidson ² and Jingjing Liu ¹

¹ Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA ² Internal Medicine Group Practice, PhyNet, Inc., Longview, TX 75604, USA

HPV Vaccine Questioned in English Parliament

House of Lords – Written Answers –  Hansard Monday 5 November 2012

Health: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

Questions

Asked by The Countess of Mar

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their policy on the use of the human papillomavirus vaccination (HPV) in the light of the recent research by Tomljenovic and Shaw about the safety of HPV.[HL2911]

[ED: The research abstract is found here: Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine: Causal or Coincidental?

and this CHS article: New Research Shows How Gardasil and Cervarix Vaccines Can Silently Kill Your Daughters And Sons]

5 Nov 2012 : Column WA172

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made any assessment of the data from trials conducted by Merk on the evidence of vasculitis in those using the human papillomavirus vaccination; and, if so, what conclusions they have drawn. [HL2912]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of recent research by Tomljenovic and Shaw about the safety of the human papillomavirus vaccination (HPV), they will issue guidance to doctors and immunisation nurses about the recording of adverse medical events following the administration of the HPV and the conduct of studies on those receiving the vaccination.[HL2913]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria they use to assess whether a vaccine should be withdrawn from use; and whether they plan to test the human papillomavirus vaccination against those criteria.[HL2914]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of surrogate marker-based extrapolations in demonstrating the efficacy of the human papillomavirus vaccination against cervical cancer.[HL2915]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), with independent expert advice from the Commission on Human Medicines is responsible for ensuring that the overall balance of risks and benefits of medicines is positive at the time of licensing, and that this remains positive after licensing.

The safety and efficacy of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil was evaluated in seven clinical trials (six placebo-controlled trials) prior to licensing with over 10,000 people vaccinated with Gardasil. These trials did not identify an association between Gardasil administration and vasculitis. Tens of millions of people have since been vaccinated with Gardasil HPV vaccine worldwide since licensing and there is no evidence to suggest that Gardasil can cause vasculitis, as suggested by Tomljenovic and Shaw.

The MHRA actively seeks ways to encourage the reporting of suspected adverse reactions by healthcare professionals, carers and patients to all medicines and vaccines through the Yellow Card Scheme. The research by Tomljenovic and Shaw provides no basis to issue any additional specific guidance on reporting suspected side effects to HPV vaccine.

Continuous safety review includes evaluation of suspected adverse reactions collected through the yellow card scheme, as well as the results from any new studies, both published and unpublished. If there is sufficient evidence that a vaccine or medicine is causally associated with a new risk based on the available data, such risks would be characterised and weighed against the known or anticipated benefits. If possible, action would be taken to minimise the risk, which could include restricting use of a product, and communicate the information to healthcare providers, patients and carers. In exceptional cases, where the risks of a product are considered to outweigh its benefits and actions to minimise the risk are not possible, consideration would be given to withdrawing it from use.

5 Nov 2012 : Column WA173

The use of surrogate clinical end points for efficacy of HPV vaccines for prevention of cervical and other HPV related cancers is widely accepted within the scientific community and no robust evidence exists to undermine that concept.

Based on currently available evidence, the known risks of HPV vaccine are greatly outweighed by the expected benefits in preventing deaths from cervical cancer and other morbidities associated with vaccine strains of HPV. The department therefore has no plans to review policy on human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation or issue advice to the National Health Service in the light of recent research by Tomljenovic and Shaw as it does not materially add to accepted evidence and views about the safety of HPV vaccine.

As with all vaccines and medicines, the MHRA will continue to closely monitor all emerging evidence on the safety of HPV vaccines and action will be taken to minimise risk if supported by the data.

The department will monitor carefully the impact of HPV vaccination, as the early cohorts of vaccinated women will soon be subject to cervical screening surveillance.

Autism Can Be Treated – Independent Doctors Succeed vs Modern Medicine’s Massive Fail

In the UK 1 in 64 children has an autistic condition.  In the USA it is claimed 1 in 100 but in states like New Jersey the rate is around double that.  So can anything be done?

See for yourself in this video and compare:

children after treatment dramatically changed vs children in appalling pain – mentally disabled by autism and bowel disease

Also think.  These children cannot get treatment from mainstream hospitals and doctors and they had to travel the world to get it.  So the comparison is also:

modern medicine and government health officials BIG FAIL vs independent doctors and parents who sought out effective treatments

The failure of modern medicine and the western world’s media to address this worldwide health disaster is a consequence of manipulation by them and government health officials which protects the drug industry from and hides extensive vaccine and other drug caused health problems: USA’s 4th Leading Cause of Death – Pharma’s Drugs.

Take a look 10 minutes and 30 seconds into this video below and see a Rupert Murdoch Sunday Times’ journalist proclaiming about one of these children “that is not bowel disease“.  James Murdoch was a main Board Director of GlaxoSmithKline – hired by GSK to deal with “external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group’s business and reputation“: James Murdoch takes GlaxoSmithKline role – Chris Tryhorn The Guardian Monday 2 February 2009:-

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

Republished from Infomail 7/Nov/12 from NY USA charity Alliance for Human Research Protection – www.ahrp.org [AHRP ]
Advancing Honest and Ethical Medical Research

AHRP writes:

Last month we reported that respected international scientists–such as Dr. Tom Jefferson who have examined the evidence about the efficacy of the influenza vaccine–concluded that annual flu shots “are likely an utter waste of time and money.”  See, http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/879/9/

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that US public health policy, urging everyone over 6 months of age to be vaccinated against the flu annually, has provided “a multibillion-dollar global business bonanza” for vaccine manufacturers.

However, the Times reports that yet another independent assessment about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, by scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, found that flu vaccines provide “only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications.“

Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, “federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.“

“We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance.

“It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.”

The Times reports that Dr. Osterholm comes from the world of public health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A bioterrorism and public health preparedness adviser to Tommy Thompson, the former health and human services secretary, he served on the interim management team during a transition period at the C.D.C. in 2002.

“I’m an insider,” Dr. Osterholm said. “Until we started this project, I was one of the people out there heavily promoting influenza vaccine use. It was only with this study that I looked and said, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

The Times reports that “C.D.C. officials acknowledge that the vaccines do not work as well in the elderly population as they do in younger healthy adults.“

So, when you’re offered to be vaccinated against the flu, just say, “no thank you“

See, “Reassessing Flu Shots as the Season Draws Near?” By RONI CARYN RABIN, THE NEW YORK TIMES

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

When most frontline UK medical professionals refuse the ‘flu vaccine you know it is something you should avoid.  Over 60% refuse the jab:

NHS figures reveal only 34.7% of staff were vaccinated last year:

Health workers urged to get flu jab Denis Campbell and James Meikle The Guardian, Thursday 22 September 2011

And the UK’s Chief Medical Officer and other health officials have resorted to bullying NHS staff into taking the vaccine when it is known to be ineffective, the risks of death exaggerated by false Department of Health figures and when vaccine safety data is being suppressed.  CHS has covered these latter issues in detail in the following articles [with links to original sources]:-

• New Study – Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work

• UK Fakes Flu Death Numbers

• 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

Here you can see the bullying,  as reported and quoted in British press reports:

Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer for England, recently criticised NHS staff who did not have the jab. “It is very selfish not to be vaccinated. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for infecting my patients. You owe a duty to your patients. I don’t see it as responsible behaviour if you haven’t been vaccinated.”  

Dr Lindsey Davies, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health ….. said staff who did not get vaccinated against seasonal flu were guilty of “complete dereliction of duty” and could endanger the lives of at-risk patients such as babies, the elderly, pregnant women and those with breathing trouble.

Health workers urged to get flu jab Denis Campbell and James Meikle The Guardian, Thursday 22 September 2011

What neither of these people are quoted saying is whether they have had the ‘flu vaccine this year.  That is leadership for you.  Odd that journalists have not asked.  But of course, anyone can say they have had the ‘flu shot.  They can even be photographed having a shot.  But neither means what it appears they have had is the ‘flu vaccine.  If they are content for vastly false ‘flu death figures to be issued and published [especially in the many years when there have been no deaths from ‘flu] then we can expect anything from officials and politicians in the UK’s Department of Health.  It seems to be how all political and public life is these days.  No one is honest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of pensioners taking free flu jab falling BBC 3 November 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

   http://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk…/fewer-at-risk-patients-get-flu-jab…

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

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

   http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/

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

   Fewer pensioners and at – risk patients are receiving the flu jab than …‎‏ – ‎‏33 minutes ago

   Oxford drug user treated for anthrax infection after injecting ‘ infected ‘ …‎‏ – ‎‏33 minutes ago

   Drying laundry indoors poses a health risk , warn experts‎‏ – ‎‏33 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

   http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/…/Fewer-at-risk-patients-get-flu-ja…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab

   http://www.newsrt.co.uk/…/fewer-at-risk-patients-get-flu-jab-921741.html

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

1. MKNews | News | UK-World-News

   http://www.mk-news.co.uk/News/UK-World-News/

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

2. Fifth have no savings safety net – Press Association

   http://www.pressassociation.com/home/…/fifth_have_no_savings_safety_n…

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

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

   http://www.kingstonguardian.co.uk/

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

4. UK News Headlines – Yahoo! News UK

   uk.news.yahoo.com/uk/

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

5. Fewer at-risk patients get flu jab

   http://www.newsrt.co.uk/…/fewer-at-risk-patients-get-flu-jab-921721.html

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

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

   http://www.newsrt.co.uk/news/archive-from-03-11-2012/page14.html

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

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

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

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

8. National – Leyland Guardian

   http://www.leylandguardian.co.uk/news/national

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

9. Local & National – Belfast Telegraph

   http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk › News

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

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

One weak news report of the UK flu vaccine ban has appeared in one mainstream UK national newspaper – the Telegraph by Health Editor Rebecca Smith.  Smith’s report ignores the developments in the EU and in Canada [reported on CHS – links below].  Smith reports “the recall should not affect supplies” and seems not to have sought independent expert comment on the safety issues just accepting the official line: Thousand of flu vaccines recalled Telegraph Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor 31 Oct 2012.

In contrast the UK General Medical Practitioner newspaper Pulse reports concern about the supply problems – also without considering further any safety issues or seeking independent expert comment – quoting GP sources Pulse reports:

Any reduction in flu vaccine available is a problem in the UK as the various vaccine manufacturers have tried hard to supply the Crucell practices with enough vaccine to carry out the Government influenza immunisation programme.

‘The Novartis withdrawal is worrying, but it may not significantly affect our immunisation programme if the other vaccine manufacturers can make up the numbers.

‘More worrying is the fact that the DH has not come forward with offer of vaccines to Practices from its reserves, if they indeed exist.’

MHRA recalls 160,000 doses of flu vaccine after ‘quality defects’ Pulse 31 October 2012 | By Emma Wilkinson

Two publicly anonymous comments on the Pulse story by registered commenters each independently claim they got sick after the vaccine.  Here are the comments as they appear with the Pulse report:

Anonymous | 31 October 2012 4:39pm

So does this mean the vaccine would be ineffective if already given? mmmm had the flu jab begining of Oct and then been laid up with flu for last 3weeks, another strain?

Anonymous | 31 October 2012 6:13pm

Same as first comment, was advised to have as front line staff but have been laid up since and know of others off sick, also I now have headaches and wooziness, will never have again!

PRIOR CHS NEWS REPORTS:-

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

Canada and Switzerland lift Novartis flu vaccine bans – Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Spain Yet to Decide

EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

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

Following prior bans reported by CHS [EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press] UK’s drug regulator the MHRA yesterday issued an announcement which includes the following:

At the request of MHRA, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics S.r.l. is executing a precautionary recall of the above batches. This is due to the presence, in one of the components, of visible protein aggregates that were identified following additional testing during the course of an investigation. Such protein aggregation can occur in influenza vaccines. The aggregation consists mostly of viral proteins expected in the vaccine, and when observed, aggregation is transient and disappears upon shaking as recommended in product labelling. No visible protein aggregates were detected at the time of product release in any of these UK batches.

Based on the information available, there is no evidence of any new safety concerns or of any impact on efficacy. No adverse reactions which may be associated with this issue have been reported to Novartis in connection with these batches. Those who have had a flu vaccine from these batches should have no cause for concern and there is no need for revaccination.

Class 2 Drug Alert (Action Within 48 hours): Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics S.r.l. – Agrippal suspension for injection in pre-filled syringe – Influenza Vaccine – EL (12)A/34

Canada and Switzerland lift Novartis flu vaccine bans – Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Spain Yet to Decide

UPDATE TO CHS ARTICLE Posted October 30, 2012:  EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

Reuters reported at 16:09 GMT that Canada and Switzerland have lifted the ban on Novartis flu vaccines on the basis that “white particles found in the vaccines were normal clumps of protein particles and did not indicate a safety issue”  Canada, Switzerland lift ban on Novartis flu vaccines ZURICH | Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:09pm GMT.

But CHS notes that the news should be reported so that there is at least the possibility that the conduct of drug companies and drug regulators can be subjected to public and political scrutiny.  We cannot be sure they tell the truth – as we know some have not done on previous occasions.  They may also be wrong.  Are white particles in vaccines safe and normal “clumps of protein”.  If the news is not reported there is no prospect of anyone scrutinising what is taking place.

EU And Canada Flu Vaccine Ban – Not Reported By Press

The ban on 500,000 doses of flu vaccines manufactured by Novartis extends so far to Canada, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and non EU state Switzerland but appears to have gone largely unreported in the mainstream media even though the news was put out on the wire by news bureau Reuters.  The first ban appears to have been announced by the Italian Medicines Agency:  Ban on the use of influenza vaccines in the Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics  25/10/2012.  The official Italian document can be downloaded here Comunicazione AIFA.  You can search Google News yourself in your own country to check for any mainstream media reports.

STOP PRESS October 31, 2012:  Now UK Recalls Another Novartis Flu Vaccine – Agrippal – Recall Follows EU and Canadian Bans of Agriflu and Fluad Flu Vaccines

The conduct of health officials and drug regulatory agencies should be subject to careful public scrutiny in the media.  Health Canada’s statements are especially troubling.

The bans follow the news the previous week that Netherlands-based vaccine maker Crucell, a unit of U.S. drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, had suspended a delivery of 2.36 million seasonal flu vaccine doses to Italy after finding problems with two lots of it: Crucell temporarily withholds supplies of influenza vaccine NeLM 08/10/2012 Source: BBC Health , Daily Telegraph; UPDATE 3 -Italy bans Novartis flu vaccines pending tests Reuters–24-Oct-2012.

STOP PRESS 17:00 October 31: Reuters reported an hour ago that Canada and Switzerland have lifted the ban on Novartis flu vaccines on the basis that “white particles found in the vaccines were normal clumps of protein particles and did not indicate a safety issue”  Canada, Switzerland lift ban on Novartis flu vaccines ZURICH | Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:09pm GMT. 

But CHS notes that the news should be reported so that there is at least the possibility that the conduct of drug companies and drug regulators can be subjected to public and political scrutiny.  We cannot be sure they tell the truth – as we know some have not done on previous occasions and they may also be wrong – are white particles in vaccines safe and normal “clumps of protein”.  If the news is not reported there is no prospect of anyone scrutinising what is taking place.

The day after the European bans on the Novartis products, Health Canada stated the problem is common in vaccines, they have seen it before and claim to have had no reports of health problems.  But they also fail to report making any effort of any kind to investigate.  If this is “common in vaccines” Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland would not have banned the vaccines. It seems Health Canada had previously done nothing about it. This time they have been caught out by the European bans and appear to have banned the vaccines as a precaution: Novartis Suspends Distribution of Seasonal Flu Vaccines Agriflu and Fluad in Canada as a Precaution Health Canada News Release October 26, 2012:

OTTAWA – Health Canada would like to provide further information to Canadians about its assessment of the voluntary suspension of use in Europe of the seasonal flu vaccines Agriflu and Fluad.

…. Agriflu and Fluad are two of the seasonal flu vaccines produced by Novartis that have been pulled from use in several European countries pending further examination of white floating material discovered clumping in the vaccines.

………

Clumping of the kind noted in Europe is common in vaccines. Health Canada has previously seen such particles before in other vaccines and has observed no impact on their safety or effectiveness. The Public Health Agency of Canada monitors for adverse events following immunization. To date it has received no reports of serious or unexpected adverse events related to these vaccines.

As a precautionary step, Health Canada asked Novartis to suspend distribution of the vaccines in Canada until a full review of the situation is completed. Novartis has agreed. The Public Health Agency of Canada is also recommending that health care professionals in possession of these vaccines refrain from using them until the review is complete.

And Health Canada also claimed seemingly falsely that the European ban was voluntary by Novartis, but that is not correct – according to the Italian authorities they issued an official ban.  That according to Reuters news reports [see links below] was followed by other EU states:

The Italian Medicines Agency has prohibited the use of influenza vaccines Fluad – AGRIPPAL – INFLUPOZZI subunit is INFLUPOZZI ADJUVANTED of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Srl.

The measure was necessary because the Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Srl announced the presence of a phenomenon of protein aggregation observed in the production of influenza vaccines submitting reports qualitative assessment, toxicology and pharmacovigilance that do not provide sufficient information to clarify the exact composition of the aggregates, or the impact of the defect on the quality, stability of the vaccine and, consequently, on the safety and efficacy of the same. We are waiting for the further investigations and analyzes deemed necessary also the outcome of the evaluation of the documentation notes that the company will have to send.”

 Ban on the use of influenza vaccines in the Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics  AIFA 25/10/2012.

The Italian ban was followed by a series of news reports by Reuters Oct 25th and 26th:

• UPDATE 3 -Italy bans Novartis flu vaccines pending tests Reuters–24-Oct-2012

• Spain regulator halts sale of some Novartis flu vaccines Reuters UK – ‎Oct 25, 2012‎

• UPDATE 5-Novartis defends flu vaccines after Italian ban Reuters UK – ‎Oct 25, 2012‎

• Novartis does not expect further sales bans of flu vaccines Reuters–25-Oct-2012

• France halts sale of Novartis flu vaccine  Reuters Paris Fri Oct 26, 2012

• UPDATE 1-France halts sale of Novartis flu vaccine Reuters Fri Oct 26, 2012

Associated Press eventually also reported the story 27th October: 6 European countries pull Novartis flu vaccines but also added that Novartis had known of the problem since July but had not reported it until now and only to the Italian medicines agency AIFA.  AP also reported that by then Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland had limited the use of Fluad or Aggripal, or both, after the company reported the appearance of small particles in the vaccine to Italian authorities.

In the light of the recent problems the British Broadcasting Corporation and criticism the British media are facing over not reporting the activities of the television celebrity Sir Jimmy Savile as the most prolific child pervert and molester over a 40 year period, these kinds of failures seem to be common.

You can search Google News yourself in your own country to check for any mainstream news reports.  The result of the first page of a search on Google India appearing below seems to indicate the news is not being reported internationally by mainstream news outlets.

GOOGLE NEWS INDIA SEARCH –

1. Novartis says banned flu jabs safe and that ‘particles’ common in … In-PharmaTechnologist.com–45 minutes ago Novartis says two seasonal influenza vaccines temporarily banned by … the 2012-2013 seasonal influenza studies required for European …

   Op-Ed: Canada & Europe ban flu vaccine

   DigitalJournal.com–28-Oct-2012

   Novartis Flu Shot Ban Stretches To Canada, Six European Countries

   The Inquisitr–27-Oct-2012

   ►► euronews

   DigitalJournal.com

   CTV News

   Economic Times

   Deutsche Welle

   swissinfo.ch

   Yahoo! News (blog)

   all 603 news sources »

2. The problem with the flu vaccine Deutsche Welle–26-Oct-2012 Several European countries have banned a flu vaccine produced by the Swiss pharmacetucial company, Novartis, for safety reasons. DW looks …

3. Europe Pulls the Rug Out from Underneath Novartis AG, So Who’s … SmallCap Network–9 hours ago The company’s influenza vaccines Agrippal and Fluad in most of the European market, and more recently, in parts of Canada; more bans are …

4. Health Canada suspends distribution of Novartis flu shots CTV News–27-Oct-2012 A total of six European countries have banned the vaccine until further … of flu vaccine manufactured by drug giant Novartis –at a plant in Italy.

5. 6 European countries pull Novartis flu vaccines The Associated Press–26-Oct-2012 BERLIN (AP) — Six European countries have ordered a temporary ban on the import or use of some Novartis flu vaccines. Austria, France …

6. Novartis does not expect further sales ban of flu vaccines Economic Times–24-Oct-2012 Novartis does not expect further sales ban of flu vaccines … shipped the two vaccines produced in Italy to European markets and parts of Asia.

7. UPDATE 1-France halts sale of Novartis flu vaccine Reuters–26-Oct-2012 (Adds comment from European Medicines Agency) … the announcement by Swiss and Italian authorities on Wednesday that they were banning some flu vaccines … Agrippal is the only Novartis flu vaccine marketed in France.

8. France, Germany and Spain join list of countries banning Novartis … PMLiVE–28-Oct-2012 … Austria and Italy in banning flu vaccines produced by Novartis after … which doesn’t extend to Fluad, is pending action from the European …

9. France halts sale of Novartis flu vaccine Reuters India–26-Oct-2012 The French decision follows the announcement by Swiss and Italian authorities on Wednesday that they were banning some flu vaccines …

10. Spain regulator halts sale of some Novartis flu vaccines Reuters India–25-Oct-2012 … European countries in halting the sale of anti-influenza vaccines made … anti-flu vaccines produced by Novartis was banned on Wednesday …

Keep up to date with these results:

• Create an email alert for flu vaccine banned Europe

1

2

3

Next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• “World’s Most Dangerous Vaccine” Now Being Given to British Schoolgirls

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

• 4 Girls Die – India Suspends Cervical Cancer Vaccine

• Girl, 13, left in ‘waking coma’ and sleeps for 23 hours a day after severe reaction to cervical cancer jabs

• HPV Vaccine Questioned Internationally

• Gardasil – HPV Vaccine – The Injured Continue To Pile Up

• FDA Halts HPV Vaccine Roll-Out – SaneVax News Release

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

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

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

Abstract:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access entire article here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restrictions on Food Supplements are Based on Misinformation

An alert from Europe to the rest of the world

by Gert Schuitemaker, PhD

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

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

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

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

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

Threat to freedom of health

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

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

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

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

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

Results of the ANHI risk study

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

Use of food supplements	Compared to preventable medical injuries in hospitals	1:351,220
	Compared to smoking	1:173,000
	Compared to cancer	1:173,000
	Compared to pharmaceutical adverse drug reactions	1:123,125
	Compared to lightning	1:26
Use of herbal remedies	Compared to preventable medical injuries in hospitals	1:206,600

Conclusion

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

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

For further information:

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

References:

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

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

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

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

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

Find a Doctor

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

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

Editorial Review Board:

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

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

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

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

“World’s Most Dangerous Vaccine” Now Being Given to British Schoolgirls

This is a must-read report for every British parent who has a teenage daughter.  Full report in the latest 100-page glossy news-stand issue of What Doctors Don’t Tell You magazine. On sale at Tesco, Sainsbury’s, WH Smith and independent newsagents throughout the UK.

From this month (September), British schoolgirls from the age of 12 upwards are being offered a new vaccine to protect against cervical cancer.  Gardasil is replacing Cervarix as the NHS’s vaccine of choice to combat HPV (human papillomavirus), which causes the cancer.

But WDDTY reveals that Gardasil is officially the world’s most dangerous vaccine.  And the UK government isn’t telling parents the truth about a vaccine that has been responsible for at least 100 deaths and thousands of life-destroying disabilities in the US, where it has been used for four years.

WDDTY challenges the government to answer:

• why the UK has so readily embraced Gardasil when take-up has slumped by a third in the US following thousands of reports of adverse reactions, including death

• why our drug regulators are being so lax when America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has enforced stronger warnings on the vaccine’s packaging, and is investigating a new reaction known as ‘immunotoxicity’ where the whole immune system is affected

• why the UK has accepted a vaccine that has been rejected by India after an early trial, funded by Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, led to the deaths of seven young girls and another 120 suffered debilitating side effects

• why the UK government is wasting NHS resources and money on a vaccine that may save just 40 lives in the UK.  Overall, an HPV vaccine may protect against 137 new cases of the cancer.  Despite the publicity, especially following the death of Big Brother star Jade Goody, cervical cancer is a rare disease, and one that doesn’t even feature in the list of the 10 most common cancers.

If you want to subscribe, and so guarantee your copy of the new, 100-page glossy magazine every month, please follow this link:

wddtysubscribe.com

Italy MMR/Autism Court Decision – Scottish & English Parliaments – Questions 25 June 2012

Here are some questions raised recently in the English and Scottish Parliaments.  We also set out below why the answers so far given are false.  This is also not the first time UK Parliaments have been given false information in Parliamentary answers from British Health Ministers [Details below].

Notice the Scottish Government specifically affirms that it, like the English government, bases its  policy on advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation – a committee which has proven itself many times over to be unreliable [putting it mildly] and cavalier when it comes to the health and safety of British children.  In short, if that is where Government continues to get its advice from, you can guarantee it is unreliable.  If you want some examples – read this:

30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards To Sell More Vaccines And Harm Your Kids March 14, 2012.

__________

Parliamentary Questions

England

MMR Vaccine: Autism [25 June 2012]

Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the court ruling in Italy in the case of Valentino Bocca linking autism and the MMR vaccine, if he will commission new research on the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. [113368]

Bob Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recent judgement in Italy in the case of Valentino Bocca relating to MMR inoculations and autism. [113234]

Anne Milton: In March a judge presiding over a case in Rimini Italy made a decision to award compensation to the parents of a nine year old boy on the basis that a vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) had caused autism. This decision reflects the opinion of a judge on the specific facts of this single case and should not be seen as a precedent for any other case. The safety of MMR has been endorsed through numerous studies in many countries, and no causal link between MMR vaccine and autism has been established. There are no plans to undertake further research nor to change MMR immunisation policy as a result of this Italian court decision.

Scotland

Question S4W-08222: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 25/06/2012

To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the judgement in Italy in the case of Valentino Bocca relating to MMR inoculations and autism.

Answered by Michael Matheson (28/06/2012): The judgement in Italy reflects the opinion of a judge on the specific facts of this single case and should not be seen as a precedent for any other case. The judgement does not alter the scientific position that there is no credible scientific evidence to show that MMR vaccine is a cause of autism. A wide range of large epidemiological studies, performed over more than a decade in a variety of countries, have consistently found no link between MMR and autism.Current Status:

Answered by Michael Matheson on 28/06/2012

Question S4W-08223: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 25/06/2012

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will review the use of the MMR vaccine following the recent judgement in Italy in the case of Valentino Bocca relating to MMR inoculations and autism.

Answered by Michael Matheson (28/06/2012):

The Scottish Government bases vaccination policy on the independent expert advice provided by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The view of the JCVI is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that MMR does not cause autism.

In March a judge presiding over a case in Rimini Italy decided to award compensation to the parents of a nine year old boy on the basis that a vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) had caused autism. This decision reflects the opinion of a judge on the specific facts of this single case and should not be seen as a precedent for any other case.

The judgement of the court in Italy does not alter the scientific position and there are no plans to undertake further research nor to change MMR immunisation policy as a result of this Italian court decision.Current Status:

Answered by Michael Matheson on 28/06/2012

__________

Why are the answers false?

Main Inaccuracies In English Parliamentary Answer

The judgement was not the opinion of the judge nor is this a single case.  Ms Milton states .  “This decision reflects the opinion of a judge on the specific facts of this single case …“.

What made the case special is that the Italian Health Ministry did not contest that the MMR vaccine caused Valentino Bocca’s autism.

It is also not the first Italian case so it is not a “single case”. You will also see from the following that Ms Milton’s suggestion that “no causal link between MMR vaccine and autism has been established.” is contradicted also by what follows.

1) Causation Not Contested

It is the first case in Italy where causation of autism by the MMR vaccine was not contested by The Italian Health Ministry.  The Judge had no option but to follow the evidence of the independent expert appointed by the Court to report to it.  The terms in which judgement was issued follows the terms of the conclusions of the expert.  There were two other experts who came to the same conclusions regarding causation.

The Court appointed expert served his report on the parties and recorded in his documents submitted to the Court that:

[English]

REQUEST TO CONSULTANTS FOR THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF THE PARTIES:

On 1.2.2012 the undersigned sent a copy of the expert report to the parties by post, asking them to make any comments and/or counterclaims; I received nothing.”

[Italian]

RICHIESTA DI CONTRODEDUZIONI Al CONSULENTI DI PARTE:

In data 1.2.2012 il sottoscritto inviava via mail copia dell’ elaborato peritale alle parti chiedendo di esprimere eventuali rilievi e/o controdeduzioni che non pervenivano alla scrivente.”

Contrary also to Ms Milton’s answer, the evidence of the independent expert submitted to the Court concluded that the prior published studies were “extensive conflicting material“.  Ms Milton stated “The safety of MMR has been endorsed through numerous studies in many countries ….”

2) Not “a Single Case”

There was also a previous contested case in Italy where a different Italian Court and a different Italian Judge on the evidence of that case also decided that the MMR vaccine caused autism in a different Italian child.

That was Tribunale di Busto Arsizio, and the lawyer acting in that case is Avv. Saverio Crea.

There are 100 pending cases with the Rimini lawyer – which was also reported in The Independent.

3) These Are Not Isolated Cases

US HRSA Confirmed Vaccines Can Cause Autistic Conditions

As you can see from the following, there have been US cases but it is just not known how many because no records are being kept.

In May 2008 the US Health Resources Services Administration confirmed to US CBS news reporter Sharyl Attkisson that any vaccine can cause a brain injury leading to autistic conditions in children – and they should know – they pay out the US compensation claims.  Whilst denying they ever paid compensation on the basis of a determination that autism was caused by vaccines, this is what they said regarding 1,296 compensation claims involving encephalitis, encephalopathy and seizure disorders:

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”

However, they also confirmed they do not keep track of how many of the cases might involve autistic conditions caused by vaccines – in other words they either do not know or they are not keeping records. Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage: What’s in a Name? By Sharyl Attkisson – [This report is dated September 14, 2010 but HRSA confirmation given in May 2008]

US CDC Director Confirmed Vaccines Cause Autistic Conditions

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”

Dr Julie Gerberding when Director US Centers for Disease Control.

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30   ET

The above item relates to the Hannah Poling case where a child was awarded US$1.5m for an autistic condition caused by 9 vaccines in one day, including MMR.  It was dismissed by the US CDC as a case of a child with a rare condition.  It appears from subsequent research that the mitochondrial condition may not be rare and may be more common in children and adults than was previously thought the case.

As CBS reported regarding the Hannah Poling case:

though the government conceded before trial, it took the position that vaccines didn’t “cause” autism, but rather that the vaccines aggravated an unknown and previously undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder the child had which “resulted” in autism. It’s unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder.“

Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage: What’s in a Name? By Sharyl Attkisson

False Previous 2009 English Parliamentary Answer Regarding Bailey Banks

It would be helpful if the Minister might be persuaded to correct the position regarding the previous answer given in 2009 about the US case of American child Bailey Banks.

Bailey Banks received compensation for an autistic condition resulting from the administration of the MMR vaccine.  A British Health Minister Dawn Primarolo told Parliament Bailey Banks was not autistic when his condition is one of the recognised Autistic Spectrum Conditions.  So a previous completely and utterly false answer to add to the latest false answers.

More details can be found here:

British Minister Misled Parliament Over US MMR Autism Case CHS April 5, 2009

Minister Misled Parliament Over MMR Autism Link CHS July 9, 2009

Additional Inaccuracies In Scottish Parliamentary Answer

“… the independent expert advice provided by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.”

The JCVI is neither independent nor expert.  The members of the JCVI have historically had numerous conflicts of interest.  They are also not experts in the fields appropriate for providing advice to Government on vaccination policy.

The view of the JCVI is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that MMR does not cause autism.”

And:

“The judgement does not alter the scientific position that there is no credible scientific evidence to show that MMR vaccine is a cause of autism. A wide range of large epidemiological studies, performed over more than a decade in a variety of countries, have consistently found no link between MMR and autism.”

As previously noted, the Italian Court did have an independent expert appointed by the Court in addition to expert assessments by two other experts.  The Court appointed expert concluded that the prior published studies were “extensive conflicting material”.

And now we can see that the “scientific evidence” being relied on is epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies are observational studies which are not science.  This also suggests the JCVI lack the expertise to appreciate a series of facts of fundamental significance to their “advice” to Government.

Epidemiological studies can also never establish “no link”.  They can only tentatively establish whether there appears to be an association between a condition and an environmental factor.  They can never establish there is no association and they can never establish that in an individual case that an environmental factor like a vaccine did not cause a specific individual’s condition. 

The only way adverse reactions to any pharmaceutical can be assessed is by detailed clinical follow-up to investigate individual cases. That has never been done. 

And the so-called epidemiological studies are not true epidemiological studies.  In a true study there has to be clinical follow-up and investigation of all or practically all cases.  That has never been done.

So the “science” government relies on is “tobacco science”.

Or put this another way – Government is lying again. 

GSK Fined US$3 BILLION – largest health fraud settlement in U.S. history

So hot on the heals of more fraud by Merck [Merck Vaccine Fraud – 2nd US Court Case Over MMR Vaccine] we now have more fraud by GlaxoSmithKline.  You can read the Associated Press breaking story here:

GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3 billion in fines, the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history – THE ASSOCIATED PRESS – Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The Justice Department said that British drugmaker will plead guilty to promoting popular antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin for unapproved uses. The company also will plead guilty to failing to report to the government for seven years some safety problems with diabetes drug Avandia, which was restricted in the U.S. and banned in Europe after it was found in 2007 to sharply increase the risks of heart attacks and congestive heart failure.

Instead of repeating the story we are going to set out the names of GSK’s Board and ask what they have done about this and also ask what is the next fraud to come out of the company? This is not the first time GSK has been mired in fraud.  We list below the Board of Directors of GlaxoSmithKline today – so check out who was on the board, read the following facts and then ask yourself “should they still be on GSK’s Board?” 

And don’t forget – what are we supposed to think of people like the GSK Board who hired James Murdoch of News International onto their Board of Directors to protect their reputation and then had to dump him because of all the corruption associated directly with James Murdoch at News Corporation and News International which is being examined publicly in the Leveson Inquiry.

And should British first ministers like Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne cosy up to a company like GSK?  Should we as the public cross the street to avoid GSK and all who have anything to do with it?

And let us be clear about the dates – PA report:

“The case against Glaxo was originally brought in January 2003 by two whistleblowers, former Glaxo sales representatives Greg Thorpe and Blair Hamrick. In January 2011, the federal government joined in the case.“

BUT PA also report:

“The company also will plead guilty to failing to report to the government for seven years some safety problems with diabetes drug Avandia, which was restricted in the U.S. and banned in Europe after it was found in 2007 to sharply increase the risks of heart attacks and congestive heart failure.“

If 2008 is the cut-off date then is it the case that any current GSK Director on the Board prior to 2008 is one of those ultimately responsible for overseeing fraud – yes that’s right – fraud?

We can also justifiably ask, is 2008 the appropriate cut-off date or should it be October 2010 when the European Medicines Agency withdrew the licence for Avandia?  In other words the GSK Board of Directors as it was constituted up to and including October 2010 are all implicated as GSK was still marketing Avandia: European Medicines Agency experts have said Avandia, a leading diabetes drug, should be suspended from the market. BBC Health News 23 September 2010 Last updated at 17:13

As you can see of the 16 current GSK Board members, 10 were on the Board during and/or prior to 2008 and 11 up to October 2010.   So should these people be on the Board of any company?  And if not, what are they still doing there?  These are fair questions to ask.  After all, if they can let their companies get away with fraud then everyone might as well do the same.  And what did they know of these frauds?  And if they claim they knew nothing – then why are they on the Board of the Company in the first place.

PA reports: “Sir Andrew Witty, Glaxo’s CEO, expressed regret Monday and said the company has learned “from the mistakes that were made.”

It needs to learn more – like most of the Board of Directors should go and right now.  Here they are:

Sir Christopher Gent – joined the Board as Deputy Chairman in June 2004.

Sir Andrew Witty – Chief Executive Officer – joined the Board in January 2008.

Professor Sir Roy Anderson – joined the Board in February 2007

Dr Stephanie Burns – Non-Executive Director – joined the Board in February 2007.

Stacey Cartwright – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in April 2011.

Larry Culp – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in July 2003.

Sir Crispin Davis – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in July 2003.

Simon Dingemans – Chief Financial Officer joined the Board in January 2011.

Lynn Elsenhans – Chief Financial Officer joined the Board in July 2012.

Judy Lewent – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in April 2011. BUT She is the former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Merck & Co., Inc. which is a corporation which has previously been found guilty of fraud.

Sir Deryck Maughan – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in June 2004.

Dr Daniel Podolsky – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in July 2006.

Dr Moncef Slaoui – Chairman, Research & Development joined the Board in May 2006.

Tom de Swaan – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in January 2006.

Jing Ulrich – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in July 2012.

Sir Robert Wilson – Non-Executive Director joined the Board in November 2003

Merck Vaccine Fraud – 2nd US Court Case Over MMR Vaccine

CHS here reports on Merck facing another second Court action in the USA for allegedly fraudulently representing its MMR II vaccine worked as claimed when it did not.  Full details below.

The problem for the public in the UK, USA and rest of the world is this – they have repeatedly been told by public health officials that numerous studies have shown the MMR vaccine is safe and effective.  But here we see that appears not to be true. In fact it is allegedly not true to the extent of being a fraud.  If these studies claim to have found the vaccine is effective when it is not how can they possibly have found it to be safe.  Answer: they cannot.

Additionally, if this has happened for one pharmaceutical, what other similar practices does Merck engage in with other drug products and vaccines.

Another problem is if as alleged the vaccine is not effective, then the diseases are still circulating but may have become so mild that in many cases children have no symptoms or such mild ones it is not apparent they have the disease concerned at all.  So the question is, what purpose do the vaccines serve if the diseases have become so much milder?  This process of diseases steadily becoming milder is called attenuation and is well known in medicine.  It can be seen at work here: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics.  It is also recorded in the medical literature.  Here are some examples from 1972, 1978, 1998 and 2003 showing rates then of subclinical measles of 30%, 38% and 59%:

The high rate of sero-positivity (54%) amongst unvaccinated children (who were also not attacked by measles) most probably indicates sub-clinical or asymptomatic measles infection.  About 30% measles infection are subclinical in nature (1) . Other workers have also come across subclinical cases of measles during their studies viz. Mehta et al..(3) and Deseda Tous et a/..(17) found subclinical measles infection to the rate of 38% and 59% respectively and both of these observations are comparable to the findings of the present study.”

S.D. Kandpal et al. Measles antibody status amongst 9 mths- 5 yrs unvaccinated children Indian J. Prev. Soc. Med Vol. 34 No. 1 & 2 14 Jan-June, 2003

REFERENCES 1. Sharma RS . An Epidemiological study of measles epidemic in District Bhilwara ,Rajasthan. J Corn Dis 1998;20(4): 301-311. 3. Metha N.A, Nanavathi A, Jhala M . Sero-epidemiology of measles in Bombay. Indian J Med Res 1972;60 :661-669. 17. Deseda-Tous, James D, Cherry M. Persistence and degree of antibody liter by type of immune response. Am J Dis Child 1978:132 : 287-290.

__________________________

SECOND US COURT CASE AGAINT MERCK OVER ALLEGED MMR VACCINE FRAUD

For your reading convenience we set out in what follows the text of the claims in the second US Court case [up to the heading “CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS “].

The first US Court case is reported here:  Merck Scientists Accuse Company of Mumps Vaccine Fraud that Endangers Public Health – “Protocol 007”

The claims in the new US Court case against Merck in the full .pdf can be read here: Chatom-Lawsuit-Merck.  

__________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FILED JUN 25 2012

CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, P.C., on Behalf of Itself And All Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCK & CO., INC.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12 3555
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Electronically Filed

Plaintiff Chatom Primary Care, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, brings this action against Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck or “Defendant”), and alleges as follows, based on information and belief, counsel’s investigation, and a quitarn action filed by Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski (the “Relators”) captioned Krahling v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ (E.D. Pa.) (the “Qui Tam Action”):

INTRODUCTION

1    Merck is the exclusive supplier of mumps vaccine (including M-M-R II and ProQuad) (collectively, “Mumps Vaccine”) in the U.S.

2    This lawsuit is brought as a proposed class action against Merck for unlawfully monopolizing the U.S. market for Mumps Vaccine by engaging in a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.

3    Specifically, Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent or higher. In reality, Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal –by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data –that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999, far less than 95 percent effective.

4    Merck manufactures its Mumps Vaccine using an attenuated virus. An attenuated virus is created when its pathogenicity has been reduced so that it will initiate an immune response without producing the specific disease. Pathogenicity is reduced by “passaging” the virus through a series of cell cultures or animal embryos. With each passage, the virus becomes better at replicating in the host, but loses its ability to replicate in human cells. Eventually, the attenuated virus will be unable to replicate well (or at all) in human cells, and can be used in a vaccine. When this vaccine is administered to a human, the virus in it will be unable to replicate enough to cause illness, but will still provoke an immune response that can protect against future infection.

5    However, Merck knew and understood that the continued passaging of the attenuated virus from which its Mumps Vaccine was created (over forty years ago) had altered the virus and degraded its efficacy.

6    For a variety of reasons, including Merck’s development and quest for approval of a new combination vaccine that contained its Mumps Vaccine, Merck initiated new efficacy testing of its Mumps Vaccine in the late 1990s. As demonstrated below, the goal of this new efficacy testing was to support its original efficacy findings at all costs, including the use of scientifically flawed methodology and falsified test results.

7    First, Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck’s desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study’s findings.

8    Second, Merck designed an even more scientifically flawed methodology, this time incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results, but it too failed to achieve Merck’s fabricated efficacy rate. Confronted with two failed methodologies, Merck then falsified the test data to guarantee the results it desired. Having reached the desired, albeit falsified, efficacy threshold, Merck submitted these fraudulent results to the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) and European Medicines Agency (“EMA”).

9    Third, Merck took steps to cover up the tracks of its fraudulent testing by destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator that questioned Merck about its ongoing testing. Merck also attempted to buy the silence and cooperation of its staff by offering them financial incentives to follow the direction of the Merck personnel overseeing the fraudulent testing process. Merck also threatened a relator in the Qui Tarn Action, Stephen Krahling, a virologist in Merck’s vaccine division from 1999 to 2001, with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA.

10    Fourth, in 2004 Merck submitted its application for approval for ProQuad, a combination vaccine containing mumps, measles, rubella and chickenpox vaccines, certifying the contents of the application as true even though Merck knew the statements about the effectiveness of the Mumps Vaccine were, in fact, false. At no time during this application process did Merck disclose to the FDA the problems of which it was aware (or should have been aware) relating to the significantly diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine. Accordingly, in 2005, the FDA approved Merck’s application for ProQuad.

11    Fifth, Merck sought and secured FDA approval to change the labeling for M-M- R II -which is composed of Merck’s mumps, measles and rubella vaccines -to reflect an almost 40 percent reduction in the minimum potency of the Mumps Vaccine component. It did this while leaving its false representations of efficacy unchanged. And it did this fully appreciating that if the current, higher potency vaccine had an efficacy rate far lower than the falsely represented 95 percent, there was no way the vaccine would achieve that efficacy with significantly less attenuated virus in each shot.

12    Sixth, Merck continued to conceal what it knew (or should have known) about the diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine even after significant mumps outbreaks in 2006 and 2009.

13    To be sure, Merck has now known for over a decade that its Mumps Vaccine is far less effective than advertised publicly and represented to government agencies. As Merck profited from its unlawful scheme, health care providers around the country have purchased millions of doses of Mumps Vaccine, with questionable efficacy, at artificially inflated prices.

PARTIES

14    Plaintiff Chatom Primary, Care P.C. is an Alabama corporation. During the Class Period (defined below), Chatom Primary Care, P.C. purchased the Mumps Vaccine from Merck at artificially inflated prices.

15    Defendant Merck is a New Jersey corporation with its vaccine division based in West Point, Pennsylvania. Merck-directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled-manufactured, marketed and/or sold Mumps Vaccine that was purchased throughout the United States, including in this district, during the Class Period. Merck is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with annual revenues exceeding $20 billion. Merck is also a leading seller of childhood vaccines and currently markets in the U.S. vaccines for 12 of the 17 diseases for which the CDC currently recommends vaccination.

16    Merck is the sole manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell Mumps Vaccine in the U.S. Merck’s Mumps Vaccine, together with Merck’s vaccines against measles and rubella are sold as M-M-R II. Merck annually sells more than 7.6 million doses of M-M-R II in the U.S. for which it derives hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. Merck also has a license in the U.S. to sell ProQuad, a combination vaccine containing M-M-R II vaccine and chickenpox vaccine. Under a license from the EMA, Merck also sells Mumps Vaccine in Europe as a part of M-M-RVaxpro and ProQuad through Sanofi Pasteur MSD, a joint venture with the vaccine division of the Sanofi Aventis Group. ProQuad has been sold intermittently in the U.S. and Europe since its approval in 2005 until 2010.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17    The claims set forth in this Complaint arise under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 9 2. Plaintiff seeks treble damages pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 5 15(a). Plaintiff also asserts claims for actual and exemplary damages pursuant to state consumer protection and warranty laws, and common law unjust enrichment, and seeks to obtain restitution, recover damages and secure other relief against Defendant for violations of those laws. Plaintiff and the Class (defined below) also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses permitted under federal and state law.

18    This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 4 and 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 99 15(a) and 22, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $5 1331 and 1337.

19    This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 1332(d), in that this is a class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and in which some members of the Class are citizens of a state different from Defendant.

20    This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. fj 1367 because they are so related to the claims asserted in this action over which the court has original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

21    Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Sections 4 and 12 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. $9 15(a) and22) and 28 U.S.C. 5 1391(b) and (c) in that the Defendant can be found in and transacts business within this District, and a substantial part of the events or occurrences giving rise to the claims alleged occurred in this District. Indeed, Merck’s fraudulent scheme to maintain and further its monopoly power was originated and continues to be carried out in this District at Merck’s vaccine division facility in West Point, Pennsylvania.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

22    Throughout the Class Period, Merck manufactured, produced, sold and/or shipped substantial quantities of Mumps Vaccine in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of transactions in interstate commerce throughout the U.S., including within this District. Merck’s unlawful activities that are the subject of this Complaint were within the flow of, and have had a direct and substantial effect on, interstate trade and commerce.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A.     The Market for Mumps Vaccine Has and Continues to Be Dominated By A Single Manufacturer -Merck

1.     Background on The Mumps Vaccine

23    Mumps is a contagious viral disease characterized by fever, headache, muscle weakness, loss of appetite and swelling of one or more of the salivary glands. Although severe complications are rare, the mumps virus can cause inflammation of the brain and spinal cord (among other organs), sterility and deafness.

24    Merck first obtained approval for the Mumps Vaccine in 1967 from Department of Biologics Standards of the National Institute of Health (“DBS”), the government agency at the time responsible for licensing vaccines. The vaccine was developed by Dr. Maurice Hilleman, at Merck’s West Point research facility, from the mumps virus that infected his five year-old daughter Jeryl Lynn. Merck continues to use this “Jeryl Lynn” strain of the virus for its vaccine today.

25    Merck’s original Mumps Vaccine was delivered to patients in a single, stand-alone injection called Mumpsvax. In 1971, Merck developed M-M-R and that same year obtained DBS approval to manufacture and sell M-M-R vaccine. In 1978, Merck obtained approval from the FDA (which succeeded the DBS as the agency responsible for licensing vaccines) for the manufacture and sale of M-M-R II, a replacement for M-M-R containing a different strain of the rubella virus. Since that time, Merck has sold more than 450 million doses of M-M-R II world-wide, with approximately 200 million doses sold in the U.S.

26    In September 2005, Merck obtained FDA approval for ProQuad, a multi-disease vaccine that includes vaccinations for mumps, measles, rubella and chicken pox in a single injection. Merck sold ProQuad in the U.S. from its approval in 2005 until June, 2007. According to Merck, the vaccine became unavailable because of certain manufacturing constraints. The vaccine was briefly available again in 2010 but has not been available since then.

2. The U.S. Market for Mumps Vaccine and Merck’s Monopoly Power

27    As the only company licensed by the U.S. government to sell Mumps Vaccine, Merck has had a monopoly and continues to have a monopoly in the U.S. market for Mumps Vaccine since it obtained its original license in 1967. This has extended to multi-disease vaccines such as M-M-R, M-M-R II and ProQuad. However, Merck has maintained this monopoly not through its legitimate business acumen and innovation or its manufacture and sale of the safest, most effective and most cost-effective Mumps Vaccine in the market. Instead, Merck has willfully and illegally maintained its monopoly through its ongoing manipulation of the efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine. Through this unlawful conduct, Merck has been able to monopolize the Relevant Market (defined below) by representing to the public and government agencies a falsely inflated efficacy rate for its Mumps Vaccine, which has deterred and excluded competing manufacturers from entering the Market.

(a) The Relevant Geographic Market is The U.S.

28    The U.S. (including all U.S. territories and commonwealths) is the relevant geographic market in this case. Merck manufactures and distributes its Mumps Vaccine throughout the U.S. The unlawful and anticompetitive conduct at issue in this case affects only U.S. sales of the relevant products. Mumps Vaccine requires FDA licensing before it can be sold in the U.S.

(b) The Relevant Product Market is The Market for Mumps Vaccine

29    The U.S. sale of Mumps Vaccine (including without limitation M-M-R II and ProQuad) (the “Relevant Market”) is the relevant product market in this case.

(c) Barriers to Entry Are High in the Mumps Vaccine Market

30    There are significant barriers to entry inherent in the manufacture and sale of a new vaccine. Vaccine production is a capital-intensive, fixed-costs-based business, with the average cost to bring a vaccine to market of about $700 million. Moreover, the research, development, testing and government approval process is very expensive, time-consuming and risky. Several years and millions of dollars might be spent on developing a new vaccine only to find it fail in the final stages of testing, or to have the government refuse to approve it or significantly limit its application or distribution. Vaccine manufacturers will therefore invest in developing a new vaccine only where they see both a need for the vaccine as an improvement over an existing vaccine and an opportunity to make a large enough return on the significant capital investment and risk involved.

31    In the case of the U.S. Market for Mumps Vaccine, this substantial and inherent barrier to entry is compounded by the falsely inflated efficacy rate of Merck’s vaccine. As with the market for any product, a potential competitor’s decision to enter a market hinges on whether its product can compete with those products already being sold in the market. If an existing vaccine is represented as safe and at least 95 percent effective, as Merck has falsely represented its vaccine to be, it would be economically irrational for a potential competitor to bring a new Mumps Vaccine to the Relevant Market unless it thought it could compete with the safety and efficacy of the existing vaccine. Health care providers, including Plaintiff and the Class, would not purchase it otherwise.

(d) There is High Inelasticity of Demand in the Mumps Vaccine Market

32    For those seeking immunization for mumps, Mumps Vaccine is the only product available to achieve that result. So regardless of the price Merck charges for its Mumps Vaccine, the extent or frequency of any price increases for the vaccine, or whether Merck incorporates the vaccine into multi-disease vaccines, as it does with M-M-R II and ProQuad, there are no alternative products to which the government, health care professionals or consumers can turn to obtain this immunization.

33    The U.S. Market for Mumps Vaccine is further defined by the CDC’s nationwide schedule of recommended childhood vaccinations, including a vaccination against mumps, and the requirement around the country that all public school students be vaccinated against mumps (among other childhood diseases). If a child is to attend public school –not to mention any private school, university, summer camp or other educational or recreational institution in this country –he or she must be vaccinated for mumps. There is no choice (but for rare exceptions). There is no alternative. No other products can substitute for this required vaccination.

B.     Merck Willfully Maintained And Unlawfully Enhanced Its Monopoly Power in the Mumps Vaccine Market Through A Decade-Long Fraud

34    To obtain its original government approval to sell its Mumps Vaccine, Merck conducted field studies of vaccinated children and concluded that the vaccine had an efficacy rate of 95 percent or higher. This meant that 95 percent of those given the vaccine were considered immunized against mumps. This is important because when an adequate number of people have immunity, the chances of an outbreak are reduced, and –ultimately –eliminated. If there is insufficient immunity, a real risk of continued disease outbreaks exists. When a mumps outbreak occurs in vaccinated populations, it afflicts adults and older children who are at greater risk of serious complications.

35    While Merck obtained its original license in 1967 stating that its vaccine was at least 95 percent effective, Merck had known and knows that the vaccine’s efficacy is significantly less than that now. Merck knows that the continued passaging of the attenuated virus to make more vaccine for distribution has altered the virus and has degraded the efficacy of the product.

36    Rather than develop a new Mumps Vaccine with greater efficacy, or permit other manufacturers to enter the U.S. Market with a competing vaccine, Merck has instead taken pains to unlawfully and unethically preserve its exclusive U.S. license by maintaining that its more than forty-year old vaccine continues to have an efficacy rate of 95 percent or higher. This was easy to do for awhile because Merck was able to refer back to the efficacy testing it conducted in connection with the government’s original granting of Merck’s license to sell Mumps Vaccine. However, beginning in the late 1990s, Merck initiated new efficacy testing of its Mumps Vaccine. This testing coincided with an application to change the M-M-R II labeling in the U.S. and an application for a license to sell M-M-R II in Europe. This testing also coincided with Merck’s development and quest for approval of ProQuad in both the U.S. and Europe.

37    Without demonstrating that its Mumps Vaccine continued to be 95 percent effective, Merck risked losing the monopoly it had over the sale of Mumps Vaccine in the U.S. With respect to M-M-R II or Mumpsvax, Plaintiff and members of the Class would either have negotiated to pay less for the vaccine or stopped purchasing Merck’s vaccine altogether as the door would be open to new manufacturers to enter the Market. With respect to ProQuad, the government might not have approved the vaccine at all for sale and use in the U.S. Under any of these scenarios, Merck risked losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from this very profitable unlawful monopoly.

38    So, Merck set out to conduct testing of its Mumps Vaccine that would support its original efficacy finding. In performing this testing, Merck’s objective was to report efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy. The only way Merck could accomplish this was through manipulating its testing procedures and falsifying the test results. Relators to the Qui Tarn Action participated on the Merck team that conducted this testing and witnessed firsthand the fraud in which Merck engaged to reach its desired results. Merck internally referred to the testing as Protocol 007.

1.     Merck Manipulated and Falsified Test Results To Distort The True Efficacy of Its Mumps Vaccine

(a)     Merck’s Abandonment of Its Original PRN Test and Test Results

39    The original methodology Merck employed under Protocol 007 was a Mumps Plaque Reduction Neutralization (“PRN”) Assay. Preliminary testing commenced in 1999 at Merck’s West Point facility and was led by Senior Investigator David Krah and his second in command, Mary Yagodich. Merck’s Executive Director of Vaccine Research, Alan Shaw, approved the testing methodology Krah and Yagodich employed. Relator Krahling witnessed Krah and Yagodich as they conducted the preliminary testing.

40    As the name of the test indicates, the PRN test measures the virus neutralization that occurs after administration of the Mumps Vaccine. Merck’s test was in some measure similar to the testing procedure regarded in the scientific community as the “gold standard” for testing how well a vaccine works. Blood samples are taken from children both before they receive the vaccine and again after they have been injected with the vaccine (after sufficient time has passed for the vaccine to produce an immune response). The paired blood samples are then individually incubated with the target virus and added to sheets of cells. Where the virus replicates in the cell sheet it leaves a plaque, or hole.

41    The pre-vaccinated child will not typically have immunity to the disease. Therefore, the pre-vaccinated blood will be unable to neutralize the virus and plaques will form where the virus has infected the cells. In contrast, if the vaccine has stimulated the child’s immune system to develop antibodies against the virus, the post-vaccinated blood will neutralize the virus. The post-vaccinated blood sample will consequently show a smaller number of plaques, or holes, in the cell sheet compared to the pre-vaccinated sample.

42    A PRN test simply compares virus growth in the presence of the pre- and post- vaccinated blood samples. The number of plaques (where the virus has grown) is compared to determine if the vaccine caused the child to develop a sufficient level of antibodies to neutralize the virus. Results are reported in terms of seroconversion. A seroconversion occurs when the pre-vaccination blood sample is “negative” (meaning, insufficient antibodies to neutralize the virus) and the post-vaccination sample is “positive” (meaning, sufficient antibodies to neutralize the virus). Seroconversion occurs, therefore, when a blood sample goes from “pre-negative” (insufficient antibodies) to “post-positive” (sufficient antibodies). Seroconversion in the lab is the best correlate for efficacy –how successful the vaccine is at immunizing children. For the purposes of its testing, Merck was looking for a seroconversion rate of 95 percent or higher to support its original efficacy finding and the efficacy it continued to represent in its labeling.

43    While Merck’s PRN test was modeled after the neutralizing test generally accepted in the industry, it diverged from this “gold standard” test in a significant way. It did not test the vaccine for its ability to protect against a wild-type mumps virus. A wild-type virus is a disease-causing virus. That is the type of real-life virus against which vaccines are generally tested. Instead, Merck tested the children’s blood for its capacity to neutralize the attenuated Jeryl Lynn strain of the virus. This was the same mumps strain with which the children were vaccinated. The use of the attenuated Jeryl Lynn strain, as opposed to a virulent wild-type strain, subverted the fundamental purpose of the PRN test, which was to measure the vaccine’s ability to provide protection against a disease-causing mumps virus that a child would actually face in real life. The end result of this deviation from the accepted PRN gold standard test was that Merck’s test overstated the vaccine’s effectiveness.

44    Even with a deviation that could only overstate how well the vaccine worked, the results from Merck’s preliminary testing (which involved testing blood samples of approximately 60-100 children) yielded seroconversion rates significantly below the desired 95 percent threshold. Krah admitted as much to Relator Krahling. He also admitted to Krahling that the efficacy of Merck’s vaccine had declined over time, explaining that the constant passaging of virus to make more vaccine for distribution had degraded the product and that because of this, mumps outbreaks would increase over time.

45    Krah further admitted to Krahling that he and Yagodich tried numerous other, often undocumented, techniques to modify the PRN test to improve the seroconversion results they could measure, including trying different virus dilutions, different staining procedures and even counting plaques more liberally. These other techniques –like using the vaccine strain rather than a wild-type strain of the virus –subverted the purpose of the PRN test. In the end, however, none of it mattered. Merck had to abandon its methodology because no matter how Krah and Yagodich manipulated the procedures, they could not reach the 95 percent seroconversion threshold.

46    So, Merck abandoned the PRN methodology that yielded unsatisfactory results and worked towards developing a new, rigged methodology that would allow Merck to report its desired seroconversion results.

(b) Back to the Drawing Board: Merck’s Improper Use of Animal Antibodies In Its “Enhanced” PRN Test

47    The new methodology Merck devised and ultimately used to perform the mumps efficacy testing under Protocol 007 was an “enhanced” PRN Assay. It was again led by Krah and approved by Shaw and commenced in 2000. Relators Krahling and Wlochowski participated on the team that conducted the testing using this supposedly enhanced methodology. Each of them witnessed firsthand the falsification of the test data in which Merck engaged to reach its 95 percent seroconversion threshold. In fact, each was significantly pressured by Krah and other senior Merck personnel to participate in this fraud.

48    From the outset, Merck’s objective with this “enhanced” procedure was clear. It was not to measure the actual seroconversion rate of Merck’s Mumps Vaccine. It was to come up with a methodology that would yield a minimum 95 percent seroconversion rate regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy. The very first page of an October 2000 Merck presentation on the “enhanced” methodology stated just that:

Objective: Identify a mumps neutralization assay format . . . that permits measurement of a > 95% seroconversion rate in M-M- R II vaccinees.

Notably, nowhere in this presentation did Merck provide any kind of justification or explanation for abandoning its original PRN methodology and the unsatisfactory seroconversion results it yielded.

49    To reach the stated objective for its “enhanced” test and increase the measured seroconversion rate to the predetermined 95 percent threshold, Merck continued to use its scientifically flawed PRN methodology –that tested against the vaccine strain rather than a wild-type strain –but with one additional material change. Merck added animal antibodies to both the pre and post-vaccination blood samples. The use of animal antibodies in laboratory testing is not uncommon. They can serve as a highlighter of sorts to identify and count human antibodies that otherwise might not be identifiable on their own. When used in that way, animal antibodies make it easier to see the human antibodies. They do not alter what is being measured. However, Merck added animal antibodies for the singular purpose of altering the outcome of the test by boosting the amount of virus neutralization counted in the lab.

50    In a laboratory setting, animal antibodies can combine with human antibodies to cause virus neutralization that would not otherwise occur from the human antibodies alone. Merck’s “enhanced” methodology permitted various types of human antibodies to be counted as mumps neutralizing antibodies when it was actually the animal antibodies combining with those human antibodies causing the neutralization. Merck also did not apply a proper “control” to isolate whether virus neutralization was caused by the human antibodies alone or in combination with the animal antibodies. Rather, Merck included in its seroconversion measure all virus neutralizations regardless of whether they resulted from human antibodies or by their combination with the animal antibodies. This “enhanced” PRN methodology thereby allowed Merck to increase dramatically the recordable instances of mumps virus neutralization and to count those neutralizations toward seroconversion and its measure of the vaccine’s success.

51    Merck knew that the neutralizations attributable to the animal antibodies would never exist in the real world. This is because the human immune system, even with the immunity boost provided by an effective vaccine, could never produce animal antibodies. And adding this external factor as a supplement to a vaccine was not an option because it could result in serious complications to a human, even death. Thus, the “uncontrolled” boost to neutralization Merck designed using these animal antibodies in its laboratory did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real-life (invivo)virus neutralization in vaccinated people.

52    But the use of the animal antibodies allowed Merck to achieve its high seroconversion objectives. In fact, paired blood samples that were found under Merck’s 1999 PRN methodology to lack sufficient virus neutralizing antibodies were now considered seroconverted using the “enhanced” methodology. Indeed, in one panel of sixty paired blood samples, Merck measured a seroconversion rate of 100 percent. In other words, non-neutralizing concentrations of antibodies that would never protect a child from mumps in the real world were, under Merck’s “enhanced” methodology, treated as vaccine successful solely because of the additional neutralization provided by the animal antibodies.

53    Krah defended the use of the animal antibodies in the “enhanced” PRN test by pointing to the FDA’s purported approval of the process. However, whatever FDA approval Merck may have received for this testing, there is no indication that the FDA was fully aware of the extent of Merck’s manipulation of the testing, including Merck’s wholesale fabrication of test data to reach its preordained 95 percent efficacy threshold.

(c) Back to the Drawing Board Again: Merck’s Falsification of the “Enhanced” PRN Test Results

54    There was a significant problem with Merck’s improper use of the animal antibodies to boost its virus neutralization counts which would be evident to any scientist reviewing the test data. The animal antibodies boosted neutralization counts not only in the post- vaccination blood samples. They also boosted neutralization counts in the pre-vaccination samples. However, too much virus neutralization in the pre-vaccinated sample created a “pre- positive,” which means enough virus neutralization to characterize the child as immune without the vaccine.

55    Pre-positives ordinarily occur in a small percentage of the child population that is immune to mumps even without vaccination. This immunity would principally come from a previous exposure to the mumps virus, or from immunity transferred to a child from the mother in utero. However, the incidence of this immunity is small, generally measured by the scientific community at around 10 percent of the child population.

56    The problem for Merck was that with the addition of the animal antibodies to the pre-vaccination blood samples it was seeing a significantly higher percentage of pre-positives than the 10 percent industry recognized occurrence of such immunity. In the results of one test that Relators Krahling and Wlochowski both witnessed in the summer of 2001, the pre-positive rate was more than 80 percent. Krah instructed Wlochowski to throw out the results and the actual experimental plates of that particular test, thereby destroying all traces of the unwanted results.

57    The existence of such a high percentage of pre-positives threatened the viability of Merck’s “enhanced” methodology. As a practical matter, with a pre-positive, any favorable results in the post-vaccinated sample could not be counted as a vaccine success toward the 95 percent efficacy target. A sample appearing positive before the vaccine, and staying positive after the vaccine, was not a seroconversion.

58    Just as important, the high pre-positive rate would red flag the methodology as flawed. The FDA would question the results of a test that had such a high level of pre-positives. Krah stated this explicitly to the members of his lab, including Relators Krahling and Wlochowski. If Merck wanted to keep the artificial boost in post-vaccination positives provided by the animal antibodies, it would have to eliminate the associated boost in pre-vaccination positives.

59    In the October 2000 presentation, Merck acknowledged that its initial “enhanced” PRN testing results yielded a level of pre-positives that was too high. Merck also made clear that it needed to “optimize” the amount of animal antibodies used in the process so that the testing would yield a pre-positive rate of 10 percent or less and a seroconversion rate of 95 percent or more: “Pre-positive rate is higher than desirable,” and “Continue evaluation of results using optimized [animal antibodies] amount (target 5 10% pre-positive rate and 2 95% seroconversions).”

60    The problem was that no amount of tinkering with the amount of animal antibodies added would produce a pre and post-vaccination virus neutralization for Merck’s vaccine within the desired range. Without the animal antibodies, Merck could not support a sufficient level of post-vaccination neutralization. Conversely, by adding the animal antibodies, Merck could not avoid having too high a level of pre-vaccination neutralization (i.e. too many pre-positives). This left only one way for Merck to reach its desired seroconversion outcome –falsify the test results.

61    Specifically, Krah and Yagodich and other members of Krah’s staff falsified the test results to ensure a pre-positive neutralization rate of below 10 percent. They did this by fabricating their plaque counts on the pre-vaccination blood samples, counting plaques that were not actually there. With these inflated plaque counts, Merck was able to count as pre-negative those blood samples that otherwise would have been counted as pre-positive because of the increased neutralization caused by the animal antibodies.

62    Merck’s falsification of the pre-vaccination plaque counts was performed in a broad-based and systematic manner from December 2000 until at least August 2001

• Krah stressed to his staff that that the high number of pre-positives they were finding was a problem that needed to be fixed.
• Krah directed his staff to re-check any sample found to be pre-positive to see if more plaques could be found to convert the sample to a pre-negative.
• Krah and Yagodich falsified plaque counts to convert pre-positives to pre-negatives, and directed other staff scientists to do the same.
• Krah appointed Yagodich and two others to “audit” the testing that other staff scientists had performed. These audits were limited to finding additional plaques on pre-positive samples thereby rendering them pre-negatives.
• Krah instituted several measures to isolate the pre-positive samples, to facilitate their “re-count,” and to convert them to pre-negatives. For example, when manually changing original counting sheets proved too time-consuming,
• Krah employed an excel spreadsheet which would automatically highlight the undesirable pre-positives so that they could be targeted more efficiently. The data was entered, highlighted and changed before it was ever saved.
• Krah also engaged in the destruction of evidence to minimize the chances of detection. He not only employed the excel spreadsheet which left no paper trail. He also destroyed test results, substituted original counting sheets with “clean” sheets, and ordered the staff in the lab to do the same.
• Merck cancelled (in March 2001) a planned outsource of the testing to a lab in Ohio because the outside lab was unable to replicate the seroconversion results Krah was obtaining in his lab. Krah and his staff conducted all the remaining testing instead.

63    Unsurprisingly, none of the “recounting” and “retesting” that Krah and his staff performed as part of the “enhanced” testing was performed on any post-vaccination samples or on any pre-vaccination samples that were pre-negative. This additional “rigor” was only applied to the pre-positive samples, the very samples Merck had identified as undesirable and which kept Merck from attaining its target of 5 10% pre-positive rate and L 95% seroconversion.

64    Relators Krahling and Wlochowski engaged in numerous efforts to stop the fraud. They questioned and complained to Krah about the methodology being employed, particularly the manipulation of pre-positive data. They attempted to dissuade others from participating. They initiated numerous calls to the FDA to expose the fraud. And they attempted to document the fraud, even as evidence of it was being destroyed. But Relators’ efforts were to no avail. For every effort they took to stop the fraud, Merck adapted the scheme to assure the falsification continued. For example, when Relators objected to changing their own plaque counts, Krah appointed other staff, as so-called auditors, willing to falsify the data.

65    In July 2001, Relators Krahling and Wlochowski secretly conducted their own audit of the test results to confirm statistically the fraud that was occurring with the “enhanced” testing. They reviewed approximately 20 percent of the data that Merck had collected as part of the “enhanced” test. In this sampling, they found that 45 percent of the pre-positive data had been altered to make it pre-negative. No pre-negatives were changed to pre-positives. No post- positives were changed to post-negatives. No post-negatives were changed to post-positives. The statistical probability of so many changes occurring in just the pre-positive data and in no other data was more than a trillion to one. And that is a conservative measure given the likelihood that an even greater number of pre-positives were changed but remained undetected because the changes were not recorded in Merck’s files.

(d) The Complicity of Merck’s Senior Management

66    Krah did not act alone in orchestrating the falsification of the “enhanced” PRN test results. He acted with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck’s senior management.

67    For example, in April 2001, after Merck cancelled the planned outsourcing of the remainder of the Mumps Vaccine efficacy testing, Emilio Emini, the Vice President of Merck’s Vaccine Research Division, held a meeting with Krah and his staff, including Relators Krahling and Wlochowski. Emini was clearly on notice of protests that had been going on in the lab because he directed Krah’s staff to follow Krah’s orders to ensure the “enhanced” testing would be successful. He also told the staff that they had earned very large bonuses for the work they had completed on the project so far. He was going to double the bonuses and pay them once the testing was complete.

68    In July 2001, after completing the secret audit, Relator Wlochowski openly accused Krah during a lab meeting of committing fraud in the Mumps Vaccine testing. Relator Krahling then met with Alan Shaw and confronted him about the fraudulent testing. Krahling told Shaw of the falsification of the pre-positive data. Krahling also confronted Shaw about the improper use of the animal antibodies to inflate the post-vaccine neutralization counts. Shaw responded that the FDA permitted the use of the animal antibodies and that should be good enough for Krahling. Shaw refused to discuss anything further about the matter. Instead, Shaw talked about the significant bonuses that Emini had promised to pay the staff in Krah’s lab once the testing was complete.

69    Relator Krahling then met with Bob Suter, Krahling’s human resources representative at Merck. Krahling told Suter about the falsification of data and Shaw’s refusal to get involved. Krahling told Suter that he was going to report the activity to the FDA. Suter told him he would go to jail if he contacted the FDA and offered to set up a private meeting with Emini where Krahling could discuss his concerns.

70    Shortly thereafter, Emini agreed to meet with Krahling. In an early August, 2001 meeting with Emini, Krahling brought actual testing samples and plaque counting sheets to demonstrate to Emini the fraudulent testing that Krah was directing. Emini agreed that Krah had falsified the data. Krahling also protested against the use of the animal antibodies to inflate the seroconversion rate. Emini responded that the animal antibodies were necessary for Merck to achieve the project’s objective. Krahling proposed a scientific solution to lower the pre-positive rate and end the need to falsify data –stop using the animal antibodies. When Emini declined, Krahling asked him what scientific rationale justified using the animal antibodies. Emini explained that Merck’s choice to use the antibodies was a “business decision.”

71    To assuage Krahling’s concerns, Emini promised to conduct an “internal audit” of the Mumps Vaccine testing. Krahling countered that the FDA should be contacted since only the FDA could perform an audit that was truly independent. Emini ordered Krahling not to call the FDA. Immediately after the meeting, Suter approached Krahling and again threatened that he would be put in jail if he contacted the FDA.

72    The next morning, Krah arrived early to the lab and packed up and destroyed evidence of the ongoing Mumps Vaccine testing. This evidence included garbage bags full of the completed experimental plates, containing the cell sheets with plaques, that would have (and should have) been maintained for review until the testing was complete and final. The destruction of the plates would make it difficult to compare the actual plaque counts in the test with what was documented and changed on the counting sheets, as Krahling had done the day before in Emini’s office. Despite the threats he received from Suter and Emini, Krahling called the FDA again and reported this latest activity in Merck’s ongoing fraud.

(e) The FDA Interview of Krah and Shaw

73    On August 6, 2001, in response to Relator Krahling7s repeated calls, an FDA agent came to Merck to question Krah and Shaw. The FDA agent’s questions were largely focused on Merck7s process for counting plaques in the “enhanced” PRN test. Krah and Shaw misrepresented the process that Merck was actually conducting and the fact that Merck was falsifying the pre-positive test data.

74    For example, the FDA agent asked whether there was any ad hoe revisiting of plaque counts. Krah falsely responded that plaque counts were being rechecked only for verification, controls and to check hypervariability. Krah also misrepresented to the FDA that they did not change the data after it was entered in the excel workbook. When the FDA agent pressed Krah on the criteria for changing original counts on the counting sheets, Krah left the interview without answering the question. In Krah’s absence, Shaw informed the FDA agent that a memo would be added to the standard operating procedure to address changes. The FDA agent then asked Shaw why they had not taken care of this before the project started. Shaw offered that Krah and another Merck employee had identified “trends” and “problems” with the original counts without ever explaining what those “trends” or “problems” actually were.

75    The interview proceeded in this manner with Shaw and Krah obfuscating what was happening in the lab and obstructing the FDA’s efforts to find out what was really going on with Merck’s manipulation of the testing procedure to reach its targeted seroconversion rate.

76    The entire FDA interview with Krah and Shaw was short, probably less than half an hour. The FDA agent did not question Relators Krahling or Wlochowski or other members of Krah’s staff in order to corroborate what Krah and Shaw said. As far as Relators witnessed, the FDA agent did not attempt to substantiate Krah’s or Shaw’s responses by reviewing any of the testing samples or backup data that had escaped destruction. And the FDA agent did not address the actual destruction of evidence that Krah had already facilitated.

77    The FDA issued a one page deficiency report identifying a few relatively minor shortcomings in Merck’s testing process. These principally related to flaws in Merck’s record- keeping and in its validation/explanation of changes to the test data.

78    The report did not address or censure Merck for any issues relating to Merck’s improper use of the animal antibodies or Merck’s wide-scale falsification of pre-positive test data. The FDA did not discover this fraudulent activity in the course of the perfunctory visit because of Krah’s and Shaw’s misrepresentations to the FDA.

(f) Merck’s Completion and Use of the Fraudulent Test Results

79    In order to comply with the FDA’s deficiency report, Merck made minor adjustments to its testing procedure relating to its heretofore ad hoc procedure for counting plaques. The new, more formalized procedure explicitly provided for supervisory oversight and review of plaque counts in pre-vaccinated blood samples and where plaques were difficult to read because of the condition of the sample. In other words, under the “new” procedure, Merck continued to falsify the test data to minimize the level of pre-positives and inflate the seroconversion rate.

80    After the FDA visit, Relator Krahling was barred from any further participation in the Protocol 007 Mumps Vaccine testing project. He was also prohibited from accessing any data related to the project. Shortly thereafter, he was given a poor performance review and barred from continuing to work in Krah’s lab on any matter. He was offered a position in a different lab within Merck’s vaccine division, but it involved work for which Krahling had no prior experience or interest. In December, 2001 Krahling resigned from the Company.

81    Relator Wlochowski continued to work at Merck, though she was transferred out of Krah’s lab at the end of September, 2001. She spent an additional year working at Merck in a different lab before she too left Merck.

82    Before Relators Krahling and Wlochowski left Krah’s lab, Merck conducted the internal audit Emini had promised Relator Krahling would take place. However, as Krahling had warned against, the audit was anything but independent. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Merck completed its Protocol 007 testing in late summer or early fall 2001 and Merck reported the 95 percent seroconversion it had targeted from the outset. What no one knew outside of Merck –not the FDA, the CDC or any other governmental agency –was that this result was the product of Merck’s improper use of animal antibodies and the wide-scale falsification of test data to conceal the significantly diminished efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine.

83    Notably, while Relators Krahling and Wlochowski were immediately removed from Krah’s lab for their protests against and efforts to stop the fraudulent testing, those that facilitated the fraud remained. Indeed, Krah, Yagodich and other members of Krah’s staff who were instrumental in the fraud continue to work jn vaccine development at Merck today and are still working together in Krah’s lab.

2. Merck Fraudulently and Deceptively Marketed Its Mumps Vaccine For Over a Decade

84    Since at least the beginning of the Protocol 007 testing and continuing through the present, Merck has falsely represented to the government and the public that its Mumps Vaccine has at least a 95 percent efficacy rate. It has done so even though Merck is well aware, and has taken active steps to keep secret, that the efficacy rate is far lower.

(a) Merck’s False Representations Through Package Inserts

85    Merck principally has made these false representations in the package insert or labeling that accompanies each dose of Merck’s Mumps Vaccine. This is the product material that the law requires which, among other things, informs health care providers and the public of the composition of the vaccine and its overall efficacy at immunizing the recipient from contracting mumps.

86    Merck’s Mumps Vaccine insert has changed over the years, but at least one thing has remained constant –Merck’s reporting of at least a 95 percent efficacy rate. The current package insert for M-M-R II provides that “a single injection of the vaccine induced . . . mumps neutralizing antibodies in 96% . . .of susceptible persons.” Merck neither identifies the study performed or the date it was performed that supposedly supports this representation. The current insert further provides that: “Efficacy of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines was established in a series of double-blind controlled field trials which demonstrated a high degree of protective efficacy afforded by the individual vaccine components.” As support for this representation, Merck cites the more than forty-year old studies it conducted to obtain the original governmental approval for its Mumps Vaccine in 1967. Merck’s M-M-R II package insert has contained this language and “support” since at least 1999.

87    Merck’s product insert is a clear misrepresentation of the efficacy rate of its Mumps Vaccine. It cites outdated or unidentified studies that are not reflective of what Merck knows now about the vaccine’s current effectiveness as confirmed by Merck’s efforts to manipulate the methodology and ultimately falsify the data to report at least 95 percent seroconversion. In short, as Merck well knows, the efficacy rate of its Mumps Vaccine is not anywhere near 95 percent. Yet Merck continues to falsely represent a 95 percent efficacy rate to ensure its continued lock on the sale of the vaccine in the U.S.

(b)     Merck’s False Representations Through Expanded Distribution of the Vaccine

88    Merck’s misrepresentations relating to its Mumps Vaccine have not been made just for M-M-R II. Merck has also obtained approval to sell M-M-R II in Europe and to sell ProQuad in the U.S. and Europe. Merck obtained these approvals by again misrepresenting to the FDA (in the U.S.) and the EMA (in Europe) the efficacy rate of its Mumps Vaccine.

89    In 2004, Merck submitted an application to the FDA for approval of ProQuad. Merck certified the contents of its application were true. In 2005, after reviewing Merck’s application, the FDA approved ProQuad. According to the FDA’s clinical review of the studies Merck submitted in support of ProQuad, “[cllinical efficacy of.. . mumps .. . vaccine strain w[as] shown previously … using [the] monovalent. [Tlhe vaccine response rates were 95.8 to 98.8% for mumps.” Merck knew from its Protocol 007 testing that this falsely represented the efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine. Now that it is licensed, Merck’s package insert continues to misrepresent the efficacy of its Mumps Vaccine, stating: “Clinical studies with a single dose of ProQuad have shown that vaccination elicited rates of antibody responses against measles, mumps, and rubella that were similar to those observed after vaccination with a single dose of M-M-R 11” and “[a]ntibody was detected in 96.7% for mumps.”

90    In 2006, Merck obtained a license from the EMA to sell the M-M-R II analogue (called M-M-RVaxpro) through the joint venture Sanofi Pasteur MSD. Merck used the falsified results of the “enhanced” PRN test to obtain this approval. The EMA actually cited Protocol 007 as a “pivotal clinical study” in support of its decision to grant the approval. Since then, Merck has been manufacturing M-M-RVaxpro at its West Point facility for Sanofi Pasteur MSD to sell in Europe.

91    Around the same time, Merck also obtained a license from the EMA for Sanofi Pasteur MSD to sell Merck’s ProQuad in Europe. As with M-M-RVaxpro, Merck’s joint venture submitted the falsified results of Protocol 007 to the EMA as supportive clinical information in its vaccine application. Relying on this information, the EMA found “no major concern” about the efficacy of the mumps component of the vaccine.

92    Thus, by 2006, Merck had the exclusive licenses to sell M-M-R II and ProQuad in the U.S., as well as licenses to sell M-M-RVaxpro and ProQuad in Europe.

(c)     Merck’s False Representations Through Its Application for a Labeling Change on Potency of M-M-R 11

93    In 2007, Merck changed its M-M-R II labeling to reflect a decrease in the potency of the mumps component of the vaccine. Potency measures how much of the attenuated virus is included in each dose of the vaccine. The labeling change –approved by the FDA –allowed Merck to represent a lower minimum potency, from 20,000 to 12,500 TCID5o (or tissue culture infective dose, which is the scientific measure of vaccine potency). This represented a 37.5 percent reduction in how much of the attenuated virus could go into each dose of the vaccine.

94    At no time during Merck’s efforts to secure approval to change its M-M-R II labeling did Merck disclose to the FDA what Merck knew about the diminished efficacy of the vaccine. Nor did Merck take any steps to address the efficacy information that was falsely represented in the labeling. That portion of the labeling remained unchanged.

95    Merck was thus representing throughout the approval process that it could actually reduce how much attenuated virus Merck put into each vaccine shot and still maintain its represented 95 percent efficacy. Merck did so even though it knew that at the higher potency the vaccine was nowhere near this efficacy. Clearly, if the FDA had known the truth about the vaccine’s efficacy it would not have approved the labeling change to reduce the minimum potency.

(d) Merck’s False Representations Through Recent Mumps Outbreaks

96    With Merck’s significantly degraded vaccine as the only protection against the mumps in this country, there has remained a significant risk of a resurgence of mumps outbreaks. That is exactly what Krah –who was well aware of the Mumps Vaccine’s failings –predicted would occur. In a conversation he had with Relator Krahling in the midst of the “enhanced” PRN testing, Krah acknowledged that the efficacy of Merck’s vaccine had declined over time, explaining that the constant passaging of virus to make more vaccine for distribution had degraded the product. Krah predicted that because of this, mumps outbreaks would continue. And that is exactly what has happened.

(i) The 2006 Mumps Outbreak

97    In 2006, more than 6,500 cases of mumps were reported in the Mid-West in a highly vaccinated population. This was the largest mumps outbreak in almost twenty years and a significant spike from the annual average of 265 cases that had been reported for the years leading up to the 2006 outbreak. Astoundingly, 84 percent of the young adults who contracted the disease had been vaccinated with two doses of the Mumps Vaccine.

98    The CDC, FDA and Merck publicly worked together to determine the cause of this 2006 outbreak. Of course, only Merck knew that outbreaks would occur because its vaccine had degraded over time and was weaker than what Merck represented. Nonetheless, Merck continued to represent its inflated efficacy rate while government and private health care providers continued to believe that there was no problem with the vaccine. During the investigation of the outbreak, the CDC’s then Director, Julie Gerberding, reaffirmed the CDC’s view that nothing was wrong with the Mumps Vaccine, a belief fed by Merck’s continued misrepresentations: “We have absolutely no information to suggest that there is any problem with the vaccine.” Director Gerberding and the CDC emphasized that “[tlhe best protection against the mumps is the vaccine.”

99    Even though Krah, the Merck investigator who ran Protocol 007, expected outbreaks to increase because of the degraded product, scientists at the CDC and elsewhere continued researching to understand the origins of such a large outbreak within a highly vaccinated population. One of the leading studies was led by Dr. Gustavo Dayan, then a doctor at the CDC, and published in 2008 in the New England Journal ofMedicine. After considering possible causes for the outbreak, Dr. Dayan recommended that “[fluture studies will help evaluate national vaccine policy, including whether the administration of a second dose of M-M- R vaccine at a later age or the administration of a third dose would provide a higher or a more durable immunity.” Gustavo H. Dayan, “Recent Resurgence of the Mumps in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine, 358; 15 (Apr. 10,2008) 1580.

100    Dr. Dayan’s study ultimately concluded that “[a] more effective Mumps Vaccine or changes in vaccine policy may be needed to avert outbreaks and achieve elimination of mumps.” Id. (emphasis added). Of course, if Dr. Dayan had the benefit of what Merck knew but willfully withheld from the government and the public, his findings would have been significantly less equivocal on what needed to be done to stop the reemergence of mumps outbreaks.

101    At the same time Dr. Dayan published his study questioning whether it may be time for a new vaccine, Merck publicly proclaimed that its Mumps Vaccine had not been changed since its introduction in 1967 and that Merck had no plans to change it. So, while Dr. Dayan questioned whether it “may” be time for a new vaccine, Merck attempted to reassure the public that there was no need for any such change. The vaccine worked just fine.

102    In another study on the 2006 outbreak, several scientists questioned Merck’s use of the Jeryl Lynn strain, instead of a wild-type virus, in Merck’s PRN testing. They noted that with this kind of testing, vaccine efficacy can be significantly overstated because “good results can be obtained that do not reflect the actual ability of the vaccine to provide protection from disease. A vaccine failure is investigated properly only if, in addition to avidity testing, the ability of antibodies to neutralize wild mumps virus has been checked.” Heikki Peltola, et al., “Mumps Outbreaks in Canada and the United States: Time for New Thinking on Mumps Vaccine,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2007:45 (15 Aug. 2007) 459, 463.

103    What is perhaps most notable about this study is that it scientifically questioned Merck’s stated efficacy based solely on Merck’s use of the vaccine strain instead of a wild-type virus to test efficacy. The critique did not (and could not) even account for Merck’s concealed efforts to further inflate its efficacy results with the improper use of animal antibodies and the falsification of test data.

104    Currently, Emory University is conducting a clinical trial of its university students in yet another attempt to explain the cause for the 2006 mumps outbreak among college-age students who had received both doses of the vaccine. However, Merck is listed as a collaborator on that study and is providing funding, thus continuing to exert its influence to perpetuate its fraudulent efficacy findings.

105    Merck’s ongoing misrepresentations and omissions with respect to the effectiveness of its vaccine continue to conceal the role its degraded product played in the 2006 outbreak.

(ii) The 2009 Mumps Outbreak

106    In his 2008 study, Dr. Dayan also predicted another mumps outbreak would follow three years after the 2006 outbreak. This followed from the three-year cycles in which outbreaks occurred before children were widely vaccinated for mumps. “[Iln the pre-vaccine era, mumps activity followed 3 year cycles, so the current low activity rate [at the time of his 2008 study] may be transient while another critical mass of susceptible persons accrues.” Dayan, New England Journal of Medicine. 358;15 at 15 87-88.

107    In August 2009, another mumps outbreak began just as Dr. Dayan predicted. As with the 2006 outbreak, the 2009 outbreak occurred despite high vaccination coverage among the U.S. children’s population. In total, roughly 5,000 cases were confirmed by the CDC during the 2009 outbreak. This outbreak reaffirmed Krah’s prediction that mumps outbreaks would reemerge and increase over time.

108    Faced with a mumps outbreak in 2006, and without complete information as to what might have caused it, the CDC acknowledged that it would consider the possibility of recommending a third dose of Mumps Vaccine. According to the Deputy Director of the CDC’s Viral Diseases division in 2008, “If there’s another outbreak, we would evaluate the potential benefit of a third dose to control the outbreak.”

109    Because of the 2006 and 2009 outbreaks, the CDC has also pushed back its target date for eradicating mumps from its original 20 10 goal to no earlier than 2020. But no amount of extra time or dosages will be enough to eliminate the disease when the vaccine does not work as represented in the labeling. It will merely allow Merck to continue to misrepresent the vaccine’s efficacy and thereby maintain its exclusive hold on the Relevant Market with an inadequate vaccine.

110    To date, the government has not acted on Dr. Dayan’s conclusion that it “may” be time for a new Mumps Vaccine. Instead, it continues to build its strategy around the existing vaccine. Nor is Dr. Dayan likely to pursue his own conclusion. He left the CDC to take a position in the Clinical Department of Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of the Sanofi Aventis Group, Merck’s partner in manufacturing and selling M-M-RVaxpro and ProQuad in Europe. Dr. Gerberding has also left the CDC. In January 2010, she became the president of Merck’s Vaccine Division, a position she holds currently.

(e)     Merck’s False Representations Through the Immunization Action Coalition

111    The Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) is a non-profit organization which describes itself as the “nation’s premier source of child, teen, and adult immunization information for health professionals and their patients.” It provides educational materials and “facilitates communication about the safety, efficacy, and use of vaccines within the broad immunization community of patients, parents, health care organizations, and government health agencies.”

112    The CDC works closely with the IAC. Indeed, “[a]lmost all of IAC’s educational materials are reviewed for technical accuracy by immunization experts at the CDC.” The CDC also provides the IAC with financial support for the purpose of educating health care professionals about U.S. vaccine recommendations. Several CDC physicians currently serve on IAC’s Advisory Board. So does the current Director of the National Vaccine Program Office at the Department of Health and Human Services.

113    Merck also provides funding to the IAC. The IAC asserts that Merck’s Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 97 percent. This comes from the following Mumps Vaccine “Question and Answer” information sheet posted on the IAC’s website: “How effective is this vaccine? The first dose of M-M-R vaccine produces good immunity to .. . mumps (97%)”

114    Merck has done nothing to correct this widely disseminated misinformation, approved and supported by the CDC, about the efficacy of Merck’s Mumps Vaccine. If anything, through its funding and support of the IAC, Merck has once again positioned itself to facilitate the spread of this false efficacy information.

C.     The Anticompetitive Effects of Merck’s Unlawful Monopolization of The Mumps Vaccine Market

115    Through its false representations of the Mumps Vaccine’s efficacy rate and its efforts to conceal the significantly lower efficacy rate that the Protocol 007 testing confirmed, Merck has unlawfully monopolized the Relevant Market and foreclosed potential competitors from entering the Market with a new Mumps Vaccine. No manufacturer is going to sink the time, energy and resources into developing the vaccine for sale in the U.S. with the artificially high bar Merck has unlawfully devised.

116    Entering the Relevant Market would be particularly risky in the case of the Mumps Vaccine given the four-decade lock Merck has had on the Market.

117    But for Merck’s anticompetitive conduct, including its fraud and other misconduct, one or more competing manufacturers would have entered this lucrative Market –with its guaranteed sales of almost 8 million doses a year –with a competing Mumps Vaccine. For example, GlaxoSmithKline, a manufacturer of numerous FDA approved vaccines, has an M- M-R vaccine, PriorixB, that is widely sold in Europe, Canada, Australia and other markets. PriorixB is not licensed or sold in the U.S., even though the company has a U.S. patent covering the vaccine and, according to an industry journal, had plans to enter the U.S. market with it.

118    By continuing to monopolize the Relevant Market, by, inter alia, misrepresenting an artificially high efficacy rate, and engaging in the above-described misconduct, Merck has foreclosed GlaxoSmithKline and any other manufacturer from entering the U.S. market. So long as Merck continues to monopolize the Relevant Market and engage in this misconduct, these manufacturers will continue to be excluded from the Relevant Market and Merck will unlawfully retain its unlawful monopoly with a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization.

119    There are no legitimate pro-competitive efficiencies that justify Merck’s anticompetitive and/or otherwise unlawful conduct or outweigh its substantial anticompetitive effects.

120    Merck’s unlawful conduct has harmed competition by foreclosing other manufacturers from entering the Relevant Market. Without such competition, Merck has been able to unlawfully maintain and profit from its monopoly in this Market even though it is manufacturing and selling a sub-par vaccine. In the absence of this illegal market foreclosure, other manufacturers would have entered the Relevant Market with a higher quality and/or cheaper vaccine. This competition, or the threat of such potential competition, would have forced Merck to respond by either selling its existing vaccine at a lower price or developing a better vaccine.

121    By unlawfully excluding and impairing competition, Merck’s conduct has caused Plaintiff and other Class members to pay more for Mumps Vaccine than they otherwise would have paid absent Merck’s illegal, exclusionary conduct.

122    Given the absence of any competition in the Relevant Market, Merck has used its unlawful monopoly power to charge artificially inflated prices for its Mumps Vaccine. During the Class Period, Merck increased the prices it charged private health providers such as Plaintiff for M-M-R II vaccine by an astounding 85%. See Figure 1.

Pediatric MMRII Vaccine Price

Price Lists

Figure 1

123    As a result of Merck’s unlawful, anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Class were compelled to pay, and did pay, artificially high and supra-competitive prices for Mumps Vaccine.

124    Plaintiff and members of the Class have, as a consequence, sustained losses and damage to their business and property in the form of the payment of overcharges for Mumps Vaccine. The full amount of such damages will be calculated after discovery and upon proof at trial.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Read the full .pdf for the remaining details: Chatom-Lawsuit-Merck

Click to access iblt03i1p8o.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republished from Age of Autism

By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Autism – Google Suppressing News? The Vanishing News Story – Can You Find The Story On Google?

Yesterday the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper carried a detailed two page feature story by respected journalist Sue Reid about the ruling in the Italian Court that Merck’s MMR II vaccine caused autism in an Italian child [see link to the story].  This is the same vaccine used in the UK since 1988 and USA since 1984.  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 Reid – 15 June 2012

Can you find yesterday’s story in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper by searching Google News? If you do check this yourself it would help to let others know the results.  You can post a comment below.

We have had reports that the story cannot be  found by searches in Google News.  We checked ourselves a number of times using various searches and the story does not appear to come up. Try this search.

An ordinary Google search brings up the story as the first hit, but nothing on Google news.

What did you find?  You are welcome to post a comment below.  You can also cut and past the link to the results of your search in any comment so others can try out what you found.

You might find links to other sites referring to the Daily Mail story, but can you search on Google News and find the direct link to the story yourself?  We would like to hear how you did trying to find this story online.

MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV – Now Reported in English National Press

Now reported in the English national press. Read it here and pass it on. This is a major news story.

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 Reid – Daily Mail PUBLISHED: 23:03, 15 June 2012 | UPDATED: 23:11, 15 June 2012

• Landmark ruling in an Italian court has said Valentino Bocca’s autism was provoked by the MMR jab he had at aged nine months
• His parents have already been awarded £140,000 and could be paid an additional £800,000 in their case against the Italian government
• The case could set a precedent for many similar civil proceedings

At nine months old, Valentino Bocca was as bright as a button. In a favourite family photo, taken by his father, the baby boy wriggles in his mother’s arms and laughs for the camera.

Read on for more:

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?

US Politician Pro-Child Health Safety – Running for Vermont State Senate

With the kind permission of Vermont State Senate candidate Robert Wagner, Vermont, USA, we reproduce here below an article from Robert Wagner‘s site.  He is an American doing politics.  He is pro-child health safety from conviction.  He is pro-vaccine choice.  He is a Liberty Candidate.  Last time he stood for the Vermont State Senate, he did not win.  He may not win next time.  But what he did and will do is take votes. 

Robert Wagner seems a quiet American.  But the Robert Wagners of the USA are giving you a choice when it comes to voting.  You can choose not to vote for the politicians who keep failing you and your children.   The Robert Wagners give you much more besides that – a choice to vote for someone who does stand up for your children in politics and a chance to place your vote elsewhere.  If enough of you do it, the Robert Wagners will win.

Robert Wagner is campaigning to get 30 new independent Liberty candidates into the Vermont State Senate including himself.  So if he succeeds Vermont will not have just one Robert Wagner.  It will have 30 to take the votes from the Republicans and Democrats.  And some of the 30 could just win too.  With your help all of them could.

The one thing other candidates cannot afford is for someone to be taking their votes from them.  The autism community has real political power.  With 1 in 100 US children having an autistic condition but with parents and many more family members, aunts, uncles, grandparents each child can potentially call on many more votes than 1% of the voting population. In States like New Jersey one in 49 children — one in 29 a boy — has an autistic condition – autism is now a world-wide pandemic: Autism rates hit ‘epidemic increase’ in N.J. Thursday, March 29, 2012  BY LINDY WASHBURN STAFF WRITER The Record.

The well-known to be corrupt United Nations organisation, W.H.O. only declares pandemics for its drug industry paymasters for money-making scams like swine and bird flu: Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic July 29, 2009 by sarah106.

Sometimes elections are won on just a few votes and a 1% swing can make a huge difference to some elections and then to the balance of power when Senate membership is finely politically balanced between Republicans, Democrats and others.  You can read about Robert Wagner’s political positions by clicking here.

Autism and vaccination freedom for parents, children and families is not or should not be a party political matter.  But you cannot afford to wait for election time.  In the run-up to the US Presidential elections in 2008, candidates Obama, McCain and Clinton all jumped on the autism bandwagon and then did nothing later about taking action to stop the causes of children developing autism.  So even when the candidates are forced to appeal to particular voting interests, once elected they do nothing.

Politicians need to know well before they are standing for reelection that next time you won’t be voting for them when they fail to deliver and that you will vote for the candidate who is standing up for and  will do something for your autistic child.  So in Vermont, don’t wait until election time again – tell the other politicians right away, while they are wasting your child’s life doing nothing, that you want action now or you will vote for one of the Robert Wagners of the USA.  You may not live in Vermont but the same principles could work where you live.

Americans need conviction politicians like Robert Wagner, doing his bit because he believes he should for the greater good.  Whether he wins or not next time around, parents and families of autistic children can do something before it comes to the ballot box.  When you have candidates like Robert Wagner you can tell the incumbent politicians you will be voting for your local Robert Wagner and taking your vote away from them. 

Here is the article from Robert Wagner’s site:

Stop Legislature, Governor from caving in to corporations  May 09 2012

 Some are calling this “‘compromise’, because most things in Montpelier are about ‘compromise’.”  I disagree.

Compromise between whose interests? Why should our elected representatives compromise our interests for the sake of corporations, for the 1% who already make a killing here in Vermont?

But—I imagine—the corporate money is too good to pass up. Not to mention federal block grants, handouts to localities in return for giving even greater subsidies to corporations (out of our paycheck tax withholding). This is a machine politician’s measure of success… selling out his people in return for those grants.

The Vermont Legislature keeps trying to close down schools (more on Act 155 in a later article), but handouts to corporations since 1998 total $231,328,428. These are tax subsidies, loopholes and outright payments from our tax withholding. You can find this information yourself on the Subsidy Tracker at Good Jobs First.

Monsanto defeated the second Vermont GMO labeling bill this year, by combined threats and lobbying. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto spent $8 million on lobbying efforts in 2010 alone, and gave more than $400,000 in political contributions. Monsanto also spent $120 million on advertising, to convince consumers that genetically engineered foods are safe—despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing otherwise.

In 2002, Shumlin killed off the first GMO Labeling Bill. The Rutland Herald documented his sellout: “…A measure mandating labels on genetically modified seeds and food, liability for the purveyors of the technology and registration of the location of transgenic crops with town clerks flew through the Senate Agriculture Committee. But its good fortunes ended in the Finance Committee. Democratic Sen. Peter Shumlin voted with Republicans to table the bill.”

“Shumlin told Sen. Cheryl Rivers (D), then chair of the Agriculture Committee, that he was “unwilling to support a bill requiring labeling of genetically modified foods because the Democrats had already lost the contributions of pharmaceutical companies, and he was not willing to sacrifice contributions from the food industry…”

My opponent, Claire Ayer, backed S.199, a bill introduced by Sen. Mullin (20 grand from out-of-state in the 2010 election), which attacked the very concept of informed consent. On behalf of Big Pharma. I am running against Claire Ayer to protect your rights and liberties, which are not for sale.

I’ve set the stage, connecting forced vaccinations and GMOs. Now you know why the machine incumbents need to go. Start with the Senate, there’s just thirty seats, it can be done. It won’t be easy, they have wads of out-of-State money and influence behind them. Let’s show them that real Vermonters can’t be bought through out-of-State influence peddling.

Corporate Power: Mullin Jabs his Constituents with a GMO Vaccine Needle

Biotech 2, Vermont 0

Brian Gaston for Salem-News.com
The biotech industry has had to use corruption and threats to keep secret what they continue to claim is safe and “substantially equivalent” to normal food.

(MONTPELIER, VT) - Vermont was slammed by the biotech industry twice this month.

They were hit the first time when 90% of the population wanted GMOs in their food labeled but the governor would not sign a bill requiring this because the biotech giant Monsanto threatened to sue the state. Monsanto thus stopped “informed consent” around food, leaving people without crucial information needed to decide what goes into their and their children’s bodies, and are thus essentially tricked into eating it in not know what is what. Instead of informed consent required in medical experiments – and this is one of the largest in human history – there is enforced ignorance. The biotech industry has had to use corruption and threats to keep secret what they continue to claim is safe and “substantially equivalent” to normal food.

And Vermonters were hit a second time by the biotech industry around “informed consent” over vaccines when the drug companies got the Vermont legislature to undermine parents’ human right to philosophical exemption to vaccines for their children. While there are stories indicating that philosophical exemption was maintained in Vermont, this is not the case. Dr. Paul G. King says:

To truly preserve the philosophical exemption in Vermont, the parents would have had to get the legislature to pass NO law modifying this exemption — and they did NOT do this.

Nicole Matten lost her 7 yr old daughter Kaylynne last December, 92 hrs after she received a flu shot. Click picture for details.

Philosophical exemption was not preserved, but altered into near meaninglessness. As the law now reads, it requires the signature of a “health” provider who may or may not give it. If the parents even know about it (a first obstacle for less educated or poor parents), and if they can obtain it (another obstacle for the poor who must understand and be able to argue for the exemption from state health care providers, not private pediatricians they know), parents are then forced to sign a document saying they know that by not vaccinating their children, others are put at risk.” Dr. King again:

The reality is that parents are endangering the health of others by vaccinating with the pertussis vaccine, because pertussis is being spread through vaccinated groups. From an article by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a pediatrician and a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) of the Government of India:

The vaccine against whooping cough seems to be putting children at INCREASED RISK of whooping cough. California is experiencing its worst whooping cough outbreak in more than 60 years. Thousands of people have gotten sick and 10 infants have died, including two in San Diego County.

Health officials across the country are trumpeting pertussis vaccinations, but a four-month investigation by KPBS and the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative center based at San Diego State University, has found that many people who have come down with whooping cough have been immunized.

The key findings of the investigation:

• For pertussis cases in which vaccination histories are known, between 44 and 83 percent were of people who had been immunized, according to data from nine California counties with high infection rates. In San Diego County, more than two thirds of the people in this group were up to date on their immunizations.
• Health officials in Ohio and Texas, two states experiencing whooping cough outbreaks, report that of all cases, 75 and 67.5 percent respectively, reported having received a pertussis vaccination.
• Today, the rate of disease in some California counties is as high as 139 per 100,000, rivaling rates before vaccines were developed.
• Public officials around the world rely heavily on two groups of pertussis experts when setting vaccine policy relating to the disease. Both groups, and many of their members, receive money from the two leading manufacturers of pertussis vaccine.

And the vaccine appears to have a new strain in it and to actually be more dangerous. From the Investigative News Source:

[Dr. Friz] Mooi, who heads the Pertussis Surveillance Project at the National Institute of Health in the Netherlands, said an epidemic in 1996 in his country gave the need for research more urgency. “And we found really a kind of new mutation in that bug,” Mooi said. In tests, Mooi’s lab found the mutated strain produced more toxins, which could make people sicker.

The health care providers in Vermont are not informing Vermont parents of this danger. Nor are they informing all the parents in Vermont that they have a human right to refuse any or all vaccines. Thus, at both the medical level and the human rights level, there is no “informed consent” in Vermont whatsoever.

But the situation is worse than that. By requiring parents who do not wish their child vaccinated to sign a document saying that they know that by not vaccinating their child they are endangering others, the state of Vermont is withholding parents’ human right to refuse vaccines unless the parents lie on a legal document.

The Senate Health & Welfare committee voted 3-1-1 to remove the philosophical exemption to mandated vaccines, without ever holding the promised public hearing. Senator Ayer: yes; Mullin: yes; Miller: yes; Pollina: no; Senator Fox: absent. Ayer, Mullin & Miller MUST GO. Vote them out!!!

In Vermont, in the place of “informed consent,” the state now offers “coerced misinformation” as the requirement for parents to refuse vaccines.

This is a stunningly invidious and deceptive undoing of “informed consent” around vaccines (which now all use GMOs), just as is any refusal to label GMOs in food. As the FDA with a Monsanto lawyer working there at the time, hid 40,000 documents showing extreme toxicity of GMOs (exactly as Monsanto hid the deadly toxicity of its PCBs for years), the biotech behemoth Monsanto relied on massive PR to promote lies about GMOs better yields and safety, has planted them without approval here and in other countries, routinely threatens farmers with law suits, and now has threatened to sue the state of Vermont to keep its “safe” GMOs unlabeled, etc. Parents are being their human right to know what is going into their children’s bodies, information they need to consent or to refuse.

But in the case of vaccines, the biotech industry not only uses corporate giants like Murdock’s news empire to lie about vaccines and excoriate doctors who are researching them, but is using legislation like that in Vermont to force parents to tell lies for them, about the dangers of not taking vaccines. The reality of the growing dangers of taking biotech’s vaccines is missing.

From Child Health Safety:

No investigation of Murdoch’s crimes should omit his efforts to use his media empire to prevent exposure of potential dangers from the MMR vaccines and possibly all the new DNA vaccines.

And what dangers do all the new DNA vaccines present but are not part of informed consent in Vermont? From a CBS health article:

Ratajczak’s article states, in part, that “Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination [emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain.”

The destruction of “informed consent” in Vermont around what goes into its children’s bodies is complete and then some.

The legislature in Vermont is undoing “informed consent” at a new level:

• NOT requiring that GMOs in food be labeled, thus is choosing NOT to inform its people of the presence of highly toxic material.
• NOT informing about GMOs presence in food though 90% of its people want to know; and in NOT requiring that information Vermont has obliterated any true consent or refusal. leaving Vermonters to ingest and feed their children highly toxic GMO material solely out of ignorance.
• Exposing Vermonters and their children to GMO material that is associated with destroying reproductive organs so is acquiescing or promoting the destruction of fertility among Vermonters.
• NOT informing about vaccine exemptions and is thus denying Vermonters “refusal,” coercing them through their ignorance of exemptions, to get their children vaccinated.
• NOT informing about the biotech industry’s new vaccines and their increasing dangers to children’s genetic make-up or about the increasingly disturbing ingredients the government is producing for them.
• NOT informing parents that each child’s ownership of their DNA is being stolen by the introduction of synthetic patented material which the pharmaceutical could lay claim to as Monsanto is doing now with GMOs in crops.
• Morcing parents to sign legal documents attesting to false (and frightening) information as a requirement to avoid vaccines – removing parents’ rights to refuse while making parents to agents of misinformation.
• Making pariahs of parents who are forced to sign legal documents falsely agreeing they are putting other people’s children at risk.

There is more than a surface similarity to keeping toxic GMOs in food unlabeled and twisting of vaccines exemptions into almost non-existence. The biotech industry produces both the patented GMOs in food, and the patented GMOs in vaccines. Both are contaminating DNA (one in plants, one in humans) and causing genetic mutations. One set of GMOs is contaminating crops via GMO pollen, and that unstoppable contamination provides a means for the drug corporations to take “ownership” over plant DNA via patents. The other set of GMOs is contaminating human-DNA via vaccines and laws voted for by corrupted legislators, and that legislatively-driven contamination provides a means for the drug corporations to take “ownership” over human-DNA via patents.

Coalition for Vaccine Choice demonstrates in Burlington in front of appointed Health Commissioner Harry Chen’s office. Chen showed a misleading map to Legislatures to pretend that there’s a health emergency, on behalf of Big Pharma. If you repeat a lie often enough, people start believing it.

Nationally, right now, there is a flood of biotech industry moves to aggressively remove all obstacles to their patented GMOs in food and to their patented GMOs in vaccines. Whether by introducing laws to criminalize all dissent to GMOs in plants and vaccines, paying to make whistleblowing a felony, planting two years before any charade of an approval process, corrupting agencies so they turn regulating the biotech industry over to the biotech industry itself, removing all liability over vaccines, inserting a new rule to all manufacturers to insert whatever they want, creating laws that would force untested (GMO) vaccines on the public in an unproven emergency, censoring news stories on safety even as HHS makes a banned substance, threatening and blocking journalists writing on a GMO drug, hiring Blackwater to infiltrate anti-GMO groups, attacking doctors studying dangers or attempting to destroy scientists’ careers, the facade of “health” for GMOs is slipping and showing a dark side mated to corruption of many kinds.

When the public which hates Monsanto for contaminating farmers’ fields and laying claim to what it caused, realizes that vaccines are coming from the very same industry and are contaminating human-DNA, it will look at the things it’s been told about vaccines and ask where that “information” came from, and what have independent scientists been saying. It will look at the 47,500 cases of paralysis caused by Bill Gates in India, and his saying just what Vermont is forcing parents to sign – that those not taking vaccines are endangering others. Gates said vaccine skeptics are killing children, using a brutal McCarthy approach to try to silence parents who are justifiably concerned with vaccine safety. Gates’ polio vaccines killed children and at twice the rate as natural polio.

Jacob Puliyel, a pediatrician in India on the vaccine board who is exposing what the GAVI (Gates, WHO, World Bank) polio vaccine has done to children in India) MA Gupta and JL Mathew say in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics Vol IX No 2 April – June 2012 Page 114-7, in an article entitled “Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on”:

…in 2005, a fifth of the cases of non-polio AFP [“non-polio” is what the WHO labeled cases of paralysis following the polio vaccine] in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) were followed up after 60 days. 35.2% were found to have residual paralysis and 8.5% had died (making the total of residual paralysis or death – 43.7%) (28). Sathyamala examined data from the following year and showed that children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection

Parents in Vermont, to protect their children from vaccines, must sign that by not vaccinating they are putting others at risk.

The Vermont legislature, in depriving the state of informed consent that would include information on the pertussis vaccine that is spreading whooping cough, the polio vaccine that is paralyzing children, the MMR vaccine now associated with mitochondrial failure, the measles vaccines that are failing, all the new DNA vaccines which alter DNA with patented GMOs, all the mandated vaccines and the flu vaccine containing polysorbate 80 (an ingredient destructive of fertility), etc. and inform Vermonters what food there contains GMOs which the FDA knew were highly toxic in the 1990s and hid the evidence and which now are destroying reproductive organs, and causing lethal diseases.

Informed consent is the bedrock of medical ethics. What the Vermont legislature is doing to lives and freedom of its own people, it is doing for the sake of the biotech industry.

My opponent, Claire Ayer, backed Mullin’s S.199 and voted it out of committee, caving in to Biotech and Big Pharma.

Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic

  Robert Wagner seems a quiet American.  But

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

Supplementing our recent three articles on this Italian Court case is information showing this is not a “one of a kind” decision.  [The links to the three articles are at the end of this one]. 

US Government officials, including the present Director of Merck’s Vaccine Division are on public record on US national broadcast television in the aftermath of the Hannah Poling case confirming vaccines, not just the MMR vaccine, cause autistic conditions.  US Federal Court Special Masters in the so-called US “Vaccine Court” have also decided cases confirming this. 

Here are CHS articles setting out the quotes and citations from US government health officials, from medical literature and details of some successful US Court cases.  People have short memories.  So we recommend you read or read again these posts and let others know of them.

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

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

MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

So what we can also say from this is the government health officials in all countries must know this and have known this for at least a decade if not more.  They have constantly and continuously still maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autistic conditions, in the teeth of the evidence.

They have all presided over the present position where 1 in 64 British children, 1 in 100 US children have an autistic condition and the rates of autistic conditions worldwide have soared – including China: Autism Hits China Big Time.

This is vastly more serious than the over-exaggerated claims for the hazards of the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to  protect children against [but don’t: eg. Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working].

If you have never done so, check out CHS’ Site Map for many other articles, tell others and have a great read yourself.

Here you can see the exaggerated claims for the vaccines and for the diseases they are meant to save us all from:

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

Here you can see how vaccines are directly implicated in causing autistic conditions in large populations of Japanese and British children whilst the medical “profession” is busy publishing journal papers claiming the opposite, ignoring or distorting the clear evidence and covering up the serious hazards of vaccines:

Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

Autism – Why Autism Research Goes Nowhere – The Researchers Who Takes Us Down All The Blind Alleys

30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards To Sell More Vaccines And Harm Your Kids

Conflicted Government Expert Airbrushes Embarrassing Autism Science

And politicians do the same:

British Minister Misled Parliament Over US MMR Autism Case

But it is not just autistic conditions which are a problem.  All kinds of autoimmune conditions in children have increased substantially in the vaccine decades particularly since the substantial increase in mass childhood vaccinations in the 1980’s.

And here are our three prior articles on the Italian Court decision: 

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

STOP PRESS:

The Italian Court Decision is not a “one-off”.  People have forgotten – We have been here before.

Just posted 28/May/12 – Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – IV: – BUT – So Has The USA – Some Autism History

Original CHS article now continues:

We present here a professional medical translation of the full text of the decision of the Italian Court of Rimini holding that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children.  First a few observations.

The MMR vaccines used in Italy prior to 2007 were is Merck’s MMR II, GSK’s Priorix and Morupar, from Chiron [until the latter was withdrawn urgently on short notice by W.H.O. because it was unsafe: click   here  and  here  for copies of W.H.O. and other documents – [Green text updated 26/5/12]].  Morupar is a Urabe mumps virus strain containing vaccine, which is the type abandoned unilaterally and urgently in the UK in September 1992 by the manufacturer [a GSK company] for legal reasons because of the high levels of all kinds of adverse reactions it causes.  It was done so urgently that the UK’s Department of Health was not even given a week to break the news.  However, the kind of MMR vaccine Hannah Poling in the US received with 8 other vaccines on the same day would have been Merck’s MMR vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps virus.  [US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case]

And here is the key part of the Italian Court’s judgement:

The medicolegal and auxilary medicolegal assessments must be conducted according to their merits, which, on the basis of an in depth examination of the case in the light of the specialist literature to date, has conclusively established that the young child is suffering from AUTISTIC DISORDER ASSOCIATED WITH MEDIUM COGNITIVE DELAY ascribed with reasonable scientific probability due to the administration of the vaccine MMR occurring on the date 26\3\2004 at the ALS of Riccione

It should also be acknowledged that the auxiliary evaluation pursuant to the Medical Commission has expressed the view that there is a permanent impairment of physical and mental integrity established, ascribed to the first category of Table A, attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834.

Now a further point to be made is that in common law jurisdictions like England, Australia, Canada and the USA and many more, a finding of fact by a Court of first instance is extremely difficult to overturn except in the case of manifest error or some other factor like fraud

Additionally, it appears the judgement of the Italian Court was by consent, which also appears to mean 1) the Italian health authorities did not contest the findings and 2) they cannot appeal.  If a qualified Italian lawyer might like to comment here on CHS on whether that is a correct intepretation of the judgement that would be appreciated.  The relevant part of the judgement is:

The case, informed through the production of documents and the testing of medical-legal advice, was discussed at today’s public hearing as a consent decree.

The English translation provided here has been kindly provided by Dr JLM Donegan. 

Dr Donegan is the only English medical practitioner whose advice on vaccination issues has been found in a three week UK General Medical Council legal trial in August 2007 to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to be based on valid medical and scientific literature, not to be misleading and unaffected by any personal views Dr Donegan may hold – in other words Dr Donegan’s advice is independent, objective and unbiased.  The findings in the case were most unusual.  Instead of finding that the GMC prosecution’s case was not proven, the hearing panel made a positive finding and found in Dr Donegan’s favour to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that her defence was proven.

More information can be found here:

UK’s GMC, Dr Jayne Donegan’s Story, Vaccines & MMR

The hearing came about after Lord Justice Sedley in the English Court of Appeal condemned Dr Donegan’s evidence to the English Family Court as “junk science”.  This was without Dr Donegan even being present, given any opportunity for comment or being represented.  [So much for English justice].

The GMC’s expert witness at the GMC trial, Dr David Elliman, then of Great Ormond Street Hospital spent 5 months preparing an expert report against Dr Donegan for the August 2007 hearing for the purpose of having Dr Donegan’s medical licence revoked, only to be forced to admit in cross-examination that he was “quibbling” over a few details.

Interestingly, whilst Dr Elliman was spending all this time on his report for the GMC prosecution there were problems in the unit he managed at Gt Ormond St Hospital.  Despite being warned by his professional staff he took no management action.  This matter came to a head with what has become known as the scandal of the death of “Baby P”.  In short a child died, killed as a result of extensive injuries over many months caused by child abuse by the partner of the child’s mother.

Dr Elliman has never been charged by the General Medical Council with anything nor has his licence to practise medicine been revoked.  The UK’s General Medical Council appears to have done nothing whatsoever about this despite their main purpose being to regulate the conduct and practice of medical doctors to protect the public.  Well, they did not protect “Baby P” and by doing nothing they will not protect all the other “Baby P’s” there may be in future.  They did however spend millions of pounds getting Dr Wakefield’s licence revoked and now it appears that all along Dr Wakefield was right.

Here follows the translated judgement.  Any observations on or suggestions for improvements to the translation or typographical or other errors would be appreciated as this has been prepared as rapidly as reasonably possible:

Italian Republic

On behalf of the Italian people

The Ordinary Court of Rimini

Civil Division, Labour Section

With a single judge presiding in the person of Judge Lucius ARDIGO’ pronounces

JUDGMENT

in the civil case, with the ritual of work, registered as N.474 \ 10 RGL brought forward by:

XXXX and XXXX on their own behalf and as parents exercising parental authority in the case of their son, a minor xxxx (child)

represented and defended by the lawyer. VENTALORO LUCA with an address for service in Viale Principe Amedeo 12 47900 RIMIN at the Chambers of. VENTALORO LUCA

-APPLICANT-

AGAINST

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CF80242255589), with the ADVOCACY of the lawyer DISTRICT STATE ADVOCATE electively domiciled in Via Guido Reni 4 40125 BOLOGNA at the Chambers of. DISTRICT STATE ADVOCATE

-AGREED-

Concerning

Compensation under Article 2, paragraph 1, of Law no. 210, 1992

GROUNDS FOR DECISION

By application filed 8 \ 06 \ 2012 XXXX and XXXX on behalf of themselves and in their capacity as parents exercising parental authority over the child xxxx agreed to press charges against the Ministry of Health, applying that they be ordered to pay compensation for irreversible damages from complications caused by compulsory vaccination

The basis for the application stated that on 26 \ 03 \ 2004 the minor (child) xxxx was subjected to prophylactic trivalent MMR at the AUSL (Local Health Authority) of Riccione.

The same daily worrying symptoms arose daily (diarrhoea, nervousness) between 2004 and 2005. xxxx (the child) experienced signs of serious psychological and physical discomfort as far as the date of 31 \ 08 \ 2007 when the recognition took place that he was invalided totally and permanently to a level of 100%

Only on the date 27 \ 06 \ 2008, did the specialist Dr. Niglio attest as to how the reported damages to the minor (child) were attributable to the vaccination carried out, this theory was definitively confirmed on the date 25 \ 07 \ 2009 by the specialist Dr. MONTANARI.

Therefore on the date 28 \ 04 \ 2008 the parents, the applicants, submitted an application for verification of eligibility requirements for the compensation provided for the benefit of those harmed by the irreversible complications due to mandatory, vaccinations, but on the date 13 \ 10 \ 2008 the Medical Hospital Commission refused the application because the MMR vaccination did not turn out to be compulsory by law or ordinance of Health Authority.

The case, informed through the production of documents and the testing of medical-legal advice, was discussed at today’s public hearing as a consent decree.

In a preliminary ruling it was asserted that the the capacity to be sued of the Ministry was exempted under the provisions of Article D of .114> L.vo No. 112 of 1998, regarding the contribution to the Region of the functions and administrative tasks relating to Health, Article 123. This same decree explicitly recognized the retention by the State of the duties relating to appeals (to be understood both as administrative and judicial, in the absence of normative distinction) for the payment of compensation in favour of those harmed by the irreversible complications due to vaccinations, compulsory medical treatment and the like.

The latter theory shared by the most recent and prevailing case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (Highest Court of Appeal) which has clarified how in the case of especially the capacity to be sued, it is exclusively the responsibility of the Ministry of Health (see most recently Cass. Sec. L n. 29311 of 28 \ 12 \ 2011 Rv. 620379; Compliant same section 13 \ 10 \ 2009 n. 21702, n.21703, n.21704 of 3 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23216, n. 23217, by 5 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23434, the 6 \ 11 \ 2009 n. 23588).

In point of law it is considered that the fact that the alleged permanent impairment of physical or mental integrity is due to a compulsory vaccination cannot be an impediment to the recognition of compensation required.

Referred to herein and in fact, to the judgment of the Constitutional Court. 27 \ 1998 and 423 \ 2000 that it was declared unconstitutional by violation of Articles 2 and 32 Constitution, Article 1, paragraph 1, I. February 25, 1992 No 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of an irreversible type because of mandatory vaccination, blood transfusion and the administration of blood products), in so far as it provided no entitlement to compensation under the conditions specified therein, of those who were subjected to non-compulsory vaccinations against Hepatitis B and Poliomyelitis as a result of campaigns by the Health Authority to legally promote the dissemination of these vaccinations.

The aforementioned vaccinations, like the trivalent MMR vaccination in question, had been strongly encouraged by the state while not imposing a legal obligation: it is not constitutionally permissible in the light of Articles 2:32 of the Constitution, to require that the individual puts his own health at risk for the collective interest, without collective being willing to share, if you will, the weight of the negative consequences, there is no reason to differentiate from point of view of the aforesaid principle, the case where medical treatment is required by statute and that in which it is according to a law promoted by public authorities, in view of its widespread distribution in society.

The medicolegal and auxilary medicolegal assessments must be conducted according to their merits, which, on the basis of an in depth examination of the case in the light of the specialist literature to date, has conclusively established that the young child is suffering from AUTISTIC DISORDER ASSOCIATED WITH MEDIUM COGNITIVE DELAY ascribed with reasonable scientific probability due to the administration of the vaccine MMR occurring on the date 26\3\2004 at the ALS of Riccione

It should also be acknowledged that the auxiliary evaluation pursuant to the Medical Commission has expressed the view that there is a permanent impairment of physical and mental integrity established, ascribed to the first category of Table A, attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834.

As for the ascertainment, on the part of the parents, of the actual knowledge of the cause of disability, it should be noted that in none of the medical records examined was the clinical picture established definitely as post-vaccine, in the sense of, caused by inoculation of the vaccine, and that the causal relationship is indicated for the first time only in the medical report on 27 \ 06 \ 2008 of the specialist Dr. Niglio.

In particular, we should highlight as the starting point, not reckoned in the knowledge of the diagnosis, or by the mere suspicion of an origin from compulsory vaccination, but from the moment when, on the basis of medical records, the claimant is found to have had knowledge of the damage, that awareness of the aetiological relationship between irreversible injury (including ascribability table) and the cause from vaccination (which entitles you to compensation).

As reiterated by the Supreme Court in the analogous issue of knowledge of occupational disease indemnification, it is not sufficient that the employee is informed of the mere professional/ occupational origin of the disease but it is also necessary that the same is aware of the importance of sequelae so as to provide an impairment higher than threshold percentage fixed for the recognition of pension entitlement (see in this sense civil Cassation section. Lav., April 3, 1993, No. 4031, in Riv. In fort. and mal. Prof. in 1993, II, 111; Supreme Court as well as civil sez. Lav., January 8, 1996, n. 63 INAIL Bulgari c rv 495 260)

Therefore, a deadline of two years from knowledge of the cause of the damage is enforced(Article 3 of Law no. 210, 1992), being the permanent impairment of psycho-physical integrity due to 1 / \ category in Table A attached to the DPR 30 \ 12 \ 81 n.834, and should be entitled to compensation provided for under Articles 1 and 2 of Law 210 \ 1992 comprised therein for the payment of the One off payment of Article 2 paragraph 2 of that law.

Under the combined provision in the Article 429 c.p.c. and 16. paragraph 6 of Law 30 December 1991, No. 412, the amount due in respect of statutory interest on pension claims is used to offset any amounts payable for the restoration of greater damages for the diminished value of the claim, which is why an adjustment for inflation becomes operational only for periods of time which the amount of interest is not sufficient to cover the full damage due to devaluation.

The court costs are settled on a payment formula accepted by the Ministry according to the general criterion of negative outcomes.

For this same reason they are definitively accepted by the Ministry as are the costs of CTU, to the extent already settled by a separate decree.

FOR THESE REASONS

THE ORDINARY COURT OF RIMINI

with a single judge presiding in the function of judge of the work

pronouncing definitively on the application brought by XXXX and XXXX as parents exercising parental authority over the child xxxx with an application lodged on 8 \ 06 \ 2012, dismissing all other claims, objections or inferences, will thus provide, in adversarial proceedings with the Ministry of Health:

1) I verify that (child) xxxx has been irreversibly damaged by complications caused by vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR) with a right to compensation referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 210, 1992, ( lifetime pension backdated for fifteen years), I order the Ministry of Health in the person of the Minister in charge to pay to (child) xxxx the compensation provided for by Articles 1 and 2 of Law 210/1992 including the payment of the One off payment of Article 2 paragraph 2 of that Act (for the arrears plus interest accrued in so far as legally possible and the second monetary revaluation ISTAT indexes, as required by law for payment of the application);

1. I Order the Ministery of Health to pay the court fees in settlement a total of Euro 2.500,00 in addition LVA, CPA and reimbursement of the general charges as required by law;

2. I definitively place the burden on the Ministry of Health to meet expenses of CTU (Expert witnesses).

Thus decided in Rimini, public hearing on the 15 \ 03 \ 2012.

THE JUDGE
Lucio ARDIGO ‘

Translated by JLM Donegan 23 May 2012

Autism Caused by MMR Vaccine – Italian Government Tries To Avoid Paying Up – Just Like the UK

STOP PRESS 23 May 2012:

Full English Translation of Italian Court Decision Found on CHS here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

ORIGINAL CHS ARTICLE NOW CONTINUES:

It appears not only did an Italian Court rule in a case in which an Italian child’s autism was caused by the MMR vaccine, but the Italian government remarkably, accepted Autism was caused by the vaccine but continued to fight cases on the basis that children should receive no compensation whatsoever because the MMR vaccine is not compulsory.  This demonstrates how grossly irresponsible morally bankrupt and corrupt governments and their health officials are when it comes to vaccines.  They demand you have your child vaccinated to protect the very few other sickly children somewhere else who might not come through a disease unscathed but when it all goes wrong for you and your child, you are on your own.

The MMR vaccine concerned, Morupar, contained the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine, just like Pluserix MMR and Immravax MMR vaccines in the UK.  The difference is that the UK Urabe vaccines were withdrawn from sale by the manufacturer in September 1992 because of all the injuries they caused.  Italy was still using Urabe strain MMR vaccines until 2006.

Now, whether or not there is any compensation, what would you prefer?  A child injured for life by a vaccine or not?  And if you choose the first option and have no problem, good luck and thank God but if you do have a problem – you will not get any help from the State even though these are their vaccine programmes and by the 21st Century they have  wholly failed to develop effective treatments for simple childhood diseases.  If they had done, none of our children would be put at risk of the vaccines.  That is the success of 21st Century medicine.  It sucks.

We report on another case like this from Italy below where the Italian Constitutional Court ruled this was illegal and that compensation should be paid on the basis the government promoted the vaccines even though they were not compulsory.

This is just like the disgraceful state of the English authorities – with the wholly corrupt UK Vaccine Damage Payments Unit.  Hardly anyone knows it exists and their job is to deny compensation as far as they possibly can, making up as many spurious reasons as possible to wear down already worn down parents until they go away. 

The cost of trying to get money out of these corrupt people in terms of time and money could well offset what is paid out.  Since 1998 to 2008 they have paid out on 34 claims – and not much money either – an £80,000 lump sum for a child requiring 24/7 care: FOI Response From DWP – [history of request HERE].

The total paid out on just 34 claims is an average of: £96,544.12.  The grand total paid since 1998 is £3,282,500 [about US$ 5 million] for all the cases.  The success rate for claims is an abysmal 45 out of 46 cases get nothing.  So just 2 in 100 applicants get anything.  It is hardly surprising few bother or just give up.  Cases are assessed by the Department For Work and Pensions on the same basis as an industrial injury suffered by an adult worker.  Children used to have had to be 80% disabled and now it is 60%.  This means children are vaccine injured but in addition to making up loads of reasons why the DWP should not pay up the ultimate insult is that the child is not sufficiently disabled.  There is no legal funding normally either to assist with cases.

CHS previously recently reported on the original judgement of the Italian Courts here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

Here are the details of the Italian Court decision on compensation – ruling the Italian Government has acted illegally.  The Italian Constitutional Court’s Decision with an English translation of the article posted on “Autismo & Vaccini“

English Translation of “Importante sentenza della Corte Costituzionale” Pubblicato da Autismo & Vaccini su 26 aprile 2012

 ___________________________________________

Important Constitutional Court ruling

Posted by Autism & Vaccines on April 26, 2012

Important ruling issued today by the Constitutional Court.

You are entitled to compensation for damage caused by vaccines, even when not required, but recommended.

The Court has declared unlawful the law on compensation in the fact that it excludes non-mandatory vaccines.

Clicking on the photograph you can download the judgment [highlighted in red an essential step], which highlights the public responsibility that comes from vaccination choices, arising from reliance on prevention campaigns, as saying that the choices are not precisely defined as real choices, that is, free and informed decisions.

Judgment is interesting not only because it extends for the compensation for vaccine damage, but also because it helps deepen the political discourse on health prevention and health promotion, from the point of view of the right to be informed, which is a prerequisite for exercising the right choices in health care.

The Constitutional Court confirms the concept expressed by the Court of Milan, Sec. Work, with no judgment. 625 of 13/12/2007: “there is no reason to differentiate the case where medical treatment is required by statute [mandatory vaccination] than where it is, according to an Act, promoted by public authorities in order to become ubiquitous in society [recommended vaccination]. “

CHS sets out a translation of the Italian Constitutional Court’s Decision [this is not a professional translation]:

Judgment No. 107
YEAR 2012
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of: Chairman: Alfonso FORTY; Judges: Franco GALLO, Luigi Mazzella, Gaetano Silvestri, Sabino Cassese, Joseph TESAURO, Paolo Maria Napolitano, Giuseppe fridge, Alessandro Criscuolo, Paolo Grossi, Giorgio LATTANZI, Aldo CAROSI, Marta Cartabia, Sergio MATTARELLA Mario Rosario MORELLI,

gives the following

Judgment

in the judgment of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), sponsored by the Ordinary Court of Ancona, in the proceedings pending between C. P. and L. E., in the quality of LG’s parents, and the Ministry of Labour, Health and Welfare and the Marche Region, by order dated December 21, 2010, entered at no. Register of Orders 214, 2011 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic n. 44, first special series 2011.

Hearing in chambers on March 7, 2012 the Judge Rapporteur Paul Grossi.

The facts

A. – By order of December 21, 2010, the Ordinary Court of Ancona raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), “insofar as it fails to provide that the right to compensation, established and governed by the law and under the conditions laid provided, is also entitled to persons who have suffered injuries and / or disabilities, which are derived from irreversible mental and physical integrity, for being vaccinated, not mandatory but recommended against measles, rubella and mumps. “

He pressed the court to have been invested as an employment tribunal, in an application – to obtain compensation under the contested provision – proposed by the parents of a child who, after vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR ; vaccine “Morupar”, then withdrawn from the market, just days after administration, in the matter in question), he reported – according to the findings of the outcome of CTU – A toxic epidermal necrolysis with iliac vein thrombosis of the left femur, with consequences (“outcomes of intervention drainage of abscess in the iliac fossa – left inguinal region in the context of infection of the pelvis with reactive lymphadenitis secondary to septic arthritis with persistent obstruction of the vein common femoral and iliac estrinsecantesi with edema of the lower left compared with the contralateral right plus 2 cm of the thigh to measure that extends to the foot “) believed to be attributable to the seventh category in Table A annexed to the Decree of the President of the Republic on December 30 1981, n. 834 (Final adjustment of war pensions, to implement the authorization provided for in Article. A law September 23, 1981, n. 533).

Notes in this regard, the court referring the question proposed by the applicant can not be upheld in light of the current regulatory framework, since, even taking into account the decisions of unconstitutionality referred to Case no. And No. 27 of 1998. 423 of 2000 – with which it was extended the right to compensation for those who were vaccinated against polio and hepatitis B in the period preceding the date on which such vaccinations, even though it had already recommended, had become obligatory – its dicta can not be applied in this case. Such judgments, in fact, complement hypothesis pronunciations additive by omission (and non-additive principle) that operate only within the narrow confines of the specific object identified by its device: therefore, with effects limited only to weather the type of hepatitis and polio vaccines B. Hence the need to raise, in reference to the hypothesis of species, the related question of constitutionality, it is not feasible interpretation adeguatrice in ways desired by the applicant, although in this regard have expressed some judgments on the merits. Landing hermeneutic, the latter, however, countered by the jurisprudence of legitimacy, which, evoking the nature of welfare benefits in question, as a form of social solidarity, imposes a strict application of the rule.

In this regard, the national court points out how the law n. 210 of 1992 has introduced key protection in solidarity in favor of those harmed by mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions or administration of blood products or following treatment activities sponsored or managed by the state for the protection of public health, in accordance with the principles drawn from this Court in judgment no. 307, 1990, where he highlighted the need of the necessary balance between the individual value of health and solidarity between the individual and society, which is the basis of mandatory treatment. Therefore, “in the absence of an indemnity provision, the injured party would be forced to bear alone all the negative consequences of a health care carried out not only in the interests of the individual, but also the entire society.” In this channel are placed, then, remember the ruling by this Court (No. 27 of 1998 and 423 in 2000), the foundation of which – as recalled by the referring

– Was given the finding that differential treatment between those who have undergone vaccination for imposition of the law and those who have submitted an appeal to the joining together for a health program, “would result in a patent irrationality of the law. It would treat, in fact, those who were induced to behave in a utility for reasons of social solidarity favorable treatment than it is in favor of those who acted under the threat of a sanction. “

About the relevance of the question, the referring court observes that it appears in this case established – and not disputed by the defendant – the existence of a causal link between vaccination is practiced at the applicants’ daughter and damage to the physical integrity of the same, just as also documented and non-controversial is the fact that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine has been the subject of an intensive awareness campaign, as evidenced by the various ministerial circulars and administrative acts analytically passed in review by the referring court. The question of compensation, then, was filed within the statutory time limits.

On the non-manifest groundlessness of the question, the referring court points out that the function of law no. 210 of 1992 should be sought primarily in the need to implement fundamental human rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental: namely, art. 2, in reference to the right and duty of social solidarity; art. 3, in terms of the recognition of equal opportunities to all; art. 32, which protects the right to health. Recalled, then, the principles that have formed the core of the above sentences n. And No. 27 of 1998. 423 of 2000, the referring judge stressed that the Constitutional Court – is called, in particular, judgment no. 226 of 2000 – stood in consider that the “reason justifying compensation should rinvenirsi in the protection of the health promotion group – which can be taken to the subject of a legal obligation or any public dissemination policy – and not nell’obbligatorietà already and not so much because of this treatment, which is a mere instrument for the pursuit of such interest. “

The compensation provided by the contested legislation would present, therefore, a ratio related to the need to give solidarity to the preparation of the collective action of remedies in respect of damage suffered by the individual to undergo medical treatment has proved harmful and practiced for the benefit of the same communities. In the conflict between individual interest of the individual to protect his health and protection of the collective health of the community as well, the principle of solidarity, though, on the one hand, may give precedence to the collective interest of the individual, other side “forces to provide an adequate remedy for those who have received damage to health in fulfilling the same duty of solidarity that underpin the right to compensation.” This repair will require, therefore, even if vaccination is not mandatory, but “widely advocated by healthcare institutions,” because otherwise “they would end up sacrificing the minimum content of the right to health of those who were induced by vaccination reasons of social solidarity. “

In this case, the national court points out that the applicants are determined to vaccination ‘to protect the health not only of her daughter, but also of others, in the high risk of infection, and preschool-age children; for involving the public in the early stages of drug control, administration and propaganda. ” Considering therefore, that vaccination was carried out in preparation of a general benefit, “resulting in compression of the right to health of the younger daughter in the name of solidarity with others”, it is reasonable that the community should be to take the same related costs. The failure to extend the compensation would, therefore, for these reasons, contrary to art. 2 of the Constitution

The first complained of lack of protection would also breach Article. 3 of the Constitution, for the irrational unequal treatment of similar situations. It is, in fact, already noted – reports the court – the comparability of the harmful event originated from a mandatory treatment compared to that achieved with medical treatment recommended, always in the public interest, “the State can not ignore or limit his liability in respect of citizens, mostly children, affected by treatments scientifically burdened by a risk of side effects, more or less severe and permanent, after having recommended medical treatment. “

Recalling once again the dicta of the recall ruling by this Court, the court a quo further and conclusively indicates that “in the absence of a fair restaurant in favor of the taxpayer’s medical treatment recommended, it would give the irrational result of the compensation those whose parents have behaved utility behind the threat of sanctions and deny it, conversely, those whose parents have resorted to vaccination for reasons of social solidarity. ” There would, moreover, a further profile of irrationality of the contested provision, since it also extends the benefits of treatments in this case is not required, as referred to in paragraph 4 of that Article. 1, where the compensation is envisaged in the case of vaccination, “to gain access to a foreign state.” Event, this, that does not appear reasonably justify a different treatment than the recommended vaccination and, for reasons of social utility, since travel abroad can be caused by reasons of mere pleasure.

It denounces, finally, also infringes Article. 32 of the Constitution, because the rule would frustrate the object of censorship without explanation the right to health of vaccinated subjects, who, “receiving the vaccination in the name of solidarity” against the associates, have suffered irreversible damage to their health “for a expected benefit from the entire community.”

Regarded in law

A. – The Ordinary Court of Ancona raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3 and 32 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 23 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), “insofar as it fails to provide that the right to compensation, established and governed by the law and under the conditions laid provided, is also entitled to persons who have suffered injuries and / or disabilities, which are derived from irreversible mental and physical integrity, for being vaccinated, not mandatory but recommended against measles, rubella and mumps. “

The referring court exhibits to be called upon to rule, where an employment tribunal, on appeal – to get the compensation provided for in contested provision – proposed by the parents of a child who, as a result of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR ), carried out using a vaccine later withdrawn from the market a few days after administration, had suffered serious illness, believed to be attributable to the category in Table VII A) annexed to the Decree of the President December 30, 1981, n. 834 (Final adjustment of war pensions, to implement the authorization provided for in Article. A law September 23, 1981, n. 533). Vaccination, although not required – and, therefore, not liable to give rise, when generating the complications provided by the legislation complained of, the compensation provided for therein – it appeared, however, strongly encouraged by public authorities, since it has been the subject of intense awareness campaign, attested by numerous acts in this regard by the public administration. So that would be light on the same principles under which the jurisprudence of this Court has considered extending the compensation provided by law to criticism in favor of categories of persons who had suffered damage as a result of vaccinations in a period in which these were not mandatory, but recommended. All this – he added the court – as a function of proper emphasis to be given to the principle of solidarity, by reason of which the community has to bear, through a specific compensation for damage suffered by the individual, where they undergo a treatment health for the protection of health, not only individually but also collectively.

From here, first of all, the alleged violation of Article. 2 of the Constitution, resulting incoherent legislation which does not include among the users of those benefits, as the daughter of the applicants with permanent disabilities have irreversible effects of vaccinations which was the subject of an incentive for health policy of protection of health entire community, as has been shown to be vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella. It would also violated Article. 3 of the Constitution, because, in the absence of a fair restaurant in favor of the taxpayer’s medical treatment recommended, you would have the irrational result of granting compensation to those whose parents have behaved utility behind the threat of a penalty and to deny it, conversely, those whose parents have resorted to vaccination for reasons of solidarity. Compromise would be, finally, also the art. 32 of the Constitution, since that would unjustifiably nullified the guarantee of the right to health of vaccinated individuals who, by accepting the vaccination in the name of solidarity with the other constraints and solder them to the community, they are found to suffer damage fatal to their health for the benefit expected by the whole community.

2. – The question is based.

3. – On the issue of mandatory or recommended vaccinations, and entitled to compensation for damage to health as a result of treatment provided, this Court has had occasion to say, since the judgment n. 307, 1990 – pronounced in polio vaccination for children within the first year of life, at that time provided as required – that “the law of taxation of medical treatment is not incompatible with Art. 32 of the Constitution if the treatment is directed not only to enhance or preserve the health of those who are subjected, but also to preserve the health of others, since this is just another object, which relates to health as a collective interest, to justify the compression of the human self that is inherent in everyone’s right to health as a fundamental right. “

But if “the constitutional significance of health as a collective interest” – is added – requires that “in the name of it, and thus solidarity towards others, each one can be forced, it being so legitimately limited to self-determination, at a given medical treatment, even if this amounts to a specific risk, “yet it” does not postulate the sacrifice of health of each to protect the health of others. ” It follows that “a proper balance between the two above mentioned equity dimensions of health – and the same spirit of solidarity (to be considered obviously mutual) between the individual and society that is based on the imposition of medical treatment – involves recognizing, for If the risk is true, an additional protection for the taxpayer’s treatment. In particular, would be sacrificed with minimal content of their health rights guaranteed to him, if he had not ensured, however, to the community, and through it the State that has required treatment, the remedy of equitable rest of damage suffered. “

The callback ruling constituted, as is known, the basis on which it was shortly thereafter enacted into law n. 210, 1992 (see the report to the draft Law. Presented at the 4964 House of Representatives July 12, 1990, and merged, along with other parliamentary initiatives, in the preparatory work of the relevant law), and is then gradually gained – on retainer basis that, in any case, vaccination is not “configured as a coercive treatment” (judgment no. 132, 1992) – not only the close correlation in the “constitutional discipline of health”, including the fundamental right of the individual (side ‘individual and subjective “) and interest of the entire community (on the” social objective “) (judgment no. 118 of 1996), because, above all, the need, where the values in question may be in the clutch, risk taking, related to treatment “sacrificing” individual freedom, is reduced to a size of type of solidarity.

Placing himself, also with a view to identifying the ratio of compensatory providence in every situation in which the individual has exposed to risk their health for the protection of a collective interest, it is then argued that under Articles. 2:32 Constitution established the obligation, symmetrically configured in the hands of the same community, “to share, as you can, the weight of any negative consequences” (judgment no. 27, 1998). If it is done to achieve that there is therefore reason to differentiate the case in which “medical treatment is required by law” from “where it is, according to a law, promoted by public authorities with a view to become ubiquitous in society, in which case you cancel the free determination of peoples through the imposition of a penalty, one in which there is an appeal to the collaboration of individuals to a program of health policy. ” “Differentiation – it was made clear – which denied the right to compensation in this second case would result in a patent irrationality of the law. It would reserve it for those who have been induced to behave in a utility for reasons of social solidarity favorable treatment than it is in favor of those who acted under threat of sanction “(judgment no. 27 of 1998) .

It is, in short, derivative that “the reason of determining entitlement to compensation” is “the collective interest to health” and not “obligatory as such treatment, which is simply a tool for the pursuit of this interest “and that the same interest is the foundation of the general duty of solidarity towards those who, undergoing treatment, are suffering from an injury (see n. 226 and n. 423 of 2000).

4 -. On this basis, we can observe, in detail, that if in the prophylaxis of infectious diseases appear decisive prevention activities, designed to prevent and curb the risk of contagion, is decisive in all cases the increased importance of campaigns awareness by the competent public authorities in order to reach and make the widest range of participant population. In this perspective – which is even difficult to define exactly a “public” space of evaluations and decisions (such as due to a collective entity) compared to a “private” choices (as is attributable to simple individuals) – the various actors to realize an end goal – that of the broader immunization against the risk of contracting the disease – regardless of their specific desire to work together: and is completely irrelevant, or indifferent, that the cooperative effect is due, the active side, in an obligation or, rather, to a conviction or even, by the passive side, the intent to avoid a penalty or, rather, an invitation to join.

In the presence of widespread and repeated campaigns in favor of the practice of vaccination is, in fact, naturally develops a general climate of “custody” in relation to what their “recommended”: what makes the choice of each adhesive, to the beyond their particular and specific reasons, in itself objectively also voted to protect the collective interest.

Corresponding to this sort of involuntary cooperation in the care of a common interest objectively, that is truly public, will naturally consider that among communities and individuals to establish proper ties of solidarity, in the sense – above all – that the stories of individuals that can not be regarded, even in perspective “integral”, ie referring to the entire community with the result, among others, that the occurrence of adverse events and complications of the permanent type because of vaccination to the limits and forms of which the prescribed procedures, should be, in fact, the community to bear the burden of individual injury rather than the individual affected to bear the cost of collective benefit.

In terms of values guaranteed in the Constitution, Art. 2, as well as art. 32, the fade, in other words, the importance of strictly subjective reasons (which may have led to the choices imposed or desired by the health administration) justifies the translation in-chief for the community (which is also favored by those choices objectively) of adverse effects may result.
In a context of solidarity essential, moreover, the compensatory measures is intended not so much for herself, such as damages, to repair from harm, but rather to compensate the individual sacrifice considered equivalent to a collective advantage: it would, in fact, unreasonable that the community can, through appropriate bodies, to impose or even encourage behavior directed to protection of public health that it does not then have to answer each of which is prejudicial to the health of those that have been standardized.

In a framework such as that mentioned, it is easy to perceive how the practice of vaccination against measles-mumps-rubella vaccine has been the subject for more than a decade, the insistent and wide campaigns, even extraordinary, information and recommendation by the public health authorities, in their highest instances (with distribution of information among health care is specific both at the population), to the point that, in computing the official website of the Ministry of Health, among the “recommended vaccinations,” still appears that concerned, in line with the determinations of which already Ministerial Decree of 7 April 1999 (New calendar and recommended immunizations for children and adolescents), with circular no. 12 of 13 July 1999 (control and elimination of measles, mumps and rubella through vaccination), the National Plan for elimination of measles and congenital rubella (approved for the period 2003-2007, the State-Regions Conference in session of November 13, 2003 and now, for the period 2010-2015, with Intesa State-Regions of 23 March 2011) and the National Plan vaccines (update 2005). The survey made on this point by the referring court must therefore be regarded as comprehensive for the purpose of demonstrating the assumption according to which the practice in question, although not compulsory under law, is part of that line of health protocols for which the ‘ awareness, information and belief of the public authorities – in line, however, with the “projects of information” provided by art. 7 of Law no. 210, 1992 and assigned to the local health units “for the prevention of complications caused by vaccination,” and in any case to “ensure correct information on the use of vaccines” – is deemed more appropriate and responsive to the purposes of protecting public health with respect to compulsory vaccination.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1 of law 25 February 1992, n. 210 (Compensation for those harmed by complications of irreversible because of mandatory vaccinations, blood transfusions and blood products), in so far does not include the right to compensation under the conditions and manner established by that law, against of those who have suffered the consequences set out in that Article 1, paragraph 1, after vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella.

Decided in Rome, the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, April 16, 2012.

F.to:
FORTY Alfonso, President
Paul Grossi, Editor
Gabriella MELATTI, Chancellor
Lodged with the Registrar April 26, 2012.
The Director of Stationery
F.to: MELATTI

Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

There is new information from Australia indicating that whooping cough vaccine [pertussis vaccine] again is not working and that the authorities are not making the information public, whilst of course putting children at risk from the vaccine for which adverse reactions are highly under reported and rarely investigated.

CHS previously reported:

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”  April 8, 2012

According to a recently published paper not only does whooping cough vaccine “wear off” within as little as three years of administration [assuming it ever “wore on” in the first place] but [according to Reuters] the original manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline never bothered to check whether it worked.  And 81 percent of recent whooping cough cases in California were in children fully vaccinated and teenagers and adults are now put at risk when they would have had lifelong immunity contracting the disease naturally:

Witt MA, Katz PH, Witt MJ, Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak.

Whooping cough vaccine fades in pre-teens: study – By Kerry Grens Thompson/Reuters NEW YORK | Tue Apr 3, 2012 2:13pm EDT

Now from Australia published on The REAL Australian Sceptics website comes this information

Australia is now in the 5th year of a record-breaking whooping cough epidemic.

These figures on the incidence of disease by local government area seem to be a closely-held secret. I have had many discussions with the Department of Health where I asked to be shown this data but they won’t provide it unless I tell them what I want to use it for. What are they afraid of? They seem to provide this data easily enough to media pundits but hold it back when speaking with anyone who they think might use it for purposes they don’t approve of – like being critical of policies which these same figures show are not working.

We do know, thanks to a year’s worth of correspondence back and forth between Greg Beattie and the Department of Health and Aging, that there is no evidence available to show the whooping cough vaccine  has done anything to reduce the rate of infection in Australia during the current epidemic. When looking at the age groups which would have been most recently vaccinated – those aged between 0 and 4 years old – fully vaccinated children were far more likely to get the disease then the unvaccinated. Seventy-five percent of those who were diagnosed with pertussis (whooping cough) were fully vaccinated; a further 14% were partially vaccinated and only 11% were unvaccinated (including an unknown percentage who were too young to be vaccinated).

Whooping cough is rife in every country where vaccines are administered and vaccination rates have never been higher. So the medical community – which has long had a reputation for spinning a failure into a success – has decided that instead of blaming an obviously ineffective vaccine, they will blame those who haven’t been vaccinated for the occurrence of disease in the supposedly protected population. Only those who are not thinking would believe that sort of garbage and yet, the majority of the medical community and their pals in the media seem to fit that bill perfectly.

What will it take to convince them?

The vaccine is failing. Don’t take my word for it. We currently have more cases of whooping cough per capita then at any time since 1953 when the vaccine was introduced for mass use in Australia. Let me say that again another way. In 1952 when we had no mass vaccination for whooping cough, the incidence was lower than it is today with close to 95% of children vaccinated.

The same situation is being seen in the US where a large study of  the 2010 pertussis outbreak in North America showed that those most likely to get whooping cough were fully vaccinated children between the ages of 8 and 12 years old.

We have a real belief that the durability (of the vaccine) is not what was imagined,” said Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California, and senior author of the study. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease.

“We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That’s what started catching our attention,” said Witt. (http://blog.imva.info/medicine/whooping-cough-vaccine-failing)

The most recent estimates for ‘protection’ from whooping cough if you are vaccinated is three years. But immunity from infection lasts for between 30 and 80 years!

The vaccine is failing our children and the government and the media in conjunction with mainstream medical organisations are doing their best to point the finger of blame at the unvaccinated rather than accepting that it is the vaccination that is the cause of this outbreak and the fully vaccinated who are its victims.

Read more here from The REAL Australian Sceptics:

Media fear campaign – ABC Catalyst, 17 May, 2012 ¹ May 18, 2012

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

STOP PRESS 23 May 2012:

Full English Translation of Italian Court Decision Found on CHS here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

ORIGINAL CHS ARTICLE NOW CONTINUES:

The following is an initial English Summary of the decision of the Italian Court.  We hope to be able to provide a complete translation as soon as it becomes available.  Our first article on this can be found here Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism:

The document is all about irreparable damages attributed by a Doctor Niglio to the MMR vaccination, which was received at a government public medical facility and therefore consequent governmental liability, even if the vaccine was not mandatory.

The right to  ‘indennizio’ is discussed, which is compensation, regarding the child’s care after doctors certified that he has suffered serious “total” and “permanent” psychological and physical issues which can be attributed to the vaccination and has resulted in what Italy designates as 100% incapacity.

The government tried to avoid paying saying it wasn’t liable because the vaccination wasn’t mandatory, but there is discussion that because it was as a result of governmental publicity campaigns, liability is still theirs.

If the foregoing is a sufficiently accurate summary, which it seems to be, then it is interesting to note the basis of denial of liability was not that the vaccine was not the cause of the autistic condition.  This suggests the Italian health authorities know it can cause autistic conditions, just as we know US government health officials and Merck’s director of vaccines have admitted vaccines can cause autistic conditions:  Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

Baby Monkeys Develop Autistic Conditions With Standard Doses of Popular Vaccines

Republished from:

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms – by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer – Originally published May 6 2012  naturalnews.com article

(NaturalNews) If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.

For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted — but never has — for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.

Read this for a more detailed account of the research, findings and the politics about why there is no follow-up by the authorities:

Monkeys Get Autism-like Reactions to MMR & Other Vaccines In University of Pittsburgh Vaccine Study By Catherine J. Frompovich | April 29th, 2012

Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, in 2010 the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys’ sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children (http://www.greenhealthwatch.com)

This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children,” said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. “SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen.”

Vaccine oversight needs to be taken from CDC and given to independent agency, says vaccine safety advocate

Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.

The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal,” said Wrangham. “But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency.”

Be sure to read this thorough analysis of the study by Catherine J. Frompovich of VacTruth.com:
http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/

Sources for this article include:

http://vran.org

http://www.safeminds.org/

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

STOP PRESS 23 May 2012:

Full English Translation of Italian Court Decision Found on CHS here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism – III: English Translation Of Court Decision

ORIGINAL CHS ARTICLE NOW CONTINUES:

This is an extract of a Google translation from the Initiative Citoyenne blog [France]:

Autism cases: for the tribunal of Rimini, “it is the fault of the vaccine” – April 10, 2012

Autism.   Rimini District Court: “The fault of the vaccine.” The ministry ordered to pay compensation.

Now, it seemed an old theory denigrated, the court instead of Rimini argued that a vaccine can make a child autistic.

This judgment No. 2010/148, part No. 2010/0474, journal.n ° 2012/886, gave the appeal lodged by parents against the Department of Health, who demanded the payment of compensation for irreversible complications caused by a vaccine.

The vaccine is MMR. According to parents, in fact, symptoms of autism in their son did appear after inoculation.

And really the same day, as read in the judgement [CHS Ed: this is a .pdf file in Italian which you can click to download]. Return to the clinic in Riccione, March 26, 2004, the child began to show troubling symptoms (diarrhea and nervousness) and then between 2004 and 2005 occurred signs of severe psychological distress to physical recognition, 7 August 2007, the total and permanent disability to 100%.”

To read the full translated post [or to read the original untranslated] click here:

Autism cases: for the tribunal of Rimini, “it is the fault of the vaccine” – April 10, 2012

Cas d’autisme: pour le tribunal de Rimini, “c’est la faute du vaccin” – Avril 10, 2012

[CHS Ed:  We would be willing to post a professional translation of the judgement if any of our readers know a translator willing to translate the original Italian Court judgement – contact us on chs@childhealthsafety.com].

______________

ED’s UPDATE in green text 10 May 12:  See our initial summary translation here:

Italy – Court Holds MMR Vaccine Causes Autism II – Initial English Summary

We expect to have a professional medical translation of the Italian Court’s judgement shortly and will post that on a new post.

If you want automatic notification of when the translation is posted then plug your email address into the “Email Subscription” box at the top left of this blog.  You can always cancel the subscription later using the WordPress subscription facility if you do not want to get any more email notifications of CHS articles.

______________

Autism – Why Autism Research Goes Nowhere – The Researchers Who Take Us Down All The Blind Alleys

Have you ever wondered why supposedly no one knows where “all the autism” is coming from?  Here we set out a blatant example of a misdirection of research results taking the medical professions and the public down a blind alley. 

In the case of the paper “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1026-1032 the authors had and published data which was and remains fundamental to proving the increase in autistic conditions since the expansion in the vaccine programmes in the mid to late 1980s is real and substantial.

For the best part of two decades health officials around the world have insisted untruthfully that the increases in autistic conditions since the 1980s are attributable to “better diagnosis” and “greater awareness”.  They also used to insist that autistic conditions are caused by genetics [have “internal” causes] until it started to be established that the huge increases could not be accounted for on such a basis – because if it was all genetic then the numbers should have been the same all along over centuries.

What the data from “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” showed and shows was that prior to the introduction of vaccines to Israel the figure for cases of childhood [ie typical or Kanner] autism was 8.4 in 10,0000 children and there were even fewer cases of Asperger’s syndrome so the increase in cases of Aspergers is even more dramatic and serious than even that of childhood autism cases.

The data the authors obtained when compared to current data shows that not only has the incidence and prevalence of childhood autism increased dramatically but also that the incidence and prevalence of Asperger’s syndrome has been even more dramatic since the mid 1980s and dwarfs the increase in autism.  The data was obtained using current diagnostic criteria so was and is comparable to current data for current cases. So what the data and results of this paper really show is that the allegation the increase in autistic conditions is “better diagnosis” and “greater awareness” is false. You can read more about this here:

Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988

The authors not only ignored what seems a very obvious finding from their data and results but also misdirected the medical profession and the public away from that finding and down an obscure and blind alley.

Medicine in general is the best example of misdirection of research efforts where commercial and conflicting interests – ie pure greed for making money – seem to ensure that research in many areas is directed down all the blindest of blind alleys and the obvious avenues are either ignored or the research is suppressed or prevented.  The research funds are spent on research guaranteed not to find causes or cures, but at the very best only for drug treatments to be paid for over a lifetime of non cure treatments with drug adverse effects of the drugs aplenty. 

There is a great deal of money to be made that way over many decades.  “Genetic” research is a great general example where billions of US tax dollars have been spent and there is little to show for it – and especially where autistic conditions are concerned. 

Good old medieval serfdom and feudalism never died they have just been refined and redefined.  The majority, the 21st century “serfs”, pay their feudal “tithe” to their new feudal Lords in different ways.  In the 21st Century this means paying with their health and sometimes their lives – not much change there then.

Instead of focussing on an important result the authors of “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” made a very different and obscure claim.   The claim was that fathers aged over 40 had a higher probability of having autistic children.  The authors made that the focus of their paper.  The claim was made on the basis of scant data.  The paper was a statistical study [ie this was tobacco science not clinical investigations] and this claim was based on a very small sample with a poor confidence interval.  Fathers aged over 40 involved in the sample accounted for 3 per cent of the children concerned and the confidence in the figures was very wide and thus of extremely low reliability.

Misdirection from studies like this one must obviously be holding back the uncovering of fundamental information regarding autistic conditions and supports and enables government health officials to continue to make over far too many years the kinds of false claims they have been making about the causes of autistic conditions.

The authors and the institutions for which they work need to explain themselves.  Israeli parents who performed their military service deserve better than this – which looks like it is mostly by Americans exploiting their connections with Israel.

Here are the details of the institutions and of the authors:

• Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1230, New York, NY 10029 (Drs Reichenberg, Silverman, and Davidson),
  
• Seaver Center for Autism Research (Dr Silverman), Mount Sinai School of Medicine;
  
• Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University (Drs Gross, Bresnahan, Harlap, Malaspina, and Susser);
  
• New York State Psychiatric Institute (Drs Gross, Bresnahan, Malaspina, and Susser), New York;
  
• Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London, England (Dr Reichenberg);
  
• Department of Psychiatry, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer (Drs Weiser and Davidson);
  
• School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan (Dr Rabinowitz);
  
• School of Social Work, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Dr Shulman);
  
• Medical Corps, Israel Defense Forces, Tel Aviv (Drs Lubin and Knobler), Israel.

Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

STOP PRESS 21/5/12:

See update: Major Whooping Cough Epidemics – Vaccine Not Working

ORIGINAL ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

___________________________

According to a recently published paper not only does whooping cough vaccine “wear off” within as little as three years of administration [assuming it ever “wore on” in the first place] but [according to Reuters] the original manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline never bothered to check whether it worked.  And 81 percent of recent whooping cough cases in California were in children fully vaccinated and teenagers and adults are now put at risk when they would have had lifelong immunity contracting the disease naturally:

Witt MA, Katz PH, Witt MJ, Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak.

Whooping cough vaccine fades in pre-teens: study – By Kerry Grens Thompson/Reuters NEW YORK | Tue Apr 3, 2012 2:13pm EDT

The Reuters report states:

A spokesperson for GSK, one of the pertussis vaccine makers, …  GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine’s protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said.  ……

“We have a real belief that the durability (of the vaccine) is not what was imagined,” said Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California, and senior author of the study.  …….

In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough — the largest seen in California in more than 50 years.  …..

Witt ….. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. ….. Of the 132 patients under age 18, 81 percent were up to date on recommended whooping cough shots …. “

Isn’t that fraud?  And if so by whom?  Isn’t it at the very least unethical and illegal to promote and sell a medical product, especially for children, making health claims that it will protect them from disease and [of course the much touted] death which are false and no one bothered to check in the first place?  Who in the US where this study was done is responsible for suing GlaxoSmithKline and/or the US Centers for Disease Control over this?

In the rare event that a child dies from something like whooping cough the people to blame are clearly identifiable.  They are doctors and drug companies and government health officials.  Instead of the US National Institutes of Health spending its US$30 billion annual budget on treatments for those rare cases, they pretend vaccines are OK.  Well it is now time parents who want to avoid their children being harmed by vaccines fought back and put the blame squarely where it deserves to rest.

In the 21st Century there is no effective treatment for measles – difficult to believe.  We must demand that effective treatments be developed for these basic childhood diseases and within the next three years.  US presidential hopeful Senator “Newt” Gingrich wants to spend billions of dollars on a moonbase and ridiculous excursions into space.  Well “Newt”, why not spend money on something useful and save all those third world children who die from measles and other basic childhood diseases because they have malnutrition.  No?  Ah, so presidentially, might you always be “hopeful” but never President?  Odd that.

The study authors wrote:

This first detailed analysis of a recent North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully vaccinated older children. Starting approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the acellular vaccine.  Witt MA, Katz PH, Witt MJ, Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak.

But what do they conclude – that with our sophisticated 21st Century medical “science” we should protect you and your children by developing effective treatments for the minority of cases where symptoms might be problematic rather than pursue the approach of vaccination?  No chance.  Here are the conclusions – yep – give em more vaccines more often – so we will all end up getting loads of vaccines every few years even as adults – good news for the drug companies – but then the authors are all employed by Kaiser Permante [so what else can you expect]:-

Conclusions Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from age 8 through 12, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine. Stable rates of testing ruled out selection bias. The possibility of earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine either as part of routine immunization or for outbreak control should be entertained.

Now if GSK was a supplier of herbal medicines and alternative medicine remedies, it might be panned across the internet by the so-called “skeptics” or even subject to legal action.  Is this a new thing for GSK?  No.  Not at all:  

Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients The Independent [UK] By Steve Connor , Science Editor, Monday 08 December 2003

But what of the US CDC?  It is officially a “waste of space” and money. According to the US Senate the CDC “cannot demonstrate it is controlling disease“.  “CDC Off Center” is an extraordinary 115 page review published in June 2007 by the US Senate on the US Centers for Disease Control:-

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.” 

“CDC OFF CENTER“- The United States Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, Minority Office, Under the Direction of Senator Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority Member, June 2007.

And if you want to know some really interesting “stuff” about whooping cough [pertussis] and its vaccines you should go over to Inside Vaccines and read up:

An InsideVaccines blog entry about pertussis

Click here to read all about what the pertussis vaccine does (or doesn’t, as the case may be) do in terms of herd immunity.

What does pertussis “look like” in unvaccinated infants and children?

Manufacturer’s Inserts and efficacy statements:

Daptacel– Efficacy of the DTap ranged from 59-89%.

The Tetanus portion of the vaccine has never been tested for efficacy.

Interestingly, the CDC’s Reported Cases and Deaths from Vaccine Preventable Diseases,United States, 1950-2005 shows Pertussis cases at the highest reported rates since 1959. (Vaccine became available in the 1940s).

In the Journal of Theoretical Biology they discuss the failure rate of the pertussis vaccine in New Zealand.

The obtained figures indicate that in New Zealand the effective vaccination rate against pertussis is lower than 50%, and perhaps even as low as 33% of the population. These figures contradict the medical statistics which claim that more than 80% of the newborns in New Zealand are vaccinated against pertussis (Turner et al., 2000). This contradiction is due to the mentioned unreliability of the available vaccine. The fact that the fraction of immune population obtained here is considerably lower than the fraction of vaccinated population implies a high level of vaccination failure.

The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics addresses the issue of investigator bias affecting efficacy trials.

In the course of a large pertussis vaccine efficacy trial we realized that investigator compliance could have a major impact on calculated vaccine efficacy.

Conclusions. Our data suggest that observer compliance (observer bias), can significantly inflate calculated vaccine efficacy. It is likely that all recently completed efficacy trials have been effected by this type of observer bias and all vaccines have considerably less efficacy against mild disease than published data suggest.

A study completed on vaccinated children in Israel concluded that the pertussis vaccine does not prevent transmission, it merely prevents the subjects from getting or feeling ill and makes them a source of infection – ie no herd immunity – the disease propagation is not prevented by vaccination – it just makes the carriers of the disease invisible (ie. the vaccine makes the pertussis infection subclinical) and therefore just as much a threat to those children who cannot be vaccinated as if they had the disease naturally [thereby defeating the big argument put up by health officials about parents’ duty to protect other children by having their children vaccinated]:-

We tested 46 fully vaccinated children in two day-care centers in Israel who were exposed to a fatal case of pertussis infection. Only two of five children who tested positive for Bordetella pertussis met the World Health Organization’s case definition for pertussis. Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection.   ………….

Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection:

Srugo I, Benilevi D, Madeb R, et al Pertussis infection in fully vaccinated children in day-care centers, Israel.  Emerg Infect Dis. 2000 Sep-Oct;6(5):526-9. [Department of Clinical Microbiology, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel]

Granted, we are using the acellular pertussis now in the US, but it’s widely acknowledged that the whole-cell was in fact more efficacious (but more reactive). So, even this vaccine which “worked better” than what we are currently using, didn’t prevent transmission/infection. It prevented the symptoms.

Interesting discussion of how the pertussis toxin prevents/delays appropriate antibody response, thus allowing infection of immune hosts: Kirimanjeswara GS, Agosto LM, Kennett MJ, Bjornstad ON, Harvill ET: Pertussis toxin inhibits neutrophil recruitment to delay antibody-mediated clearance of Bordetella pertussis Research article, The Journal of Clinical Investigation 2005: 115:12, 3494 December 2005 [Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences and Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.]

New Paper – Polio Vaccine – Disease Caused by Vaccine Twice As Fatal – Third World Duped – Scarce Money Wasted – Polio Eradication Impossible

According to a new paper published today in the April issue of Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, polio vaccine appears to cause a clinically identical disease which is twice as deadly as polio and the WHO polio eradication programme should be halted: ‘Polio programme – let us declare victory and move on‘ [click title for full .pdf download] by Neetu Vashisht and  Jacob Puliyel of the Department of Pediatrics at St Stephens Hospital in Delhi [for online web version click here and for PubMed abstract click here].

The paper records a failure to investigate NPAFP [non polio acute flacid paralysis] which is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly.  Data from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project shows the NPAFP rate increased in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses administered.  Independent studies show that children  identified with NPAFP “were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection”.

India was polio-free in 2011, but that year there were 47500 cases of NPAFP.  NPAFP has increased in incidence  in areas where many doses of polio vaccine were used.  

The authors report that, nationally, the NPAFP rate is now twelve times higher than expected.  In the states of Uttar Pradesh  and Bihar — which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month–the NPAFP rate is 25 and 35 fold higher than the international norms.

 ….. while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP).  In 2011, there were an extra 47500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.”

[ED:  Does this paper appear to confirm that the claimed eradication of polio has been achieved by redefining cases of paralytic polio as something else in order to remove from the statistics cases of paralytic polio caused by polio vaccines?  See Inside Vaccines: Polio and Acute Flaccid Paralysis which suggests that the “polio” eradication campaign by WHO appears to have always been a “fools errand” and the unsuspecting world  (third and all else) has been duped.]

Additionally, WHO’s polio eradication campaign will never end because it will never eradicate polio:

The long promised monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved,”

India was taken off the list of polio-endemic countries by the World Health Organisation (WHO) two months ago but will now have to continue spending scarce health funds on the programme forever.  They argue that the huge costs of repeated rounds of OPV and the parallel rise alongside the use of the vaccine of the more deadly non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) shows that monthly administration of OPV must cease.  

Our resources are perhaps better spent on controlling poliomyelitis to a locally acceptable level  rather than trying to eradicate the disease.”

The authors point out that while the anti-polio campaign in India was mostly self-financed it started with a token donation of two million dollars from abroad.

The Indian government finally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant.”

The doctors note that it was long known to the scientific community that eradication of polio was impossible because scientists had synthesized poliovirus in a test-tube as early as in 2002.  “The sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in the lab,” they report.  “Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus.”

According to the authors it was unethical for WHO and Bill Gates to promote this programme when they knew 10 years ago that it was never to succeed.

Getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical.  This is a startling reminder of how initial funding and grants from abroad distort local priorities, ”the authors note.  “From India’s perspective the exercise has been an extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $ 2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio, were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.”

In conclusion they say that:

the polio eradication programme epitomizes nearly everything that is wrong with donor funded ‘disease specific’ vertical projects at the cost of investments in community-oriented primary health care (horizontal programs).”

The WHO’s current policy calls for stopping oral polio vaccine (OPV) vaccination  three  years after the last case of poliovirus-caused poliomyelitis.  Injectable polio vaccine (IPV), which is expensive, will replace OPV in countries which can afford it.

The risks inherent in this strategy are immense, ”Puliyel and Vashisht warn. “Herd immunity against poliomyelitis will rapidly decline as new children are born and not vaccinated. Thus, any outbreak of poliomyelitis will be disastrous, whether it is caused by residual samples of virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesized with malignant intent.”

[ED: This article includes quotes from the authors’ news release.]

Shocking New US Official Autism Figures – Kids With Autistic Conditions At Record High 1 in 88, 1 in 54 Boys

The new figures in the US Centers for Disease Control report, released on March 29 and published in last week’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), states that more than 1 percent, or 1 in every 88 US children, is diagnosed with autism today, including 1 in 54 boys. This is a 78 percent increase in 6 years (2002-2008) and a 10-fold (1000 percent) increase in reported prevalence over the last 40 years. The report uses the same methodology that produced the CDC’s 2009 prevalence findings of 1 in 110 children with autism.

And despite a US$11.5 Bn annual budget the CDC still has no answers except that it has nothing to do with the vast number of vaccines they are responsible for pumping into US children every year

But if you want confirmation from US government officials that vaccines can cause autistic conditions you just have to read the quotes from them here made on US broadcast TV news back in 2008 when they were caught flatfooted with the breaking of the Hannah Poling story [Hannah got a secret settlement of US$20 for her autistic condition caused by 9 vaccines in one day – as conceded by Uncle Sam’s health officials and medical expert advisors]:

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

Chile First Developing Country to Stop Use of Mercury in Vaccines

Decision Comes as WHO Meets to Discuss Global Treaty on Mercury Use

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Chile has become the first developing country to stop the use of mercury in vaccines.

In meetings with the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD) held last week in Santiago, Chile, the current Vice President of the Chilean Senate, Alejandro Navarro Brain, committed to adopting legislation in the Senate that would prohibit the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal from vaccines.

Thimerosal, which is 49% mercury by weight, continues to be used as a preservative in vaccines and other drugs worldwide, despite the fact that it is a human neurotoxin and that safer, less toxic alternatives are readily available.

Chile’s decision comes as the World Health Organization (WHO) meets today in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss a global, legally binding treaty on mercury use. That meeting will examine alternative vaccine preservatives, as well as the economic, programmatic, and manufacturing implications of moving to single-dose, preservative-free vaccines.

While applauding the WHO for giving the issue of mercury use in vaccines the urgent attention it merits, CoMeD expressed serious reservations about WHO’s decision to meet in closed-door session.

Noting that past closed-door sessions have led to “repeated and, we believe, untrue declarations that there is no evidence of harm from the use of Thimerosal in vaccines,” the Reverend Lisa K. Sykes, President of CoMeD, states, “Such unfounded assertions have led to the establishment of two standards of vaccine safety, one which is predominately mercury-free for developed, western countries and one that is mercury-preserved for developing countries.”

As a result, Rev. Sykes continues, “The most vulnerable among us continue to be intentionally exposed to mercury from Thimerosal in childhood vaccines. This exposure is entirely avoidable, and must be stopped.”
Dr. Mark R. Geier, a CoMeD Director, agrees, adding, “Recent statements by those holding national and global responsibility for vaccine safety are difficult to reconcile with the known and published toxicity of Thimerosal.”

According to CoMeD, numerous scientific studies and extensive peer-reviewed scientific and medical papers have all concluded that Thimerosal poses a significant health risk. Thimerosal manufacturers also acknowledge that the preservative can cause mild to severe mental retardation in children.

For additional information about CoMeD and its work to ban mercury from drugs, including vaccines, worldwide, visit http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org.

World Autism “Awareness” Day 2012 and We Are Not Buying It Any More

Here is a good post on The Thinking Mom’s Revolution posted today April 2, 2012

Did you hear the crashing thud last week when the CDC announced that 1 out of every 88 children has Autism? That was the sound of the medical establishment losing its moral authority in the Autism conversation.   Despite Tom Insel, head of the IACC, spinning the message again as “better diagnosing”, the sharp reality of the rise of the Autism numbers cut through his assurances.

We are at a watershed moment much like a point in the television news coverage of the Vietnam War immediately following the Tet Offensive in January 1968. The horrific images caught on camera and the number of reported casualties was so grim they didn’t match the cheery sound bites fed to the media from the American military leadership.

In the Autism Crisis, you could see the beginning of a palpable shift last week. In the news coverage you glimpsed a bit of skepticism in the eyes of the reporters being fed the same lines, by the parade of frequent denialists, that were the mainstay of the conversation several years ago when the new number was 1 out of 150 children. Perhaps this is because Autistic children aren’t just statistics anymore; they belong to every one of us.  There isn’t anyone left who doesn’t have a connection to an Autistic child. The party line “better diagnostics” doesn’t fit with what every single one of us, including the camera man and reporter, is experiencing on the ground. We see Autistic children everywhere. And the second equally clear reality; we didn’t grow up with Autistic children.

Read on for more:

EU’s New Autism Fix: No Causes No Cures – Get Big Pharma To Give ‘Em Drugs

Read this post from Gaia Health on the new EU research programme for autistic conditions:

______________

New Autism Research Program: Big Pharma Profit Center with Taxpayers’ Help

March 23, 2012 by admin

The European Union has partnered with pharmaceutical corporations and Autism Speaks for the sole purpose of developing drugs to cram down the throats of autistics. Rather than doing honest research into the causes of this devastating condition, money is being poured into finding ways to suppress its symptoms.

A new organization, European Autism Interventions – A Multicentre Study for Developing New Medications  (EU-AIMS), has been formed to benefit Big Pharma’s bottom line at the expense of autistics. The plan is to simply accept that autism is here, in spite of its nonexistence or near nonexistence a few decades ago. The organization has no interest in autism prevention.

Project Goals

EU-AIMS states its goals as:

• To develop and validate “translation research approaches” for the advancement of novel therapies.
• To set new standards in research and clinical development to aid the drug discovery process.
• Development of sites across Europe for clinical trials on autism, and create an “interactive platform for ASD professionals and patients”.

Let’s examine those goals:

READ ON HERE FOR MORE:

New Autism Research Program: Big Pharma Profit Center with Taxpayers’ Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author, Dr Lucija Tomljenovic writes:

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

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

Dr Lucija Tomljenovic continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Treatment For Autistic Children – Initial Results May Be Encouraging

CHS is republishing the following information because results of work by Dr Bradstreet with autistic children are more likely than not to be genuine.  As with all new suggested treatments, it is clearly appropriate to take a prudent approach and readers should similarly take a prudent approach to what is being suggested.  “Nagalese” it seems is an enzyme which can have an effect of suppressing the proper functioning of the human immune system.

A recent discovery by Dr Bradstreet in his autism clinic in America is that autistic children often have an elevated Nagalase level and this in turn his may indicate a viral cause behind the symptoms of autism.

Following on from this discovery in 2011, Dr Bradstreet looked to find a treatment that would reduce the Nagalase count and found GcMAF (Gc Macrophage Activating Factor). Results so far are that 85% of the children who received GcMAF responding positively.

We have now evaluated approximately 400 children with autism for the viral marker, Nagalase. From my perspective this is one of the most important developments in the clinical treatment of children on the spectrum that I have experienced in the last 15 years. The short story is nearly 80% of the children with autism evaluated have significantly elevated levels of Nagalase.” – Dr Bradstreet October 2011

Whilst parental anecdotes cannot take the place of a well implemented clinical trial, the very positive comments are cause for us to investigate this further. Amongst the many positive comments received and posted on Dr Bradstreet’s blog are:

After 24 weeks of the GCMAF, we are happy to report that she continues to have immense gains in all areas. She has shown an increased tolerance, socialization and speech with adults and same age peers, continued remarkable performance in Academics (she is at the first grade reading level (She’s in kindergarten), she knows the sight words, writes her name,etc……. We are so excited to see her blossom! ” – S.J. November 2011

and:

During the course of the GCMAF treatment we’ve seen improvements and this is a phenomenal. Her Language development went from repeating one word such as “iPad” over and over again, meaning she wanted to play with it, to “When I get home, I want to play with the iPad.”… Needless to say, we are feeling very blessed and we are so excited to see what more amazing things are in store towards her recovery in 2012! Thank you so much for all that you’ve done and continue to do! ” – M and R January 2012

However, there have been some reports of minimal side effects of flu-like symptons for a few hours. This is likely to be as a result of the immune system getting to work on undiagnosed viruses, as these are likely to have been the cause of the elevated Nagalase levels.

References:

http://www.DrBradstreet.org

http://www.Gc-MAF.de

http://www.GcMAF.eu

BBC Correspondent Seriously Ill After Yellow Fever Jab – Drug Maker Sanofi Pasteur Denies Evidence of Link [As Usual]

The UK’s Mail On Sunday newspaper reports today “BBC’s Man in Greece became psychotic and believed he was Jesus after yellow fever jab”  Charlotte Eagar 4th December 2011.  Within hours of the Stamaril jab from drug company Sanofi Pasteur:

Mr Brabant’s temperature had spiked and his condition deteriorated rapidly. He became psychotic, sobbed and saluted at television pictures of military uniforms during the Royal Wedding and believed he was Jesus.”

The familiar figure from BBC foreign news reports, who has been missing from British TV screens since April this year, remains seriously ill.  The Mail reports:

Mr Brabant, 55, an award-winning veteran of the siege of Sarajevo, is currently in hospital in Copenhagen, the home town of his wife, best-selling Danish writer Trine Villemann.”

His wife started an online petition on about 25th November [found here Sanofi Pasteur – Truth Now!.  Ms Villemann met her husband during the siege  of Sarajevo when she was a TV  producer. 

She claims French drug company Sanofi Pasteur:‘ignored me for months until I started this internet campaign and petition. They just said the vaccine was fine.’ 

She wrote on 28th November:

I have spent the entire day at the hospital with my husband. He was a bit more upbeat, but also angry, VERY angry.”Every time I get back on my feet, I am slammed down again by this devastating vaccine. When will it end? And when will someone take responsibility for what happened to me,” he asked and added:”There has to be justice, not just for me but for the next poor bugger, who gets a Sanofi Pasteur jab and suffers like I have.” PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THE PETITION BELOW! Trine B.

So don’t do anything else until you have signed the petition here  Sanofi Pasteur – Truth Now!

And after you have signed the petition you can post a comment on the petition site and point out that when millions of children around the world have developed autistic conditions and other serious health problems after a vaccine Malcolm Brabant, all his BBC fellow news reports, his news Editors and everyone else at the BBC have just ignored the plight of these children and let the drug companies get away with in it.  Worse, they continually pump out news stories fed to them by UK Government Health Officials promoting vaccines and downplaying people who raise serious issues about vaccine safety.

We also suggest you ask why if they want your help they are not helping all these sick injured and dead children and their families.  You can ask them why, when it was not convenient to Malcolm Brabant to report on vaccine safety he failed these children in his obligations as a journalist but now his family are turning around and asking for your help.  That’s right – your help.

This is what has happened to him witnessed by his 12-year-old son, Lukas.  Within hours his temperature was 104F, he was shaking and shivering. His bed was rocking backwards and forward.  He developed insomnia became irritable and anxious.  He suffered delusions.  He became psychotic and was convinced he was Jesus. He recovered and returned to work, but had a relapse in July and was flown to a psychiatric hospital in Britain. He recorded only occasional reports over the past few months and moved with his family to Copenhagen.  He was in hospital again on November 8 and has suffered from blood clots on his lungs.

Ms Villeman says about Sanofi Pasteur.

They ignored me for months until I started this internet campaign and petition. They just said the vaccine was fine.’

And Sanofi Pasteur issued the usual junk science claims saying:

Carefully investigating all the medical information that was disclosed to us up to July 2011, we have been unable to establish evidence for a causal relationship between the administration of the  yellow fever vaccine Stamaril and the reported medical conditions.’

Does that sound familiar. Yes it certainly does. This is what all these companies say and dump the victims on their families with no help, no compensation.

Government Health Officials worldwide do the same. Most Doctors do the same and so do most of their professional organisations.

A big culprit of course is the American Association of Pediatricians whose members earn vast sums giving a huge number of vaccines to previously well American children at “Well baby visits”. A lot of American kids are not so well after and the numbers of children who would develop problems catching the natural disease would be far lower.

See Yourself What Vaccines Can Do To Previously Normal Healthy Babies  November 12, 2011 by childhealthsafety

You should also ask why in the 21st Century there is no measles pill so only sick kids get treatment and your kids are not put at risk. The answer is the drug companies, the profits they make not just from vaccines but from the drugs needed to treat the conditions in children the vaccines cause, corruption in the medical professions, corruption in Government health departments and the money doctors make giving vaccines and then treating the harm they have caused by giving them.

US Mind Altering Drugs Given to Kids – Recent News

CHS brings you some recent US news from psychsearch.net about harmful mind altering psychiatric drugs being given to US children including children less than a year old.  Whilst the news about a report to be published today from the Federal Government’s Accountability Office focuses on foster children, the net of drug industry profiteering from harmful drugs given to US children and other children around the world is much wider and not limited to children in foster care.

When you read these stories ask yourself, “what about the children who are not in foster care getting these drugs?” and “What are doctors and psychiatrists playing at?  Can you trust them? Where’s the science?  Out to lunch?” 

The Columbian drug cartels are like a corner store compared to these guys.  And don’t forget to visit The Institute for Nearly Genuine Research for some hard facts laced with humour about the barking mad world of the drug industry’s psychiatric drugs:-

The Institute for Nearly Genuine Research

_____________________________

Three Recent News Stories On Hard Psychiatric Prescription Drugs For US Kids

_____________________________

VIDEO – ABC NEWS – A HORRIBLE SECRET – What the U. S. Government does to Foster Care Children

U.S. Government Fails to Oversee Treatment of Foster Children With Mind-Altering Drugs

By DR. MARK ABDELMALEK, BRINDA ADHIKARI, SARAH KOCH, JOSEPH DIAZ and CLAIRE WEINRAUB
Nov. 30, 2011

The federal government has not done enough to oversee the treatment of America’s foster children with powerful mind-altering drugs, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to be released Thursday.

…….

Thousands of foster children were being prescribed psychiatric medications at doses higher than the maximum levels approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in these five states alone. And hundreds of foster children received five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time despite absolutely no evidence supporting the simultaneous use or safety of this number of psychiatric drugs taken together.

…….

The GAO found foster children were prescribed psychotropic drugs at rates up to nearly five times higher than non-foster children.

…..

In Texas, foster children were 53 times more likely to be prescribed five or more psychiatric medications at the same time than non-foster children.

[See ABC NEWS Video and Story here]

_____________________________

A possible solution to force a decline in child psych drugging

Youth Today
Administration Concerned About Psych Meds and Foster Youths
No regulation from feds yet; just information sharing
November 29, 2011
By John Kelly

Starting this summer, states will have to provide the federal government with details about how they control the use of psychotropic medications on youth in foster care.

The Obama administration said in a letter to state officials The Obama administration said in a letter to state officials last week that it was concerned about the “safe, appropriate and effective use” of the drugs, which are most often prescribed to adolescents in connection with a diagnosis for mood or conduct disorders, though many child advocates believe they are frequently used as chemical restraints because of their numbing effect on kids.
[continue reading…]

_____________________________

A Possible Federal Solution to Psych Drugging of Kids

Youth Today

Rate at Which Psychiatric Meds Are Prescribed to Foster Youth Alarms GAO
Administration could mull regulation of monitoring, prescribing practices
December 01, 2011
by John Kelly

The Obama Administration told states last week of its intention to find out more about their practices when it came to monitoring the use of psychotropic drugs with children in foster care. Today, the reason for the interest became apparent, and calls for federal regulation of use of the drugs on foster children could soon follow.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study released this morning recommended that the Department of Health and Human Services “consider endorsing guidance for states on best practices for overseeing psychotropic prescriptions for foster children.”

The GAO reviewed nearly 100,000 foster children in five states – Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas – found thousands of children on psychiatric medications, many at higher doses than are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Read on for more …..

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

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

____________________

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

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

Article

• Article

  (0.2 Mb)

Abstract

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keywords

Water, dehydration, performance, health claims

Panel Members

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

Acknowledgment

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

Contact

nda@efsa.europa.eu

Type:

Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel

On request from:

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

Question number:

EFSA-Q-2008-05014

Adopted:

28 January 2011

Published:

16 February 2011

Affiliation:

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

Autism Hits China Big Time

China Daily News reports today from Qingdao, Shandong – autism is ranked No 1 among mental disorders in China, according to a presentation on Nov 4 at the International Autism Research Collaboration Development Conference in Shanghai. The data include only diagnoses in hospitals and research centers, so the actual number may be much higher, experts warned.  The report is detailed and we recommend you click the link and read it all to get a good picture of what is going on in one of the most populous nations in the world.

Families struggle to cope with autistic children – 21 November 2011 – By He Na (China Daily)

“Autism has a strong link to genetic abnormalities. That is generally accepted,” said Kuang Guifang, director of the psychology department at Qingdao Children’s Hospital. “Birth defects, environmental causes such as heavy metals and pesticides, and childhood vaccines also are blamed.“

Experts in UK, USA and in other parts of the world try to play down the fact that the worldwide explosion of autistic conditions in children is new.  They want to have us believe we have always had these numbers of children with autistic conditions and it is nothing new; that the link to the dramatic roll-out of multiple repeated vaccines to children since the mid 1980’s has nothing to do with this and it is just the medical profession getting better at noticing.

So click on the link to the story and read it yourself.  Look at the symptoms of the children described and tell yourself “Doctors and teachers just have not noticed these symptoms in children before the mid 1980s” and then ask yourself “how difficult it would be not to notice children who do not talk or interact in any way like other children” and “are doctors and teachers morons then?“. 

And also ask yourself how it is, as the report states “Lack of a developed support network adds to parents’ burden” that can be if this has always been with us all worldwide? And ask yourself why should families in China be struggling to cope because of that absence of a support network. Also ask yourself how is it that the Qingdao Shengzhiai Rehabilitation Center opened in only 2003 and has not existed before. It has just 31 autistic students ages 3 to 12. So how many of these centers will China need now for the millions of children now affected? How much is it going to cost the Chinese people?

In China a limit by law was imposed to control the population growth of one child per family.  So what happens when autism starts to hit the children of highly placed State officials?

And when are we going to see drug industry executives and public health officials in Court to answer for this disaster wrought on so many children worldwide?

Look at the effect on the parents and families – this is a social and economic disaster but let’s not blame the vaccines – after all they are the most important development in modern medicine – right?

The story reports:

Most people would be upset if you thought they looked 10 years older than their real age. Wang Yonglin, 35, has learned to smile and say he’s used to it.

Once an energetic, sports-minded man, Wang is thin and looks tired. He has a few gray hairs. The changes began in 2009.

“I felt my world collapse,” said Wang, a former nonsmoker who now goes through two packs a day.

Wang and Li often feel hopeless, he said. They cannot sleep through an entire night and have even thought of suicide. “We gave up the idea finally, for who will take care of her if my wife and I die?

“You know, the most difficult thing is you have tried your best, but still can’t see any hope. And even without hope, you still have to smile to face an innocent daughter every day.”

And do vaccines cause autism.  Yes they do according to admissions made by US Government Health officials and agencies when put in the spotlight when award winning New York journalist and author David Kirby broke the Hannah Poling story in the USA in February 2008.

If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” [Text added 10 April 2011]

The first known cause of autism was rubella virus. So not only is New Scientist an unreliable source of information, this cause of autism has been known since the 1960s. And rubella virus is one of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine.

… rubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism.”  Walter A. Orenstein, M.D. US as Assistant Surgeon General, Director National Immunization Program in a letter to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer 15 February 2002.

rubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism.” US Center for Disease Control. [ED 8/Apr/12: This is the web archive of the CDC page – you will need to search in or scroll down the page to see the text.  As papers cited on the original page by the CDC as evidence for no link with the vaccine have been steadily discredited it seems the CDC has decided to remove the page and it seems someone has been deleting the archived versions of the page from the web archive too].

rubella can cause autism” The Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

Journal references:

Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1, 33-47 (1971).

Chess S. Follow-up report on autism in congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1977;7:69 –81

Ziring PR. Congenital rubella: the teenage years. Pediatr Ann. 1997;6: 762–770

People who are pre-disposed to have a mitochondrial dysfunction can develop autistic conditions following vaccination.  The current President of Merck’s Vaccines Division, Julie Gerberding confirmed to CBS News when she was Director of the US Centres for Disease Control that:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.“

HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30   ET

Mitochondrial dysfunction is claimed to be “rare” but is not.  It can apply to a minimum of 20% of cases.

And this was said when Gerberding was then head of the US Centres for Disease Control – budget US$11 billion.  It followed from  award winning author and journalist David Kirby breaking the story of the Hannah Poling case, secretly settled by the US Government.  It was after this story broke that it started to be acknowledged that autism has an “environmental” cause and is not solely an “internal” condition [ie not determined solely by genetics]: AUTISM – US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments – It’s Not Just MMR

[Gerberding went from the US agency charged with promoting vaccines [CDC] directly to become vaccine maker Merck’s Director of Vaccines Division: Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck Vaccines – 21 Dec 2009 – Merck & Co., Inc.

Autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination.  The US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) confirmed to CBS News that of 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in secret settlements:-

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.” [PDF Download – Text of email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News]

CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008

Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008

Measles and mumps are two of the three live viruses in the MMR vaccine. Exposure to live measles or mumps viruses can cause encephalitis:-

measles and mumps can cause significant disability, including encephalitis“

The Pediatrician’s Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Children – PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 5 May 2001

So there is direct evidence that live measles, mumps or rubella viruses separately can cause encephalitis leading to autism.

More troubling is that this has been known for a long time.  So the risks of giving very young children a vaccine containing three live viruses all at once were known. These two World Health Organisation papers published nearly 40 years ago set out the hazards:

Virus-associated immunopathology : animal models and implications for human disease”:

1. Effects of viruses on the immune system, immune-complex diseases, and antibody-mediated immunologic injury Bulletin of The World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 257-264.

2. Cell-mediated immunity, autoimmune diseases, genetics, and implications for clinical research Bulletin of the World Health Organisation. 1972; 47(2): 265-274.

Autistic conditions can result from acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following MMR vaccination as held by the US Federal Court in the case of Bailey Banks.  In his conclusion, US Federal Court Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

[Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)].

And what does not cause autism?

Autism is not “caused” by “genes”

Dr Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. the 16th and current Director of the US$30.5 billion budget National Institutes of Health [nominated by President Obama: NIH News Release 17th August 2009 ] stated in evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006 when Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute:

“Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons.“

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006

Collins controls the US $30.5 billion annual medical research budget and is a leading medical doctor and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project.

Autistic conditions affect 1 in 100 US children.  They affect 1 in 64 British children [1 in 40 are boys] according to a Cambridge University study.

ESTIMATING AUTISM SPECTRUM PREVALENCE IN THE POPULATION: A SCHOOL BASED STUDY FROM THE UK

Conclusions: The prevalence estimate of known cases of ASC, using different methods of ascertainment converges around 1%. The ratio of known to unknown cases means that for every three known cases there are another two unknown cases. This has implications for planning diagnostic, social and health services.”

It is estimated to cost the UK £28 billion per annum [roughly US$42 billion]: [“Economic Consequences of Autism in the UK” – London School of Economics – Study by team led by Professor Martin Knapp [Executive Summary]

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

We live today in an approximation to the Orwellian world writer Eric Blair described when writing under the Nom de Plume of “George Orwell” in his world famous 8th June 1949 published novel titled “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.  And it is not getting better and looks like it is going to get a whole lot worse as time passes.  The greatest threats today to our lives and freedoms come from within our own societies: from our politicians and from our governments and their officials.  Our governments fail to govern and manage effectively and they and their officials are subject to manipulation, influence and control of individuals and corporations with the resources to do so unseen and unknown to citizens of so many nations today. 

The main character of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is Winston Smith.  Winston is a member of the Outer Party and works for the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue).  Minitrue is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. Winston’s job is re-writing past newspaper articles so that the historical record is congruent with the current party ideology. Because of the childhood trauma of the destruction of his family — the disappearances of his parents and sister — Winston Smith secretly hates the Party, and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother.  He lives in Oceania, a society ruled by the oligarchical dictatorship of the Party.

It is possible it is just a matter of time in our “real” world, not that of Oceania, before the internet falls subject to central government control, as it already is in some parts of the world.  With that will go our continued decline as a civilisation into the Big Brother world of Winston Smith.  So you had better make the most of it while you can and get what information from it you can to counter the failures of the established world news media and modern journalism.  Journalists today report mostly from the incessant streams of news releases fed literally “down the wire” to newsrooms around the world, with little time to scrutinise and consider what lies behind these stories they report. 

One source of information CHS suggests you subscribe to is www,NaturalNews.com.  And keep your eyes open for other information sources which report with independence, a commodity in short supply.  www,NaturalNews.com is currently a useful and continuous source of information which seems to report with independence of and from the Orwellian world of the thought-police we see more and more in evidence in modern times. But of course be under no illusions that a change of ownership or control cannot change today’s seemingly useful information sources into something less useful or even misleading or useless.

Winston’s Smith’s life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control which is administrated by a privileged Inner Party elite. Yet they too are subordinated to the totalitarian cult of personality of Big Brother, the deified Party leader who rules with a philosophy that decries individuality and reason as thoughtcrimes; thus the people of Oceania are subordinated to a supposed collective greater good.

Any of that sound familiar in the 21st Century?  Like a world of perpetual war?  Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Al-Qaeda, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Burundi, Baluchistan, Bangladesh Army Mutiny, Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnia, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Darfur, Ethiopia-Somalia, Georgia-Russia, Honduras, India-Bangladesh, India’s Maoist Insurgency/Naxalite Guerrilla, Israel-Palestine, Israel-Syria, Korea, Macedonia Albania, Nepal, Yemen, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Waziristan.  And of course not forgetting the ever present nuclear threat between the increasing number of “stable” and not so stable “super powers”.

Now read some of today’s email alert from NaturalNews.com.    [To try it out – its completely free – subscribe click here].

• The corporate domination of the planet marches forward into Asia, this time targeting Nepal for a GMO agricultural dictatorship.
• Back in the USA, Congress is trying to reclassify pizza as a “vegetable” in order to avoid new regulations limiting junk food served at schools:
• Continuing with the government insanity, the TSA has now backed out of its promise to have its “naked body scanners” safety tested. Gee, I wonder why? (Now we know why the TSA workers themselves are becoming mutants…)
• Sheriffs all across the USA are getting fed up with big government interference in their jurisdictions, and they’re starting to rebel ….
• Occupy GMOs: Protesters block access to manufacturing plant filled with animal ‘Frankenfeed’ Tired of the quiet import and use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in the animal food supply throughout Europe, a group of protesters in France has decided to make a statement by blockading the entrances of the Glon Sanders animal…
• Cops now arresting journalists at OWS protests A recent New York Police Department (NYPD) sweep at Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, where hundreds of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters had been occupying and living in tents, took with it several journalists who were simply there to…
• New study reveals expensive MRIs pushed on women for breast cancer screening have no medical benefit The use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, better known simply as MRI, for breast cancer screening is increasing and so is its use in guiding breast surgery when cancer is discovered. Obviously, that means healthcare costs are soaring, too,…

US Drug Company Released Deadly Virus In EU In Vaccine

A US drug company manufactured a potential EU human health disaster which was only averted by the vigilance of scientists in just one EU country, the Czech Republic.  This dramatic story which came to light in February 2009 should have been given much wider news coverage around the world.  It was not.  Draw your own conclusions.  We are re reporting this story to remind readers and provide some links to reference sources before they eventually vanish from the web. 

If health officials are to be believed [which appears is not often] the consequences could have been a pan-European health disaster not seen for a century or more. Such a disaster would have seen sales of ‘flu vaccines soar and remain buoyant for decades whilst causing economic havoc in the EU, which could have spread much further.  Whilst described as an accident, some experts believe that biosecurity protocols are so strict that such a release could not have been an accident.

__________________________

During the early stages of the fake “swine ‘flu/bird ‘flu scare-that-never-was”, which made billions for drug companies in 2009 and caused great embarrassment for the World Health Organisation responsible for announcing and maintaining the scam health scare, the Deerfield, Illinois-based US pharmaceutical company Baxter International Inc was caught at an early stage in December 2008 releasing into several EU countries contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria containing live H5N1 avian flu viruses.

We are including as usual links to some source references and recommend to interested readers to keep details before they cease to be available.  If a reader comes across a link to a report from sources like a reputable news outlet or statements from health officials of recognised health organisations, please post them in a comment here for the benefit of others to refer to so we can build up a resource of links on this page for reference.

Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic – The Times of India Mar 6, 2009, 12.02am IST

Baxter admits flu product contained live bird flu virus – The Canadian Press – Friday Feb. 27, 2009

Extracts from The Canadian Press report:

….. an official of the World Health Organization’s European operation said the body is closely monitoring the investigation into the events that took place at Baxter International’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria.  “At this juncture we are confident in saying that public health and occupational risk is minimal at present,” medical officer Roberta Andraghetti said from Copenhagen, Denmark.

“But what remains unanswered are the circumstances surrounding the incident in the Baxter facility in Orth-Donau.”

The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.

The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.

Public health authorities concerned about what has been described as a “serious error” on Baxter’s part have assumed the death of the ferrets meant the H5N1 virus in the product was live. But the company, Baxter International Inc., has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.

On Friday, the company’s director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected.

“It was live,” Christopher Bona said in an email.

The contaminated product, which Baxter calls “experimental virus material,” was made at the Orth-Donau research facility. Baxter makes its flu vaccine — including a human H5N1 vaccine for which a licence is expected shortly — at a facility in the Czech Republic.

People familiar with biosecurity rules are dismayed by evidence that human H3N2 and avian H5N1 viruses somehow co-mingled in the Orth-Donau facility. That is a dangerous practice that should not be allowed to happen, a number of experts insisted.

Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences.

While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people.

……

Baxter hasn’t shed much light — at least not publicly — on how the accident happened.

……..

Andraghetti said Friday the four investigating governments are co-operating closely with the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Control in Stockholm, Sweden.

EU bans food claim that water prevents dehydration

The UK’s “The Telegraph” newspaper reports today:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

By Victoria Ward and Nick Collins – 18 Nov 2011

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

________________________

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

READ ON IN THE TELEGRAPH FOR THE FULL STORY:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Girl, 13, left in ‘waking coma’ and sleeps for 23 hours a day after severe reaction to cervical cancer jabs

The UK’s The Daily Mail Newspaper Paul Sims reports [15th November 2011]:

Lucy Hinks is unable to walk or talk after having injections at school.

Parents warn others to check on potential side effects of Cervarix vaccine.

Lucy Hinks, 13, began to experience extreme exhaustion soon after having the cervical cancer vaccine alongside classmates

They were told the vaccine had few side-effects and would protect their daughter from cervical cancer. But Steve and Pauline Hinks are convinced the controversial HPV jab is behind their daughter Lucy’s mystery illness which is making her sleep up to 23 hours a day. Tests have so far ruled out a brain tumour and glandular fever and the 13-year-old’s paediatric consultant is investigating potential links with the vaccine Cervarix. The jab was used in a national vaccination programme which started in September 2008. But it has already been linked to several cases of girls displaying severe side-effects. Before she received the vaccine, Lucy was perfectly healthy, had an excellent school attendance record and was among the top students in her year.

Read more from The Daily Mail:

Girl, 13, left in ‘waking coma’ and sleeps for 23 hours a day after severe reaction to cervical cancer jabs

See Yourself What Vaccines Can Do To Previously Normal Healthy Babies

Take a look at Luke and his mother in this brief interview [details below] which UK’s ITV West TV ran including an interview with Dr Wakefield and Dr Godlee, BMJ Editor-In-Chief. 

See for yourself in the video [link below] what happened to Luke.  The account also given by Luke’s Mom at the beginning is typical of most if not all of these cases of autism.  There are at least tens of thousands of cases like this across the world.  That does not include the numbers of children with the less serious autistic conditions.  So you have to ask yourself, should Luke and his family and many others suffer like this for a childhood illness which strengthens most children’s immune systems and they get over in a few days.  And why in the 21st Century do we have no measles pill?  Because we have the measles vaccine and a drug industry getting rich expanding their markets for more and more vaccines which are unnecessary for the vast majority.

If you are outside the UK and cannot view Luke’s video we have added some others at the end of this post.

In the UK 1 in 64 children [1 in 40 boys] now have an autistic condition according to research from Cambridge University.  In the USA the figure is put at 1 in 100.

And do vaccines cause autistic conditions? In the US Federal Court children have been compensated after findings they developed autism and other injuries. If you read nothing else we strongly recommend you read this: PDF Download – Text of email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkission

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”

CLICK ON THE LINK TO WATCH THE ITV WEST REPORT ONLINE:-

BMJ call for inquiry 5.19 pm  Thu Nov 10 2011 By: Rebecca Broxton

The British Medical Journal is calling for Parliament to hold an inquiry into the MMR vaccine scare. Vaccination rates plummeted after Dr Andrew Wakefield, from Bath, suggested there was a link between the jab and autism.

His claims were discredited and he was struck off the medical register last year.

VIDEOS OF KIDS BEFORE AND AFTER THEIR VACCINES

Before in this video is shown before the 3 minutes 27seconds mark and after is after that mark:-

Before in this video is shown before the 55 seconds mark and after is after that mark:-

The following is a photo history of Brandon after his DPT vaccine:-

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

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

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

Read more here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardasil – HPV Vaccine – The Injured Continue To Pile Up

FDA Halts HPV Vaccine Roll-Out – SaneVax News Release

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

HPV Vaccine Questioned Internationally

_________________________________

[Source SaneVax/NaturalNews.com]

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

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

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

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

rDNA found in Gardasil is genetically engineered

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

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

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

Innocent girls being injected with genetically engineered HPV rDNA

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

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

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

SaneVax source documents:-

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

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

3.     Gardasil™ Patient Product Insert 

4.     EMEA Scientific Discussion on Gardasil    

5.     VAERS Data

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

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAA…

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

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

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

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033585_Gardasil_contamination.html#ixzz1Y64eyEvE

The Scandal of Vaccines and Drug Industry Profits.

No big article – just these thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gorski himself claims others engage routinely in sabotage:

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

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

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

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

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

The Sabotage

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

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

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

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

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

And then we come to the sabotage.

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

Kind of tempting to mess with their results…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmmmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Apoplectic Dr David Gorski Excels Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

“the sheer intensity of its burning stupid”

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

“anti-vaccine loons” “anti-vaxers”

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

“Now they’re at it again”

“anti-vaccine propaganda”

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

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

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

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

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

“a poorly designed phone survey”

“entirely unvaccinated children.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

…. such a study is neither feasible nor ethical”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The numbers cited are entirely in keeping with the text:

• there were 44 children reported as having an autistic condition

• over 80% of parents reported the autistic conditions in children were mild and of the Asperger type.

• only 4 were reported as having severe autism

What does that tell us?

• Over 80% means 35 of the 44, leaving 9 or less cases.

• 4 of the 9 were reported as having severe autism.

• That leaves 5 cases where 1) either the parents did not say what kind of autistic condition their child had or 2)there were less than 5 cases of severe autism in those 5 or both.

• Let’s say it was 5 cases and the parents did not say. At over 80% the probability is of those 5 cases 4 were mild, leaving 1 which might be the more severe autism.

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

And here is another hoot:

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

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

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

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

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

And this GorskiDrivel is a hoot too:-

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

When Gorski in the same passage notes that:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cal-Oregon Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Survey

All vaccinated boys, compared to unvaccinated boys:

• – Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.55)

• – Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.24)

• – Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism (RR 1.61)

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

• – Vaccinated boys were 158% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.58)

• – Vaccinated boys were 317% more likely to have ADHD (RR 4.17)

• – Vaccinated boys were 112% more likely to have autism (RR 2.12)

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

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

• – Vaccinated boys were 185% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.85)

• – Vaccinated boys were 279% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.79)

• – Vaccinated boys were 146% more likely to have autism (RR 2.46)

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

• – Vaccinated boys and girls were 120% more likely to have asthma (RR 2.20)

• – No correlation established for juvenile diabetes

All vaccinated girls, compared to unvaccinated girls:

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

New US Report MMR Vaccine Causes Serious Conditions – Says US Institute of Medicine – Measles, Seizures, Anaphylaxis & Many More

NaturalNews has published an article reviewing the recent US Institute of Medicine [IOM] Report on MMR vaccines.  You can download and view the report yourself: Adverse Effects of Vaccines Evidence Causality

The full NaturalNews article can be read here:

Institute of Medicine adverse reactions report admits MMR vaccines cause measles, seizures, anaphylaxis and other health problems Sunday, August 28, 2011 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com

The IOM conclusion that “vaccines do not cause autism” is erroneous.  Someone should tell them US Government agencies, officials and medical experts do not agree:

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

And the IOM did not interview any parent of an autistic child nor conduct a medical review of any autistic children.

___________

“The Institute of Medicine ……. has issued a report that declares the MMR vaccine is not linked to autism.  This is now being widely reported in the conventional (controlled) media, which isn’t telling you the real story.

That this IOM report now confirms that vaccines cause measles, febrile seizures, anaphylactic shock and other potentially fatal side effects. It also admits that other vaccines are linked to a wide range of side effects, including skin lesions, difficulty breathing and live virus infections (see complete list, below).

Conclusions of the Institute of Medicine report on vaccine adverse reactions

Here are some of the conclusions of the IOM’s report not reported in the media:

• MMR vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing measles. (Just as we told you here on NaturalNews, the vaccine is what’s causing the disease.)

• MMR vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing febrile seizure, just as we also reported here on NaturalNews.

• MMR vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction that can result in death within minutes. This is what kills many young children who are injected with MMR vaccines.

• MMR vaccine is likely linked to causing transient arthralgia in women and children.

• Varicella vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing Disseminated Oka VZV, a viral disease (Varicella Zoster Virus) which causes skin lesions and can also infect the lungs and brain. The fact that this vaccine is causing VZV infections is proof that the vaccines contain live viruses!

• Varicella vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing Vaccine Strain Viral Reactivation, meaning the vaccine contains live viruses that are reactivated in the human host, multiplying and causing widespread infections.

• Varicella vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing anaphylaxis, the life-threatening allergic reaction mentioned above.

• The influenza vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing anaphylaxis

• The influenza vaccine likely causes Oculorespiratory Syndrome, a vaccine reaction described as causing “bilateral conjunctivitis, facial edema, and upper respiratory symptoms.“

• The Hepatitis B vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing anaphylaxis.

• The HPV vaccine (for cervical cancer) is also likely linked to causing anaphylaxis.

• The TT (Tetanus Toxoid) vaccine is also likely linked to causing anaphylaxis.

• The Meningo-Coccal vaccine is “convincingly” linked to causing anaphylaxis.

• Vaccine injections (of all kinds) are “convincingly” linked to causing Deltoid Bursitis (severe pain and swelling at the injection site) and Syncope (loss of consciousness). 

What the IOM report on vaccines also reveals

 The IoM study admits vaccines cause infectious disease!

The IoM report confirms that MMR vaccines cause measles. It describes the evidence as “convincingly supports” and says the mechanistic assessment is “strong.”

The IoM report dismissed any link between vaccines and a list of conditions based on a “lack of sufficient evidence“. 

[ED: But if you read these CHS articles you can judge for yourself the value of this list:

US Government Concedes Hep B Vaccine Causes Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Posted on April 25, 2011,

UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety Posted on April 13, 2009 by childhealthsafety

Hepatitis B vaccine has been shown in many peer reviewed research papers [including from Harvard University – detailed references at end] to be associated with numerous infant deaths in the USA and Europe, multiple sclerosis and numerous chronic auto-immune disorders.  These latter include Guillain-Barre syndrome, lupus, rheumatism, blood disorders and chronic fatigue.  ].

This is what the IOM say are not caused by vaccines:-

• Guillain-Barre Syndrome
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Chronic Inflammatory Disseminated Polyneuropathy
• Asthma Exacerbation
• Autism
• Lupus
• Type-1 diabetes
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Autoimmune hepatitis
• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
• Fibromyalgia
• Meningitis
• Myocardial Infarction
• Infantile spasms
• Optic neuritis
• Bell’s Palsy
• Arthropathy
• Encephalopathy
• Transverse myelitis
• Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

The IOM admits it did not consider the “benefits” of vaccines

We were not charged with assessing the benefits of vaccines, with weighing benefits and costs, or with deciding how, when, and to whom vaccines should be administered. The committee was not charged with making vaccine policy,” says Ellen Wright Clayton of the Chair Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines.

The report says:

The 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine is covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, and evidence about its safety is not covered in this report.”

The IoM admits it did not have accurate data

In the introduction to the report, the IoM admits it doesn’t have enough data to accurately assess the totality of vaccine adverse reactions.

…we learned some lessons that may be of value for future efforts to evaluate vaccine safety. One is that some issues simply cannot be resolved with currently available epidemiologic data…”

The IoM effectively admits that many vaccine side effects are blamed on the “natural infection.”

Some adverse events caused by vaccines are also caused by the natural infection. These effects often cannot be detected by epidemiologic methods, which typically cannot distinguish between the adverse events that are caused by the vaccine itself and the decrease in adverse events due to the decreased rate of natural infection.”

The IoM admits it threw out all data covering long-term adverse events

All the conclusions of the IoM are based on short-term adverse reactions from single vaccines. The IoM’s report did not consider long-term adverse reactions or the cumulative effects of multiple vaccines compromising the immune system or nervous system.

The IoM admits:

Case descriptions that did not have the three basic elements described above were not considered in the mechanistic weight-of-evidence assessments.”

One of those three elements was a “specified and reasonable time interval (i.e., temporality or latency) between vaccination and symptoms.” But the IoM failed to define this “temporality” stating that “What constitutes reasonable latency will vary across vaccines and across adverse events.“

The Institute of Medicine

The IoM declared Agent Orange was safe for U.S. veterans who fought in Vietnam.

The IoM  was directly involved in the unlawful medical experiments conducted on Guatemalan prisoners, a “dark chapter” of conventional medical history that came to light in late 2010.

When these experiments became known President Obama was forced to issue a public apology and organize an investigation.  He appointed the Institute of Medicine to lead the investigation.

But the IoM had to recuse itself, admitting that some of its own people conducted the illegal medical experiments. The Guatemalan medical experiments were a U.S. government funded operation conducted under the NIH.  The IoM has strong financial ties to the government, receiving as much as 64.9% of its funding from government sources (details on that to be published on NaturalNews shortly).

This was all admitted in a published paper called “U.S. reviews human trial participant protections.” (The Lancet, Volume 376, Issue 9757, Pages 1975 – 1976, Dec. 11, 2010).

This paper declares, “In a sign of just how thoroughly enmeshed in medical establishment approval the Guatemala study was, the IoM had to decline the assignment, citing “overlapping appointments” in the 1940s between individuals on an IoM subcommittee and the NIH Study Section on Syphilis. The fact-finding task has now been transferred to the bioethics committee.”

The IOM is an organization that promotes nutritional deficiencies, ignores the science on disease prevention with nutrition, and that was so involved in the illegal, government-run medical experiments on Guatemalan prisoners that it had to remove itself from the bioethics investigative committee appointed to investigate the matter.

The IoM is also largely funded by both military government interests (including funds from the Department of Defense, which we will explain later), pharmaceutical interests (it takes money from all the top Big Pharma companies) and top global elitists like Bill Gates who are openly calling for the use of vaccines to “reduce world population by 10 to 15 percent.”

New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism

A new survey of 7724 participants shows unvaccinated children are healthier and have vastly fewer chronic conditions than the vaccinated. 

UPDATE 8 March 2012:

The survey is continually updated so we recommend you visit the source site [links below] if you want to see the updated data.  There is also a summary chart comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children for various conditions on the site on the page found here.  Today numbers in the survey are 10921 participants.

What follows is the original text of this post on 26th August 2011.

You can find the up-to-date results of illnesses and diseases in unvaccinated children here in the results of the survey.

Full details of the survey appear below with graphs.  The results are subdivided into different age groups. Information about country, gender, age, age distribution, breastfeeding, preferred treatment can be found here. 

This is excellent work from an independent source.  The survey is conducted by www.impfschaden.info and the English version www.vaccineinjury.info.  The survey is originally published here The Health of Unvaccinated Children, Survey Results.

About twenty years ago in 1992 a survey by the New Zealand Immunisation Awareness Society found also that unvaccinated children are healthier than the vaccinated: Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier.

It is interesting neither the US National Institutes of Health [US$30.5 billion annual budget on medical research] nor the US Centers for Disease Control [US$11 billion budget annually] could find the time or money to fund this kind of research but instead waste US tax dollars on a great deal of pointless medical research and promotion of iatrogenic [man made] disease causing agents [modern drug company “treatments”].  Hardly surprising then that an extraordinary 115 page review was published in June 2007 by the US Senate on the US Centers for Disease Control:-

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.”  “CDC OFF CENTER“- The United States Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, Minority Office , Under the Direction of Senator Tom Coburn, Ranking Minority Member, June 2007.

Oddly the anti-vaccine-safety lobby not only will not carry out studies of the health of unvaccinated children but they just don’t want the studies done. Which should be a strange thing because they all insist the vaccines are safe and effective.  But in the CHS article linked at the end of this paragraph we show they actively sabotage this kind of work for sport at the expense of vaccine injured children.  This shows anti-vaccine-safety blogger Dr David Gorski’s self-admitted “minions” openly boasting on his blog about sabotaging this new study.  That is a fraud by these cyber thugs and bullies on all the parents who provided genuine information and tells you all you need to know about the anti-vaccine-safety lobby.  These animals are nasty, just nasty [Text added 2nd Sept 2011 @1240 EDT & updated 20 Sept 2011 @ 06:40 EDT]:-  Unvaccinated Kids Healthier Study – Gorski & His Internet Bullies Admit Sabotage

The Health of Unvaccinated Children

Survey Results

The results of our survey with 7724 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases. Due to the fact that the majority of children in the survey are between 0 and 2 years of age and some diseases generally do not appear in this age group, the results are subdivided into different age groups (click on the graphic). Information about country, gender, age, age distribution, breastfeeding, preferred treatment can be found here.

Atopic diseases among unvaccinated children

Asthma, hay fever and neurodermatitis are seen very frequently today. A recent German study with 17461 children between 0-17 years of age (KIGGS) showed that 4.7% of these children suffer from asthma, 10.7% of these children from hay fever and 13.2% from neurodermatitis. These numbers differ in western countries, i.e. the prevalence of asthma among children in the US is 6% whereas it is 14-16% in Australia (Australia’s Health 2004, AIHW).

The prevalence of asthma among  unvaccinated children in our study is 0.2%, hay fever 1.5% and neurodermatitis 2%.

According to the KIGGS study more than 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years were sensitized against at least one allergen tested (20 common allergens were tested) and 22.9% had an allergic disease. Although we did not perform a blood test, less than 10% stated that their children had an allergy.

By clicking on the graphic you can see the age distribution of the selected diseases.

Click here to see graph in new window or to save the graph

ADS, Hyperactivity, Autism, Sleeping problems, concentration problems and migraine

ADS and Hyperactivity was only 1 and 2 %, the prevalence of ADHD in Germany is 7,9% and another 5,9% which were not yet diagnosed, but were borderline cases(KIGGS).

By clicking on the graphic you can see the age distribution of the selected diseases.

Click here to see graph in new window or to save the graph

There are also autism cases in unvaccinated children. However over 80% stated, that it is only a mild form or a high functioning form of autism. Among all participants there were 4 severe autism cases. .

Of these 4 children one tested very high for metals(mercury, aluminum, arsenic), in another case the mother was tested very high for mercury.

Otitis media, Sinusitis, Herpes, Warts, Polyps and fungal infections

KIGGS showed that 12.8% of the children in Germany had herpes and 11% suffer from otitis media (an inflammation of the middle ear). If you compare this to unvaccinated children you can see that herpes among unvaccinated children is very rare (less than 0.5%).

The prevalence of sinusitis in young children has gone up as high as 32% (Albegger KW. Banale Entzüngen der Nase und der Nasennebenhöhlen. In: Berendes J, Link JR, Zöllner F, eds. Hals, Nasen-,OhrenHeilkunde in Praxis und Klinik. Band I. Obere und untere Luftwege. Stuttgart: G Thieme Verlag, 1979: 11.1–11.32.)

In our suvey only 2% of the children have problems with sinusitis, in less than 1% it happened only once.

In young kids under the age of 3 warts are very rare. After the 3 years of age, however, the prevalence is rising. In the ages between 4 and 6 years, 5-10% of the kids have warts, in the age group 16-18, 15-20% have warts.(http://www.netdoktor.at/health_center/dermatologie/warzen.htm)

Only 3% of unvaccinated children in our survey have warts.

By clicking on the graphic you can see the age distribution of the selected diseases.

Click here to see graph in new window or to save the graph

Fine motor skill problems, dentification problems, growth pains and scoliosis

By clicking on the graphic you can see the age distribution of the selected diseases.

Click here to see graph in new window or to save the graph

Diabetes, Epilepsy and seizures, neurological and autoimmune diseases, thyroid disorders

The National Institutes of Health in the USA  states that 23.5 % Americans suffer from autoimmune disease. This is a prevalence of more than 7% of children.

Diabetes affects 0.2% of the children under 20 years of age  in the USA (National Diabetes Fact Sheet)

The KIGGS study showed prevalence of epilepsy with 3.6%, prevalence of Diabetes in Germany with 0.1% and diseases of the thyroid gland  with 1.7%.

By clicking on the graphic you can see the age distribution of the selected diseases.

Click here to see graph in new window or to save the graph

Quotes from parents about the state of health of their children

Lot of parents gave some additional information of their children. Here are some typical quotes:

“I am one of 10 children from the same mother and father.  None of us were vaccinated. Our ages are 38-59. We were all allowed to have childhood diseases to boost our immune systems. Most of our children were not vaccinated either.  Most of all none of the non-vaccinated children in our family have major illness.”

“I will put the health of my three unvaccinated children up against the health of a vaccinated child any day of the week and twice on Sunday.”

“My 3 year old child is in a 5 year old class, and is even advanced for that grade.  She has not been near as sick as a lot of her friends.  She is considered very advanced for her age.  Her two oldest siblings had both been injured by vaccinations and have been recovering for the last 6.5 years.”

“My two boys are both uncircumcised, unvaccinated, including no vitamin K shot at birth, and no PKU newborn blood screening, and no painful procedure of any kind.  I gave birth drug-free and naturally in an upright kneeling position, after walking throughout my entire labor and transition.  Both boys are extremely healthy, intelligent, kind, and beautiful.  I breastfed my older son until he turned 4 years, and I’m currently breastfeeding my 2 year old.”

“My 3 vaccinated children were sick often during their first 2 years, suffered from ear infections repeatedly for which the doctor was constantly prescribing antibiotics, which would never work on the 1st round. They’d go through 3 separate rounds of antibiotics before the infection would be gone, meanwhile they’d develop diarrhea and candida diaper rash. They got every “bug” that was going around and strep and tonsillitis on several occasions. They all have skin conditions which the doctor has diagnosed as keratosis pylaris. My unvaccinated child has never been sick beyond a slight, short-lived cold. Never had an ear infection and has no skin issues either.”

“We chose not to vaccinate for various reasons, and have never tried to create an antiseptic environment for the children. We live on a small mid-western farm and the children seldom wear shoes in the warmer months (warmer than freezing)so that is most of the time. They are subject to occasional cuts from various metals, glass, etc. and have not had any infections to speak of. Not only that, but they get bitten by various animals, cats, mice,(they’re always catching mice)garden snakes, and the like, insects of all kinds, with no adverse affects. All but the first were home-birth, all were breast fed, and none of the last 8 have ever seen a doctor, (or MacDonalds).”

“I fully vaccinated his sister. She died at age 5 mos 14 days after suffering many symptoms of mercury poisoning including eczema, milk allergy and hypo tonic-hyporesponsive episodes as well as dilated pupils. Her death was labeled “SIDS”. I know it was vaccine induced. I also suffered a severe reaction to smallpox vaccine and have other family history of severe vaccine reactions. My unvaxed son has never needed an antibiotic, never had an ear infection, and has not seen a doctor since he was 2 and that was for an eye issue that resolved itself.”

“He has never had an ear infection or serious illness that required medication and he turned 2 in Dec 2010.  Vaccinated kids I know, including my 8 year old, were always sick.  Croup, eczema, RSV, Scarlet fever, strep, roseola, thrush, ashthma, food allergies, other allergies, and most of all ear infection after ear infection.  Comparing my daughter’s health records she was on antibiotics over 14 times her first 2 years of life.  She was SOOO sick all the time…doc said it was normal and compared to friends kids it was.  Everyone had sick kids ALL the time.  It is considered normal in kids under 3. She was not in daycare…so that argument of picking it up at daycare does not work.  I could not take her anywhere of she was sick.  Even pneumonia!

“Amazed at the overall health compared to all the kids her age, she gets the same cold/flu and has extremely mild symptoms compared to the other kids who are experiencing severe infections resulting in urgent care visits and prescriptions. All of the milestones were met early is able to read words before 2 1/2 years of age.”

“My father is a MD and when time came for my daughter vaccination he asked me for the schedule and after reading it recommended to me not to do it.I myself when kid, was asthmatic and my dad was worried about the effects of the vaccines on her. She is a super healthy teen, never has been on antibiotic, resists all flu season without a problem and her immune system is super strong. Her brother is just the same”

HERE ARE FURTHER DETAILED RESULTS

Click Graphs to Open Larger View in New Window

Survey Autism ADD Hyperactivity migraine sleep disorders in unvaccinated children

Sleep problems, extreme crying, ADHD, autism, migraines, concentration and sleep problems in unvaccinated children

The graphics below show the age distribution of the selected diseases. In the case of a missing bar chart, this means that there are no affected persons in this age group.

Survey Atopy in unvaccinated children

Atopy in unvaccinated children

The graphics below show the age distribution of the selected diseases. In the case of a missing bar chart, this means that there are no affected persons in this age group.

Survey Otitis sinusitis polyps herpes warts and dermatophytes in unvaccinated children

Otitis, sinusitis, polyps, herpes, warts and dermatophytes in unvaccinated children

The graphics below show the age distribution of the selected diseases. In the case of a missing bar chart, this means that there are no affected persons in this age group.

Survey Fine motor skill problems growth pains and disturbances dentification problems and Scoliosis in unvaccinated children

Fine motor skin problems, growth pains and disturbances, dentification problems and Scoliosis in unvaccinated children

The graphics below show the age distribution of the selected diseases. In the case of a missing bar chart, this means that there are no affected persons in this age group.

Survey Diabetes epilepsy neurological autoimmune and thyroid disorders in unvaccinated children

Diabetes, epilepsy(and non epileptic seizures), neurological, autoimmune  and thyroid disorders in unvaccinated children

The graphics below show the age distribution of the selected diseases. In the case of a missing bar chart, this means that there are no affected persons in this age group.

Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988

In case you come up against the argument that the increase in autistic cases is only because the diagnostic criteria were broadened in the early 1990’s [in DSM IV] here is information published in the Journal of the Israeli Medical Association which you can use to show a benchmark was established for the position pre 1989 using the very same modern criteria claimed by some diehards to be solely responsible for  the increase: Time Trends In Autism IMAJ Nov 2010:12,711. 

The particularly shocking aspect is that the Paternal Age paper cited below shows that conditions like Asperger’s syndrome practically did not exist pre 1989 such that predominantly all the cases were of autism.  It has pretty much sprung from nowhere to be the front runner.

QUICK SUMMARY:

Baird UK – 1 in 86 – CHILDREN [figures for 2006 – children born two year period 1995-6]

Baron Cohen UK – 1 in 64 – CHILDREN when yet to be diagnosed are accounted for [figures for schoolchildren 2005]

Reichenberg, Israel – 1 in 1190 – CHILDREN with childhood autism and next to no Asperger cases [figures in 2005 – for 17 year old conscripts for Israeli military all born in 6 year period ending 1988].

Brugha UK – 1 in 100 – ADULTS [figures collected in 2007]

[The latter is not a particularly inspiring piece of work.  Brugha did not find a single adult with childhood autism, nor did he refer to Baird or Baron Cohen but baldly claimed for comparison a childhood figure of 1 in 100, and he changed the standard diagnostic criteria to catch adults who would not normally have a diagnosis.  Of the 14,000 potential participants there was a 50% drop out rate with 7000 responding to the original telephone survey.  The survey looked for adults with one of four mental illnesses.  The only autistic condition was Asperger syndrome but Brugha et al now claim to be able to give a global figure for all autistic conditions which is of course impossible.  Whilst having research ethics approval the study was not carried out according to accepted ethical standards.  Informed consent was not obtained.  Participants were misled as to the purpose of the survey.  They were not told they were being assessed to ascertain if they were mentally ill.  A financial inducement to take part of a shopping voucher was offered – aside from ethical issues that would tend to encourage those of lower incomes to participate and invalidate the study.  Mentally ill people are more likely to be of lower income if their ability to earn a living is impaired.]

_________________________

And of course one must not forget the information found in this CHS post Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines Posted on June 30, 2010. 

And especially not this information in this PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”

Nor should the information in this CHS post be overlooked: Autism Increase Environmental Not Genetic – Says New Director of USA’s $30.5 Billion Health Research Budget

People who use the argument that there is no real increase in autism start out usually by using incorrect terminology.  They speak of “higher functioning autism” like Asperger syndrome.  It is a common mistake [or done deliberately].

“Autism” refers to what is known variously as “typical”, “Kanner”, “childhood” “classic” or “infantile” autism and that is the benchmark. Not the “higher functioning” kind others try to lump in with it like Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism makes up around 30% of UK autistic spectrum cases and Aspergers around 70%.

So if you stick to autism the paper Reichenberg et al “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1026-1032 helpfully demonstrates this.  It shows real increases in autism by establishing a benchmark for comparing mid 1980’s autism prevalence with mid 1990’s. This was done using contemporary diagnostic criteria under DSM IV. So that helpfully eliminates the argument that modern criteria are wider and so the increase is not simply a matter of definition but real.

The Paternal Age study’s PDD prevalence is 8.4:10,000 in 132,000 Israeli citizens born during six years ending no later than 1988. The authors say most of the diagnoses are autism.  “PDD”or “Pervasive Developmental Disorder” under DSM IV is another term for Autistic Spectrum Disorder under the International Classification of Disease [ICD].

And we can compare that prevalence to papers like Baird 2006 [Baird G, Simonoff E, Pickles A, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, Charman T. Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP). Lancet. 2006:15;368:210-215.]

Baird 2006’s range of figures concern 56,946 UK children aged 9-10 years born in a two year period ending no later than 1996 and for autism provides two estimates:-

• – 24.8:10,000 (17.6-32.0) for narrow definition autism
• – 38.9:10,000 (95% CI 29.9-47.8) for autism

Baird 2006 provides estimates of a 116.1:10,000 (90.4-141.8) for the total PDD figure [autism, Aspergers etc] and 77.2:10,000 (52.1-102.3) excluding autism.

Baird 2006’s narrow definition figure is the most conservative. It meets autism criteria under DSM IV/ICD10, but also on both ADI and ADOS plus clinical judgement.

These two papers in combination assist to establish a conservative minimum 300% increase in 8 years 1988 to 1996 on Baird 2006’s narrow definition and 450% for autism. For all PDDs, these papers suggest a 1200% increase. Baird 2006 provides estimates of a 116.1:10,000 (90.4-141.8) total PDD figure and 77.2:10,000 (52.1-102.3) excluding autism against the Paternal Age paper’s figures.

Also the Reichenberg paper demonstrates how modern medical professionals go to peripheral issues thereby burying the bigger issue.  The authors focussed on just 3% of fathers in their study [diverting from the more interesting finding noted above] to claim on somewhat shaky data that fathers over 40 are more likely to father an autisitic child. The confidence interval was wide [95% confidence interval, 2.65-12.46]

The problem for them is that these numbers cannot account for the scale of the increase in children born after 1988 which is what papers like Baird 2006 deal with. And it also cannot account for the Cambridge University study that found a rate of 1:64 for all autistic spectrum cases [157 per 10 000] when yet to be undiagnosed cases were included.  This means 1 in 40 boys as 4 in 5 ASC cases are boys.  Baron-Cohen S et al Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study. Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Jun;194(6):500-9.

Three New Studies Show “Psychiatric Drugs Provide No Benefit and Are Dangerous”

Three new published studies [one a pharmaco-genetic study is groundbreaking] confirm that widely prescribed psychotropic drugs that pose serious risks of harm, offer no therapeutic benefit.

The following article is republished from The Alliance for Human Research Protection, non-profit charity, New York USA – infomail  11th August 2011.  [For more factual debunking information on psychiatric drugs which the drug industry does not advertise and presented with humour see also THE BONKERS INSTITUTE FOR NEARLY GENUINE RESEARCH].

For two decades, medical professionals, the public, and public health policy officials who determine the allocation of public funds for healthcare, have been misled about the safety and benefits of psychiatric drugs–in particular, the newer, expensive drugs, the so-called SSRI antidepressants, and the new neuroleptics, marketed as ‘atypical antipsychotics’.

Pharmaceutical industry marketing hype, deceptively packaged as “scientific study findings,” gained the appearance of legitimacy when they were accepted by the FDA for licensure, and accepted for publication in medical journals. Those reported “findings” were fraudulent, concocted and aggressively disseminated by manufacturers of these drugs.

The deception has seriously undermined the integrity of the scientific literature, and misled physicians who unwittingly prescribe hazardous drugs causing patients irreparable harm.

Thanks to years of litigation during which company documents have been uncovered, the truth has been revealed. We now know that SSRI antidepressants and the ‘atypical’ antipsychotics have failed decisively to demonstrate therapeutic benefits in clinical trials and in clinical practice Instead, these drugs have triggered debilitating, chronic illness and even life-threatening risks: antidepressants increase the suicide risk and trigger serotonin syndrome, which is potentially fatal. Antipsychotics undermine normal metabolic, cardiovascular, hormonal function, resulting in cardiac arrest, obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes.

1. A groundbreaking pharmaco-genetic study by Australian psychopharmacology experts–Dr. Yolande Lucire, a forensic psychiatrist, and Christopher Crotty, a pharmacogeneticist–report in the peer reviewed journal, Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, (abstract below) an alarming finding. They report a significant association among genetic variants, metabolism of psychiatric drugs, and severe, homicidal akathisia.

http://www.dovepress.com/antidepressant-induced-akathisia-related-homicides-associated-with-dim-a7993

The authors examined the relationship between genetic variants in the CYP450 family, the interaction of antidepressant-induced akathisia, and violence, including homicide in 129 forensic patients who had referred to Dr. Lucire by lawyers.

Of 138 persons tested for CYP450 genes, 129 had experienced adverse events, “mainly akathisia, due to psychiatric drugs, and nine were first degree relatives of those treated who also had a history of adversity on other drugs.”

Of the 129 persons who experienced drug-induced adverse effects, 8 had committed homicide, 3 had committed suicide, and one had sleepwalked to her death.

The authors report that:

In all of the cases presented here, the subjects were prescribed antidepressants that failed to mitigate distress emerging from their predicaments, which encompassed psychosocial stressors such as bereavement, marital and relationship difficulties, and work-related stress. Every subject’s emotional reaction worsened while their prescribing physicians continued the “trial and error” approach, increasing from standard to higher dose and/or switching to other antidepressants, with disastrous consequences. In some cases the violence ensued from changes occasioned by withdrawal and polypharmacy.

In all of these cases, the subjects were put into a state of drug induced toxicity manifesting as akathisia, which resolved only upon discontinuation of the antidepressant drugs.

This paper has detailed and substantiated in specific terms how the metabolism of each of the antidepressant drugs used by the subjects would have been seriously impaired both before and at the time they committed or attempted homicide. They were experiencing severe reported side effects, adverse drug reactions due to impaired metabolism complicated by drug–drug interactions against a background of variant CYP450 alleles.”

The authors state:

The results presented here concerning a sample of persons given antidepressants for psychosocial distress demonstrate the extent to which the psychopharmacology industry has expanded its influence beyond its ability to cure. The roles of both regulatory agencies and drug safety “pharmacovigilantes” in ensuring quality and transparency of industry information is highlighted.”

Two other recently published studies, one in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the other in the Journal of the American Medical Association, also debunk the validity of psychiatry’s prescribing practices whose rationale is mostly commercially propagated.

2. The authors of the BMJ report, “Antidepressant Use and Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Older People: Population Based Cohort Study” analyzed data for 60,746 persons in the UK who were over 65 and diagnosed with depression between 1996 and 2007. The authors followed the subjects until December, 2008. found that those prescribed SSRI antidepressants are at increased risk of death and heart attack, stroke, falls and seizures than those who were prescribed the older, cheaper, tricyclic antidepressants.

During those 10 years, patients not taking any antidepressants had a 7% risk of dying from any cause. But the risk rose to 8.1% for those taking the older antidepressants and increased to 10.6% for patients prescribed SSRIs.

All classes of antidepressant drug were associated with significantly increased risks of all cause mortality, attempted suicide/self harm, falls, fractures, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding compared with when these drugs were not being used. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the group of other antidepressant drugs were associated with increased risks of stroke/transient ischaemic attack and epilepsy/seizures; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were also associated with increased risks of myocardial infarction and hyponatraemia.”

3. According to government data, 10% to 20% of soldiers who see heavy combat develop lasting symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and about a fifth of those who are treated are prescribed an antipsychotic drug. The JAMA report, by prominent psychiatrists on the faculty of Yale University, examines the treatment outcome for veterans suffering from PTSD, whose treatment with SSRI antidepressants failed, who were then prescribed antipsychotics. See, “Adjunctive Risperidone Treatment for Antidepressant-Resistant Symptoms of Chronic Military Service–Related PTSD A Randomized Trial”

The finding:

after six months of treatment, the veterans who were prescribed Risperdal were doing no better than a similar group of 124 veterans, who were given a placebo. About 5% in both groups recovered, and 10% to 20% reported at least some improvement, based on standardized measures.

We didn’t find any suggestion that the drug treatment was having an overall benefit on their lives,” said Dr. John H. Krystal, the director of the clinical neurosciences division of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Center for PTSD and the lead author of the study.

The New York Times reports:

The surprising finding, from the largest study of its kind in veterans, challenges current treatment standards so directly that it could alter practice soon, some experts said.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Charles Hoge, a senior scientist at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, who was not involved in the study, stated:

I think it’s a very important study given how frequently the drugs have been prescribed. It definitely calls into question the use of antipsychotics in general for PTSD.”

Although the study focused on one antipsychotic, Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal, experts agree that the results most likely extend to the entire class, including the drugs, Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify.

These three reports are the latest in a string of scientific reports, untainted by industry influence, that examined the evidence and found that current psychiatric drug prescribing practices are of little, if any, therapeutic value. But since the drugs pose serious risks of harm by triggering drug-induced (iatrogenic) illness–which significantly increases healthcare costs–why does the U.S. government waste billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their cost?

Read more…. http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/831/9/

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
[001] 212-595-8974

UK Guardian Newspaper Caught Falsifying the Historical Record of Vaccine-Caused-Autism

In a first for journalism, the UK’s Guardian national daily newspaper has been caught falsifying their own newspaper’s public record in a bid to airbrush the facts about vaccine-caused-autism.  Whilst some other media outlets have adopted the approach of ignoring the evidence and writing and broadcasting one-sided reports, this time The Guardian newspaper has been caught changing it.  The Guardian removed the evidence – gone without a trace – from their online newspaper.

Like many other papers, The Guardian allows readers to post comments on articles published in their online version.  On Saturday 6 August 2011 the paper published a commentary by Tracy McVeigh “Research linking autism to internet use is criticised“.  This was about a public row over claims by Lady Susan Greenfield that there is a link between the increase in autism and the increase in the use of the internet.  Greenfield is a medical academic and researcher on brain physiology, particularly on Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases.

Inevitably this attracted debate between commenters about the causes of autistic conditions.

The surprising part is what The Guardian did in response to postings of clear evidence of an admitted link between vaccines and autistic conditions.  They obliterated the posts as if they had never been made on their newspaper’s site.  There is no trace of the posts to be found.  They are just gone, barring a trace for one of them only – the first to be removed.  There was no justification for this and none has so far been provided despite having been requested.  The posts met the “Community Standards” whereas in contrast offensive comments from anti-vaccine safety campaigners are not removed.

The importance of this of course is that it underlines the points that:-

• news media are intentionally covering up the public disaster where 1 in 64 British children [1 in 40 being British boys] have an autistic condition and 1 in 100 US children do also;

• when they should instead report such a terrible thing fairly and campaign to do something about stopping this happening;

• the evidence presented is so strong that a UK national newspaper cannot answer it and airbrushes it from its online pages.

What happened was that in response to numerous comments claiming vaccines are not implicated in causing autistic conditions CHS intervened.  CHS posted publicly made quotes and links to evidence confirming numerous US government agencies and officials have confirmed vaccines do cause autistic conditions.  These include:

• Merck’s current Director of Vaccines Julie Gerberding when she was Director of the US Centers for Disease Control;

• the US Health Resources Services Administration;
  

• the US Federal Court;
  

• the US Secretary of State for Health and Human Services.

The evidence and posts appear below in full.  These include posts noting the financial ties between the Guardian newspaper and medical publishers with undeclared substantial conflicting financial and business interests in the pharmaceutical industry.

In all four posts were removed.  Three without trace and one was removed with the incorrect claim left in its place that “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards.“

If you want to make a difference then do something and write to the Guardian “Readers’ Editor” Nigel Willmott (nigel.willmott@guardian.co.uk) and ask him to tell you what The Guardian and its Board have to say about this and what they think their journalists should do if they caught another newspaper or broadcaster rewriting and publishing an adulterated history or engaging in misconduct.

______________________________________

THE FIRST POST REMOVED WITHOUT TRACE

ChildHealthSafety

8 August 2011 7:46AM

Here is a public opportunity to see The Guardian’s censorship of facts and evidence in action. The following facts are publicly documented yet The Guardian’s Comment is Free [LOL] censors removed it in its entiretly to airbrush the unpalatable facts from their agenda journalism. There was and could be no contravention of any Guardian “Community Standards” [well not official ones that is – only the ones that say the Guardian only publishes facts which fit its political agenda journalism and removes all others.

Tracey McVeigh’s article on Lady Susan Greenfield’s public unscientific comments about the causes of autistic conditions has provoked comment about the causes of autistic conditions.

In response to various comments we posted quotes from numerous US government officials and agencies with links to original sources on what causes autistic conditions. The Guardian censors removed the posting. There is no conspiracy theory here – only documented fact – and The Guardian does this kind of thing repeatedly.

This posting was made 7 August 2011 11:14AM and you can check out above that it was removed.

Floost 7 August 2011 9:49AM

I think arec pretty much nailed it ….. given ageofautism’s dangerous views on vaccination, I think you got off lightly.

So how about the views of 1) Merck’s current Director of Vaccines Julie Gerberding when she was Director of the US Centers for Disease Control 2) the US Health Resources Services Administration 3) the US Federal Court? 4) the US Secretary of State for Health and Human Services?

All have confirmed autistic conditions can be caused by vaccines.

GERBERDING:

“.. if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

CNN – HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism Aired March 29, 2008 08:30 ET

US HRSA:

[when confirming of the 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in secret settlements]:-

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

US HRSA to reporter Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News 5th May 2008

US FEDERAL COURT
[PDD is the US term under DSM IV for ASD – Autistic Spectrum Disorder]:

“…… Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. …… Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

[Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007).

US SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES:-

The Department for Health and Human Services conceded the Hannah Poling case – that Hannah’s autistic condition was caused by 9 vaccines [ie. not just the MMR] administered in one day. Last year the US Federal Court determined a settlement which reportedly amounts to US $ 20 million over Hannah Poling’s lifetime:

Court Awards Over $20 Million for Vaccine-Caused Autism PR Newswire (press release) – Sep 15, 2010

Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award CBS News September 9, 2010

“Settlement reached in autism-vaccine case” September 10, 2010 By Carrie Teegardin The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

THE SECOND POST REMOVED WITHOUT TRACE

ChildHealthSafety

8 August 2011 9:20AM

In our post above noting direct censorship of public facts by The Guardian perhaps we should have added “Follow the Money”.

GUARDIAN & BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Guardian partners with British Medical Journal Group for online first Tuesday 3 March 2009 00.00 GMT

“Derrick Malone, Guardian Product Manager said: “People naturally turn to the Internet when researching health issues and we were keen to provide our users with factual information they could trust to complement our extensive features on health issues. The pages were developed entirely in house by the GNM technology team in collaboration with BMJ Group.”

Rachel Armitage, Director, BMJ Evidence Centre said: “We’re pleased to partner with the Guardian and bring our knowledge to a wider audience. The information is based on our ‘Clinical Evidence’ product, which provides doctors with access to the very latest and most relevant medical knowledge and is used to make treatment decisions.”

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL & DRUG INDUSTRY
The Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal was forced to make an embarrassing correction regarding the BMJ’s own failures to disclose its conflicting financial interests in the drug industry.

Here is the correction forced ultimately by online criticism from New York charity The Alliance for Human Research Protection:-

“The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378).

However, this also still fails to mention the most glaring conflict of all, which it all – BMJ’s business partnership with Merck through their information arm, Univadis (‘MSD signs partnership with BMJ group’).

THE THIRD POST REMOVED WITHOUT TRACE

ChildHealthSafety

9 August 2011 8:45AM

Artros @ 8 August 2011 9:32PM

Between the Internet, vaccines and dental amalgams, I think I’ve seen it all. Come on, man, vaccines? That’s like saying “influenza causes autism.”

Comments like this have been answered with quotes posted by us [with links to original publicly documented sources] but The Guardian removed them twice despite being in accordance with “Community Standards”. The second time there is no trace whatsoever of the original posting – The Guardian’s Comment is Free [LOL] removed it in its entiretly. This is an example of a national news media outlet using censorship to rewrite history and airbrushing facts from the record which directly contradict their strongly held personal beliefs.

The quotes were from 1) Merck’s current Director of Vaccines Julie Gerberding when she was Director of the US Centers for Disease Control 2) the US Health Resources Services Administration 3) the US Federal Court? 4) the US Secretary of State for Health and Human Services? All have confirmed autistic conditions can be caused by vaccines.

The second posting [8 August 2011 7:46AM] was removed with no trace of it ever having existed, whereas the position of the first posting can still be seen [7 August 2011 11:14AM].

We also added a posting [8 August 2011 9:20AM] with links to original sources showing the commercial and financial partnerships deals between The Guardian and The British Medical Journal and The British Medical Journal and the drug industry. That posting was removed without trace – no footprints, no traces, just gone.

So two of the three comments are gone and one has the following claiming without any truth that:

“This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards.”

Frankly, normal sensible intelligent people may find such behaviour of The Guardian a little troubling.

If these comments were removed without trace, how much of what The Guardian publishes online is a moving target – being removed, deleted, altered and/or added to in order to write history according to what the Guardian wants it to be instead of what it is? Very Pravda.

And “Community Standards”? Please, no laughter at the back of class:-

10. The platform is ours, but the conversation belongs to everybody. We want this to be a welcoming space for intelligent discussion, and we expect participants to help us achieve this by notifying us of potential problems and helping each other to keep conversations inviting and appropriate. If you spot something problematic in community interaction areas, please report it. When we all take responsibility for maintaining an appropriate and constructive environment, the debate itself is improved and everyone benefits.

In short:

– If you act with maturity and consideration for other users, you should have no problems.

British journalism at its finest and no Rupert Murdoch to blame it on.

Andrew Wakefield On Jon Rappoport Show – Listen on mp3

The Jon Rappoport Show – 27 July 2011

Jon interviews world-famous Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was stripped of his medical license for suggesting that vaccines could do harm. What forces are aligned against him?

Including the Murdoch, News Corporation, News International & British Medical Journal connections.

Download this episode (right click and save)

Podcast Powered By Podbean

British Medical Journal Fraud Allegations – Truth Laid Bare – Summary Re Autism & Dr Wakefield

For those familiar with the British Medical Journal’s allegations of fraud against Dr Andrew Wakefield, here is a summary of the main points for reference and assistance to cut it down to easily manageable proportions.

For those not familar, read these CHS posts for background and detail:-

The BIG Lie – Wakefield Lancet Paper Alleged Fraud – Was Not Possible For Anyone To Commit

The BIG Lie II – British Medical Journal Caught Out – Wakefield Fraud Allegations Based On Incorrect Information

Summary of British Medical Journal/Wakefield Fraud Allegations – Truth Laid Bare

Contrary to the key aspect of the BMJ Editors’ allegations that Andrew Wakefield changed prior medical histories of the children to fabricate a new finding of developmental disorders related to bowel conditions in children, Wakefield did not originate the data reported in the 1998 Lancet paper.

To allege fraud requires a comparison between the information originated by the clinicians and what the Lancet paper says.

The BMJ and their commissioned author Mr Deer did not do that.

They also changed what the paper was reporting to fit what they wanted it to say to allege fraud.

They cherry-picked information from family doctor records and the GMC hearings to allege there were discrepancies.

The Lancet paper explicitly reports on

12 children … with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain”.

Deer and the BMJ changed this to reporting 12 children:

• 1) with autism, who regressed,
  
• 2) had “non-specific colitis”; and,
  
• 3) whose symptoms of autism were first indicated within 14 days of the MMR vaccine.

But the Lancet paper was not reporting that. So what Deer and the BMJ did was to 1) select data 2) which would not match what they claimed the Lancet paper reported.

For example:

• 1) only 9 of the 12 were diagnosed with an autistic condition;
  
• 2) most had non specific colitis [11/12] but not all;
  
• 3) most regressed but the first indications of a behavioural change were not documented for all so the paper could clearly not report first signs of behavioural changes occurring within 14 days.

The BMJ Editors and their author Brian Deer also did not have important information, such as the final assessments of the bowel conditions of the 12 children investigated within the Royal Free by the clinicians – not Wakefield – showing most diagnosed with non specific colitis [11/12].  So the numbers of children with diagnoses which BMJ/Deer reported were wrong.

Nor did they have the “Personal Child Health Records” documenting whether a child is developing within the “normal range” of development or not.

These aspects of information not available in the GMC proceedings were dealt  with and mentioned in the GMC transcripts but Deer and BMJ seem to have “overlooked” them.

The 1998 Lancet paper was drafted by Dr Wakefield but it reported the findings of the 12 expert specialist Royal Free Hospital clinicians. The various versions were circulated to the other 12 authors for comment, amendment and approval.  Wakefield was a researcher and not an investigating clinician.

In particular, the medical histories of the 12 children reported in the paper were taken by Professor John Walker-Smith of The Royal Free Hospital, London, England.  The diagnoses of bowel conditions of the 12 children were made by Dr Dhillon, with consideration and comment by his colleagues.  The diagnoses of autistic and other conditions in 8 children were made by Dr Berlowitz and in 4 cases by independent external medical experts not connected with The Royal Free Hospital.

The BMJ engaged in blatant cherry-picking. 

• One month before her MMR vaccine Child 8 was recorded by an independent specialist developmental pediatrician [unconnected with The Royal Free Hospital] as within the normal range of development aged 18 months.  One month after the MMR vaccine, aged 20 months, the same pediatrician records she was functioning at the age of 12 months.  She regressed 8 months in the space of 1 month following the MMR vaccine.
  

• Child 1’s mother reported he was having trouble hearing before MMR.  The BMJ and their author Brian Deer claim this was a sign of autism.  The family doctor however recorded Child 1 had a discharge from his ear, indicating an ear infection.  How did the BMJ and their peer reviewers failed to notice that?  Or was it they did not care as long as they could accuse Andrew Wakefield of fraud?

Bizarrely, to cover up the failure over the Personal Child Health Records the BMJ’s author Deer claimed only a negligent doctor would refer to them and scathingly referred to them as “baby books”. The fact is he had never seen them. More importantly, it is clear they these “experts”, he and the BMJ, did not know these are “prospective developmental records” and were cited specifically in the 1998 Lancet paper as a source of information for clinical and developmental histories reported.  But still thought themselves “expert” enough to allege fraud against Andrew Wakefield.

The PCHR is an 81 page book issued by the NHS to every UK parent of a newborn child to capture information up to the age of 5 years recorded by health visitors, midwives, nurses, doctors and parents to ensure the health and normal development of children in the UK.  It is the obvious place of first reference when checking a developmental history.  Neither Deer nor the BMJ even noticed the omission.

And that is how you end up with a Table like this to claim the children did not have the symptoms the BMJ claimed incorrectly that the Lancet paper said they had [published in the BMJ, January 6. 2011 – Click on image to open in new window]:-

BMJ & Its Editors’ Failures to Declare Conflicting Drug Industry & Vaccine Manufacturer Financial Interests.

The BMJ Editors’ subsequent Conflict of Interest correction was no ordinary matter – they failed to disclose material conflicting interests, it involved three senior editors of the BMJ and it relates to amongst other matters, ongoing business and financial partnerships between the BMJ and the pharmaceutical industry.

The correction was forced finally by explicit criticism posted in the BMJ electronic responses from the US New York based charity the Alliance for Human Research Protection [AHRP].  This was in addition to public outcry in a deluge of emails from parents of children with autistic conditions in the USA and elsewhere.

It should have gone further.  A clear statement should have been made in the next available journal to follow and it should be presented in every printed edition and on the home page of the online edition for every edition.

They tried to minimise their very serious error by some circumspect reasoning described by AHRP as “startling”.  The BMJ editors claimed “We didn’t declare these competing interests because it didn’t occur to us to do so“. Mildly put that shows that editorial diligence and forethought was lacking.

That in itself should have been enough to retract the journal articles … that was their contention with Andrew Wakefield.

Couple that with witness and institutional conflicts of interest not revealed or elaborated to the general public and the possible ethical breaches of patient confidentiality then one wonders how this still remains in the public arena.

What Does This Mean For You, Your Children, Your Family, British Doctors And The Wider Medical Professions

You cannot trust your doctor and you cannot believe him or her.  When you visit your doctor he or she is part of this.  He or she is sitting back and letting this go on under his or her nose without complaining – keeping silent – saying nothing.  He or she is the person prescribing for you and your children and families drug industry products which kill and injure because they have not been tested properly like Vioxx and vaccines and/or because they are useless, but he or she is happy to enjoy the money earned doing that.  He or she is the person who gets your private medical information but you cannot trust them with it because he or she sits back and does nothing when children’s medical records are illegally disclosed and used by a journalist who then writes about them in the British Medical Journal.

He or she is a member of The British Medical Association, the doctors’ trades union, or one like it outside the UK.

The BMA is a symbol of our morally and politically sick society.

The BMA sits back and takes the substantial profits of wrongdoing from its own journal, the British Medical Journal.  The BMA’s official line is that it does not control the running of the BMJ and its stable of other journals and pretends to the public and patients it can do nothing about it.  The BMA is a politically powerful organisation with the British government but pretends it cannot control its own house journal mailed every week to all of its members.  But if the BMA cannot control its own house journal, guess who can exercise control over the BMA?  Yep, BMJ Editor-in-Chief Dr Fiona Godlee is a Chief Officer of the BMA: [BMA Chief Officers]. Her name appears first on the BMJ Editorial falsely accusing Dr Andrew Wakefield of fraud.

Over and above all that, the BMA is a trades union.  It does not represent you or your children or your wider family when it comes to health.  It is there to get and keep money in the pockets of its members, and it looks like when it comes to the BMJ and the drug industry, it really does not care how it does that.

And when the BMA makes public statements on health matters and lobbies the British government for what it wants, you can be sure that is not done with you the patient, your children and family in mind, even if that is claimed to be the case.

The current Chairman of the BMA is Professor David Haslam and the Chairman of The BMA Council is Dr Hamish Meldrum: BMA Chief Officers.

Dr Meldrum’s résumé says:

… he is keen to ensure that both the organisation and the profession are well prepared to meet the challenges of ensuring that doctors are supported and fairly rewarded in delivering the highest possible quality care to their patients and that the NHS remains true to its founding values and principles in an increasingly complex environment.

His interests, outside medicine and medical politics, when he has time, include sport (watching lots and participating in keep fit, tennis, swimming and dormant golf), hill-walking, photography, music (quite varied tastes), cooking (also varied tastes) and wine.

It does not say anything about maintaining the reputation of the British medical profession for high standards of ethics and probity. Enjoy your “dormant golf” Dr Meldrum.  With all those outside sporting interests Dr Meldrum’s time is clearly taken up with a lot of balls.  With so many in the air, has he dropped the BMJ’s?

US GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

Toxins from genetically modified crops are finding their way into over 9 in every ten babies new research reveals.  Read this UK news story for more:-

US GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies – UK’s Daily Mail national newspaper – By Sean Poulter 20th May 2011

Read the full paper here:-

Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada

A. Aris, S.Leblanc Journal of ReproductiveToxicology xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Here is the abstract:-

Reprod Toxicol. 2011 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print]

Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.

Aris A, Leblanc S.

Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Clinical Research Centre of Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

Abstract

Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.

Scientists and Drug Companies Scheme to Avoid FDA Scrutiny and Exploit US Vaccine Programme Immunity Against the Public Interest

From Age of Autism

Just eight days after the Supreme Court of the United States ruling granting vaccine manufacturers virtual immunity over prosecution ( Bruesewitz v. Wyeth) , scientists and company representatives met at a congress in Baltimore to “Understand the Changes in the National Vaccine Plan to Maximize Government Sponsored Funding and Avoid FDA Scrutiny”. The “workshop” which took place on 2 March 2011 was the first event in a Vaccine Business Congress held under the auspices of the Institute for International Research USA . Amongst the many participants at the congress were representatives of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Roche, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the National Cancer Institute (NIH) (IIRUSA Welcome , IIRUSA Agenda ).

Despite frequent bleating from industry apologists that vaccine manufacturers do not make money the pre publicity for the event showed the industry in rampant mood. The on-line brochure states:

“VACCINES are the continuing success story, earning over $27 billion in 2009 alone, despite difficult economic times for the pharmaceutical industry. By 2012, vaccines are expected to bring in more than $35 billion in revenue.”

The brochure demonstrates the utter negligence of the US Congress, administration and courts in leaving its citizenry subjected and exposed to an industry, forced to inject its products by mandate into their children, forced to pay for them through taxation and finally to do so without any sanction against manufacturers should damage occur. Is it any surprise then that instead of regarding the manufacture of safe and effective products as a solemn ethical duty, they just turn round and brazenly discuss how to milk the contemptible system to the uttermost? Please send this article to your Congressmen and women, and ask them what they intend to do about it.

With thanks to Hilary Butler and others.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

Fox News – US Pays $ Millions In Secret To Vaccine-Caused-Autism Injured Kids

See below video of a Fox News exclusive report yesterday announcing the publication today of a new peer reviewed study containing powerful evidence that not only do vaccines cause autistic conditions but the US government has been paying out multi-million dollar settlements to the few children and their families lucky enough to have been able to prove their cases.  But unlucky enough to have had their family life and child’s life destroyed by vaccines.  STOP PRESS @16:39 BST: The paper just published can be downloaded here:  Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury, by Mary Holland, Louis Conte, Robert Krakow, and Lisa Colin

Fox reports that a Congressional Investigation is being called for.

ROBERT MACNEIL:  Autism now affects more American children than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined. In the last decade, the numbers of children diagnosed on the autism spectrum have risen rapidly. The Centers for Disease Control now puts the rate at one in 110. Amazing US News Report – Part II – US Reporter Bob MacNeil – Autism more serious for US children than cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined

The official rate for autism in the USA at 1 in 110 children [4 in 5 being a boy] vastly outstrips the hazards of infectious diseases, yet the US government and health officials worldwide continue to cover up this scandal whilst the US medical professions, American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics continue to get rich from the dollars charged to parents without warning this could take their child’s life and health away forever by giving upwards of 50 vaccines to their children in infancy.  The safety of multiple vaccines has never been studied and adverse vaccine reactions are known to be highly under reported.

It is bizarrely illegal in the USA for US parents to sue drug companies for injury to their child caused by vaccines.  US Government’s health officials deny any causal link but US tax dollars are still paid out in secret multi-million dollar settlements to parents and their injured children.  Parents are told if they talk their child could lose the compensation. 

The first case to be made public was that of Hannah Poling.  Hannah’s case was broken in February 2008 when the details were leaked to and published by US award winning New York journalist and author David Kirby.  The story was one of the top ten US news stories of 2008 and received coast to coast news coverage.

The new peer reviewed study will be published today May 10 [US time] when the Summer Edition of the PACE Environmental Law Review, is published and put online from the Pace Law School with its world-renowned environmental law faculty.

For more information by David Kirby on The Huffington Post today:
High Rates of Autism Found in Federal Vaccine Injury Program: Study Says More Answers Needed

Winter Vaccinations Increase Autism Risk – New Study From California

A new statistical study [full abstract below] from the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis shows a potential and small association in time in at best 6% of cases between between the month a child is conceived in California and the risk of developing autism.  This could indicate that winter vaccinations increase the risk of a child in California developing an autistic condition [explained below]. 

Winter conception (December through March) was associated with no more than a 6% increased risk compared with summer  (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.10): [Month of Conception and Risk of Autism Zerbo, Ousseny; Iosif, Ana-Maria; Delwiche, Lora; Walker, Cheryl; Hertz-Picciotto, Irva Epidemiology., POST AUTHOR CORRECTIONS, 3 May 2011 doi:  10.1097/EDE.0b013e31821d0b53].

These results support an hypothesis that children conceived in winter months are at greater risk of developing autistic conditions when vaccinated during winter months. 

The study authors conclude:

Conclusions: Higher risks for autism among those conceived in winter months suggest the presence of environmental causes of autism that vary by season.”

Winter conceptions result predominantly in winter vaccinations

Children conceived in winter in the USA [December to March] will receive two doses of the Hepatitis B vaccine predominantly in winter in the period August to January ie. from birth and during the following two months. [Download .pdf of US vaccine schedule].

These children will also receive another 7 vaccines predominantly during the winter months. Some of these are repeated up to 3 times.  This is in the period aged two to six months [ie. seven vaccines: RV, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV].  This corresponds to the months of October through May for prior winter conceptions.

These children will also receive another series of vaccines predominantly during the winter in the period August through April aged 12 to 18 months: HepB DTaP Hib IPV Varicella MMR PCV Influenza HepA (2 doses).

Irresponsible Headline Grabber UC Davis Medics

As at least 94% of autistic childrens’ conditions clearly have nothing whatsoever to do with the month of conception the greedy publicity seeking widely announced publication of such a paper is grossly medically and ethically irresponsible.  Will parents now seek only to conceive children during May to August, being misled by the headlines in the media?  What might be the social implications – lower rates of conceptions, strains in marriages, increased divorce rates, burdens on health professionals concentrated on birth “booms” at particular times of year?   With such a small effect it is impossible to conclude anything from such a study.  The fact the authors had to look in the records of seven million children is not a strength but a weakness.  This is a result of increasing the size of the sample population until the calculation a such small difference becames “statistically” significant when in smaller populations it may not be.  Statistical significance is not a basis upon which to decide whether there is a real-world cause and effect relationship.  

These kinds of observational statistical studies should be treated with great caution. They are at best used only to consider hypotheses for later research. They do not prove cause but only associations. They can never prove there is no causal association even if they do not find a statistical association. With such a small effect as this study – no more than 6%, whilst the statistician might calculate the results are statistically significant, other errors not accounted for may mean such a small result is of no significance. It is notable the authors did not set out provisos like these to the world’s media when this study was being publicised.

The authors from a medical school [and therefore not necessarily trained scientists] did not appear to investigate a correlation to month of vaccination, nor between northern and southern California births [seasonal temperature differences can be significant], nor between regressive autistic conditions [appearing after birth from around the time of vaccination at 12-18 months] and autistic conditions apparent from birth.

Abstract:

Month of Conception and Risk of Autism Zerbo, Ousseny; Iosif, Ana-Maria; Delwiche, Lora; Walker, Cheryl; Hertz-Picciotto, Irva Epidemiology., POST AUTHOR CORRECTIONS, 3 May 2011 doi:  10.1097/EDE.0b013e31821d0b53].

Background: Studies of season of birth or season of conception can provide clues about etiology. We investigated whether certain months or seasons of conception are associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorders, for which etiology is particularly obscure.

Methods: The study population comprises 6,604,975 children born from 1990 to 2002 in California. Autism cases (n = 19,238) were identified from 1990 through 2008 in databases of the California Department of Developmental Services, which coordinates services for people with developmental disorders. The outcome in this analysis was autism diagnosed before the child’s sixth birth date. The main independent variables were month of conception and season of conception (winter, spring, summer, and fall). Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for autism by month of conception.

Results: Children conceived in December (OR = 1.09 [95% CI = 1.02-1.17]), January (1.08 [1.00-1.17]), February (1.12 [1.04-1.20]), or March (1.16 [1.08-1.24]) had higher risk of developing autism compared with those conceived in July. Conception in the winter season (December, January, and February) was associated with a 6% (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.10) increased risk compared with summer.

Conclusions: Higher risks for autism among those conceived in winter months suggest the presence of environmental causes of autism that vary by season.

Vaccines Associated With High Infant Mortality Rates in Developed Nations

News Release For Immediate Release

Developed nations that require the most vaccines for babies tend to have the highest infant death rates

May 4, 2011 — A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a prestigious journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, found that developed nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates tend to give their infants more vaccine doses. For example, the United States requires infants to receive 26 vaccines (the most in the world) yet more than 6 U.S. infants die per every 1000 live births. In contrast, Sweden and Japan administer 12 vaccines to infants, the least amount, and report less than 3 deaths per 1000 live births.

The current study by Miller and Goldman, “Infant Mortality Rates Regressed Against Number of Vaccine Doses Routinely Given: Is There a Biochemical or Synergistic Toxicity?” (and .pdf available online here), found “a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.” This raises an important question: Would fewer vaccines administered to infants reduce the number of infant deaths? The authors concluded that “closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and infant mortality rates, is essential. All nations — rich and poor, advanced and developing — have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”

Other study findings:

• The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates.
• Some infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may be vaccine-related, perhaps due to over-vaccination.
• Progress on reducing infant deaths should include monitoring immunization schedules and official causes of death (to determine if vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified).Infant mortality rates will remain high in developing nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care.

______________________________________________________

Download the entire study here . (http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644)
Hum Exp Toxicol published online 4 May 2011. DOI: 10.1177/0960327111407644

The study’s authors can be contacted as follows: Neil Z. Miller: neilzmiller@gmail.com and
Gary S. Goldman: pearblossominc@aol.com

______________________________________________________________________________

Funding Acknowledgment: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Open Access: The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 and Michael Belkin donated $500 (in memory of his daughter, Lyla) for open access to the journal article making it freely available to all researchers.

US Government & Scientists Agree: More Vaccine-Caused-Autism Research Necessary

By David Kirby April 26, 2011  – [reposted from award winning journalist & author David Kirby’s website – Animal Factory: Government and Many Scientists Agree: Vaccine-Autism Research Should Continue]

The vaccine-autism debate is far from over. If anything, it is just getting started.

As the following comments, funding decisions, research priorites and published papers suggest, the US government and many scientists will be researching and discussing this topic for years to come. Here are some reasons why:

I) FEDERAL HEALTH AGENCIES ENDORSE MORE RESEARCH

The federal government’s four leading health entitites dealing with vaccines and/or autism have all reached consensus: More vaccine safety research is required to fill gaps in knowledge, especially in the context of susceptible subpopulations, mitochondrial impairment, long-tern effects of vaccine-induced fever, seizures and brain injury, and other factors. Millions of dollars will be spent investigating these factors, and not because health officials somehow caved to parental pressure. Mercury in vaccines, for example, was designated as one of the CDC’s “high priority” vaccine safety issues, following an “extensive review of the literature, based on how strongly they seemed to be associated with ASD.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of Immunization Saftey

The CDC will study autism “as a possible clinical outcome of immunization” as part of its 5-year research plan. It will also study mitochondrial dysfunction and the risk for “post-vaccine neurological deterioration,” and will convene an expert panel on the feasibility of studying health outcomes, including autism, among vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Study to Explore Early Development – NOTE – THIS WEBPAGE WAS RECENTLY ALTERED BY CDC TO REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO VACCINES AND MERCURY – HERE IS THE ARCHIVED PAGE:

http://replay.web.archive.org/20080308214934/http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/documents/SEEDfaqs.pdf

The CDC is currently looking at environmental, genetic and socioeconomic risk factors for ASD, including vaccines and mercury.

We chose to look at vaccines and other types of medical procedures that may have mercury exposure,” the CDC says. The agency “designated these factors as high priority” following “an extensive review of the literature, based on how strongly they seemed to be associated with ASD.”

Selected mercury exposures include

vaccines that the mom received during pregnancy, the child’s vaccine exposures after birth and specific other factors such as RhoGAM treatment in pregnancy if the mom has developed an immune response against the fetus that can harm it.”

Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) – Includes CDC, HHS, NIH etc.

The nation’s leading autism research entity, the IACC, recently announced funding for studies of environmental factors for ASD, such as toxic exposures and

adverse events following immunization (such as fever and seizures), and mitochondrial impairment.”

It will also fund studies to determine if some subpopulations are

more susceptible to environmental exposures (e.g., immune challenges related to infections, vaccinations, or underlying autoimmune problems),”

and will continue to coordinate with the National Vaccine Advisory Committee on

public concerns regarding a possible vaccine/ASD link.”

The IACC has also concluded that existing population-based vaccine-autism studies are

limited in their ability to detect small susceptible subpopulations.”

National Institutes of Health Early Autism Risk Longitudinal Investigation

A network of NIH agencies and affiliated sites are following some 1,200 pregnant women who already have a child with autism to identify the earliest potential causes and

“possible environmental risk factors and their interplay with genetic susceptibility during the prenatal, neonatal and early postnatal periods.”

Researchers are reviewing each child’s medical records, including vaccination history. They are also asking about mercury exposures through flu shots during pregnancy, ambient air pollution, seafood consumption, dental amalgams, and thimerosal exposure through contact lens solutions and other OTC products.

US Dept of Health and Human Services National Vaccine Advisory Committee

The nation’s leading experts on vaccine safey recently endorsed the study of adverse events following immunization (e.g., fever and seizures) to see if they increase autism risk. The NVAC also supports an expert committee to consider examining outcomes in unvaccinated, vaccine delayed and vaccinated children, including autism. The Committee recommends more study of

“the possible occurrence of ASD in a small number of children subsequent to MMR vaccination” especially given “recent research around the incidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in children with an ASD phenotype.”

The NVAC also recommends studying adverse vaccine reactions in subsets of ASD children:

given “recent developments around mitochondrial dysfunction,” and because some children “may be at elevated risk of reduced neurological functioning, possibly including developing ASD, subsequent to vaccination.”

US Dept of Health and Human Services Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

The so-called Federal “Vaccine Court” has asked an Institute of Medicine committee to consider adverse events from the DTaP and MMR vaccines, including autism and autism spectrum disorders. The IOM committee will will consider vaccine-associated “secondary” autism or autistic features arising from chronic encephalopathy, mitochondrial disorders and/or other underlying disorders. The vaccine injury program has asked the committee to consider “primary autism” in light of

recent theories of neuro-inflammation and hyper-arousal/over-excitation of the immune system via multiple simultaneous antigenic stimulation” (several vaccines at once).

SCIENTISTS CALL FOR MORE STUDIES

Today, more scientists and research institutions are supporting further inquiry into the role of environmental toxins in the onset of autism spectrum disorder. While many doubt that vaccines are responsible for the dramatic increase in autism incidence, they point to knowledge gaps concerning susceptible subgroups that may have been missed in large population studies of MMR vaccine, thimerosal and ASD.

In general, vaccines are not the culprit, (but) there may be a small subset of children who may be particularly vulnerable to vaccines if the child was ill, if the child had a precondition, like a mitochondrial defect. Vaccinations for those children actually may be the environmental factor that tipped them over the edge of autism.”–David Amaral, PhD, Director of Research, University of California, Davis M.I.N.D. Institute. PBS, April 2011

One question [is] whether there is a subgroup in the population that, on a genetic basis, is more susceptible to some vaccine characteristic or component than most of the population, and may develop an ASD in response to something about vaccination. The trigger could be some adverse or cross-reacting response to a vaccine component or a mitochondrial disorder increasing the adverse response to vaccine-associated fever.”–Duane Alexander, MD, former Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), current Senior Scientific Advisor to NIH’s Fogarty International Center. Interview, October 2009.

It remains scientifically plausible that the challenge to the immune system resulting from a vaccine (or other immunological challenges) could, in susceptible individuals, have adverse consequences for the developing brain. Evidence does not support the theory that vaccines are causing an autism epidemic. However, it is plausible that specific genetic or medical factors that are present in a small minority of individuals might lead to an adverse response to a vaccine and trigger the onset of autism symptoms.”–Geraldine Dawson, PhD, Chief Science Officer, Autism Speaks. July, 2009

It is important for autism researchers to study the children who have been most profoundly affected by their response to vaccines.” – Story Landis, PhD, Director of the National Institute of Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), former member, IACC. Statement, October 2009

If a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism… I think we have to have an open mind about this.” – Julie Gerberding, MD, former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, current President of Merck Vaccines. CNN, March 2008

I think it’s possible that you could have a genetic subgroup. You also might have an immune subgroup. There are a variety of subgroups. But the problem with the (vaccine-autism) population studies is they don’t… they aren’t necessarily designed to have the statistical power to find subgroups like that if the subgroups are small.”– Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School, Pediatric Neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. PBS, April 2011

We will continue to support authoritative research that addresses unanswered questions about whether certain subgroups of individuals with particular underlying medical or genetic conditions may be more vulnerable to adverse effects of vaccines. While large scale studies have not shown a link between vaccines and autism, there are lingering legitimate questions about the safety of vaccines that must be addressed.”
–Autism Speaks, Official Statement. February 2009

III) RECENT PAPERS AND FUTURE STUDY

Studies that refute an autism-vaccine association tend to get widespread coverage in the media, but studies suggesting that more research is needed tend to get overlooked. The following are just a few recently published papers, some from foreign journals. They are not presented here as evidence of an association between immunization and autism, but rather to demonstrate the types of investigations that researchers might pursue in the years to come.

Mitochondrial Impairment and Lead Found in Saudi Children with ASD – Vaccines May Trigger Metabolic Stress and Regression in Mild Impairment Cases

“Plasma fatty acids as diagnostic markers in autistic patients from Saudi Arabia”
Lipids in Health and Disease, 2011 Apr 21;10(1):62.

This small study found that “fatty acids are altered in the plasma of autistic patients,” and the differences were related to “oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and the high lead concentration previously reported in Saudi autistic patients.” Taken together with three related Saudi studies, the authors “confirmed the impairment of energy metabolism in Saudi autistic patients, which could be correlated to oxidative stress.” Vitamin E and glutathione were “remarkably lower” in ASD patients vs. controls. Saudi ASD children “are under oxidative stress due to GSH (glutathione) depletion,” the authors said. “This confirms that oxidative stress and defective mitochondrial energy production could represent the primary causative factor in the pathogenesis of autism.” And they added, “There may be an initial period of normal development and function before decompensation in association with metabolic stress or immune activation, such as fasting, illness or vaccination.”

Vaccine-Induced Fever Caused ASD Regression in Four Chidren with Mitochondrial Dysfunction

“Fever plus mitochondrial disease could be risk factors for autistic regression”
Journal of Child Neurology, 2010 Apr;25(4):429-34.

Researchers looked at 28 children with ASD and mitochondrial disease and found that 17 of them (60.7%) had gone through autistic regression, and 12 of the regressive cases happened following fever. Among the 12 children who regressed after fever, a third of them (4) had fever associated with vaccination, as was the case of Hannah Poling v. HHS.

Birth Dose of Hepatitis-B Vaccine Associated with Increased ASD Risk in Boys

“Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002″
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 2010;73(24):1665-77.

This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002. It findings “suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates.”

Thimerosal may contribute to infant neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

“Lasting neuropathological changes in rat brain after intermittent neonatal administration of thimerosal”
Folia Neuropathologica 2010;48(4):258-69.

This study found that “numerous neuropathological changes were observed in young adult rats treated postnatally with thimerosal,” and that “These findings document neurotoxic effects of thimerosal, at doses equivalent to those used in infant vaccines or higher, in developing rat brain, suggesting likely involvement of this mercurial in neurodevelopmental disorders.” The authors concluded that thimerosal is “possibly contributing to pediatric neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.”

Risk of Neurotoxicity from Thimerosal is Plausible, at Least for Susceptible Infants

“Making sense of epidemiological studies of young children exposed to thimerosal in vaccines”
Clinica Chimica Acta, International Journal of Clinical Chemisty, 2010 Nov 11;411(21-22):1580-6

Although this review did not look autism, it compared eight epidemiological studies conducted in the US, UK and Italy on “neurological issues and thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCV)” and found the data were “insufficient to establish non-toxicity for infants and young children.” The review identified “ambiguity” in some of the studies, likely caused by confounding variables. “The risk of neurotoxicity due to low doses of thimerosal is plausible at least for susceptible infants,” the author concluded. “There is a need to address these issues in less developed countries still using TCV in pregnant mothers, newborns, and young children. Developing countries should intensify campaigns that include breastfeeding among efforts to help prime the central nervous system to tolerate exposure to neurotoxic substances, especially thimerosal.”

Gardasil – HPV Vaccine – The Injured Continue To Pile Up

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  PRLog (Press Release) – Apr 25, 2011

by Leslie Carol Botha
Vice President Public Relations, SANE Vax Inc.

It is becoming hard to comprehend why the United States government; FDA, CDC and the NCI have blatantly turned their backs on the thousands of families whose daughters and sons have been severely injured by Merck’s Gardasil vaccination. GlaxoSmithKline is not off the hook on this either as mounting injuries from Cervarix (approved in the US in 2009) are now being reported to VAERS. How many deaths and how many injuries is it going to take before these vaccines are taken off the market?

The latest VAERS reports include:

•   376 abnormal pap smears post HPV vaccination
•   108 reports of anogenital warts found after HPV vaccination
•   224 reports of papillomavirus infections found after HPV vaccination
•   41 reports of cervical cancer after HPV vaccination
•   21,634  Adverse Events
•   95 Deaths

The numbers reflect approximately, 1 to 10% of the adverse event population reporting.  Medical consumers and physicians do not often think that vaccinations harm people – and therefore injuries and illnesses are not immediately associated with the vaccine.

HPV vaccines have been administered to adolescent girls and boys whose parents believed in the government’s vaccine program.  They followed their physician’s advice – and have been deceived.  What does that say about a government ‘for the people’?

SANE Vax, Inc. is outraged at the injustice shown to these families who now suffer from loss of life or diminished quality of life; outraged by their financial helplessness as they pay for mounting medical bills not covered by health insurance companies.

It is apparent in this country – the only one’s innocent until proven guilty are the government and corporations – who have protected themselves from liability.  For the rest of us – well, we are guilty until proven innocent – and the burden of proof lies on our shoulders.

SANE Vax, Inc.  has prepared a Global Concerns about HPV Vaccines Fact Sheet that includes the peer reviewed analysis, research documents and data that prove the culpability of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, the CDC, FDA, and NCI in regards to fast tracking the HPV vaccines to medical consumers.  The SANE Vax Team believes it is time to hold them accountable for their actions. The Fact Sheet is posted on the SANE Vax, Inc. web site at

http://sanevax.org/news-blog/2011/04/sanevax-presents-gl …The HPV Vaccine Fact Sheet was created so that it could be shared globally with politicians, physicians, the media and anyone looking for an overview of the concerns about the Gardasil and Cervarix travesty.

We are hoping readers will post the fact sheet to their Social Media Network sites and circulate the fact sheet far and wide.  If we cannot get through to our government – then we, the people, need to make it our responsibility to educate other innocent medical consumers to prevent the Grim Reaper from striking down more innocent adolescents.

SANE Vax Inc. is dedicated in our efforts to remove Gardasil and Cervarix from the market until independent studies on their safety and efficacy are conducted.  We have become internationally recognized and known for the research and work we have done on this issue.  Conversely, we are now being contacted by more mothers whose daughters have been adversely affected by HPV vaccines.  Most of these injuries have not been reported to VAERS. We have even heard of a new death – another previously healthy teenage girl who went to bed on a Sunday night and never got up to go to school the next morning.

Read the comments from mothers and other innocent girls affected by HPV vaccines.  The government and Big Pharma must be held accountable for the innocent lives they have destroyed. Government agencies and pharmaceutical companies have become the Grim Reaper.

“My 15 year old autistic daughter was given all three Gardasil injections in 2009, and hasn’t been well since. She’s struggled her entire life with development delay, OCD, stuttering, and a seizure disorder that hasn’t reared its head since she was 9, so we’re not unfamiliar with hardships. Shortly after her last Gardasil injection, she began to have chronic vaginal itching, low grade fevers, severe headaches, abdominal pains, dizziness, leg pains, heart racing, heightened sense of her heartbeat and blood flow, fatigue, and an overall feeling of illness. I’m sure there are other symptoms that I’ve passed off as growing pains, hormones, you name it. I’m relieved to find this group, and join the ranks as another frustrated, determined mother, who is ready to see the makers and distributors of this “vaccine” be accountable for what they have done to our daughters.”

“My daughter who has just turned 14 years old has been unable to attend school due to fatigue and nausea and other symptoms since last December 2010. When I took her to her G.P. and had all the usual blood tests done they returned as normal. I did mention to the doctor that my daughter had had her second HPV injection at school just before she began to feel sick, but she dismissed any connection. The third vaccination injection is due this Thursday and I have decided to not allow my daughter have this final injection. Is this o.k. for her not to complete the vaccination programme as I am now suspecting that there may be a connection between the vaccination and her illness? My daughter has just started back to school this week after an absence of over three months. She is attending for only a few hours per day as she is too fatigued to manage any more than that.”

“I just had an MRI completed for my lower lumbar spine; I had a minor sports injury. Results read “bladder distention was noted.”  I completed my Gardasil vaccine over a year and a half ago, and two months after started noticing extra pressure and pain in my abdomen, and enlarged lymph nodes. Prior to the vaccine, I never experienced any of my “symptoms” and Gardasil is the biggest regret of my life. It was pushed upon me by my 3 doctors for years, promising it was safe, and there were no side effects associated. After I started complaining about tiredness and abdomen pain, major side effects were being brought to my attention. I feel deceived, lied to, and tricked. I experience discomfort and occasional pain when I am intimate with my partner. I have trouble urinating, and urinate frequently now. I am 24 years old, and devastated about my experience and findings. I am depressed and fearful of other complications it may cause in the future and can only be hopeful that I didn’t damage and will not pass on any complications to a child.”
“I am writing to u because I was also affected by Gardasil. I now have limbic encephalitis, which is the swelling of the brain, along with heart palpitations which don’t let me sleep, extremely bad headaches, body pain every morning, bone problems, anxiety problems, the list goes on forever. If you can please contact me, I would really appreciate it.”

# # #

SaneVax believes only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices should be offered to the public. Our primary goal is to provide scientific information/resources for those concerned about vaccine safety, efficacy and need.

Leslie Carol Botha,
Vice-President Public Relations, SANE Vax, Inc.
Health Educator, Broadcast Journalist
Internationally Recognized Expert on Women’s Hormone Cycles
Holy Hormones Honey -The Greatest Story Never Told!
http://holyhormones.com/
http://sanevax.org

FDA Halts HPV Vaccine Roll-Out – SaneVax News Release

SaneVax Asks the FDA: Gardasil® What is Wrong With This Picture?

Medical consumers worldwide applaud the recent FDA decision not to expand the use of Gardasil to women over the age of 26. Now they want to know when the FDA will admit the original approval may have been a mistake.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Apr 12, 2011 – Last week, the FDA refused to approve Merck’s application for expanded use of Gardasil® in women over the age of 26. According to a recent article in MedPage Today,

“The decision was based on a trial in 3,253 women ages 27 to 45. Although the vaccine appeared to prevent persistent HPV infection, no significant benefit was found for more important outcomes such as high-grade neoplastic lesions or cervical cancer when all participants were included irrespective of baseline HPV status.”

The SaneVax team respectfully suggests that if this is the case for women between the ages of 27 and 45, it may also be true for young women between the ages of 9 and 26 for whom Gardasil® was originally approved as a potential cervical cancer preventive. It may also be true for the male population for whom Gardasil® recently received expanded approval by the FDA as a potential preventive for anal cancer.

The efficacy analysis submitted by Merck to obtain FDA approval for the use of Gardasil® in the male population in November 2010 contains the following pivotal results [note-AIN2/3 are high-grade neoplastic lesions, AIN3 is higher than AIN2 – both are potentially precancerous]:

Table 2 – Efficiency against HPV 6/11/16/18-related AIN in the MSM FAS Population:

AIN2 or worse     18/275 (Gar); 39/276 (placebo)     Efficiency= 54% (95%CI; 18, 75)

AIN3             10/275 (Gar); 19/276 (placebo)     Efficiency= 46.8% (95%CI; -20, 80)

Table 4 – Efficiency against any HPV type-related AIN in MSM FAS Population:

AIN2+ 44/275 (Gar); 59/276 (placebo) Efficiency= 24% (95%CI, -14, 50)

Please note the ‘efficiency’ ratings when the CI (confidence interval) is taken into consideration. The levels range from a potential low of minus (-) 20% to a potential high of 80%. One has to wonder what the FDA was thinking when they approved a ‘vaccine’ with such a broad range of ‘efficacy’ potential, particularly when there was an indication that it may actually increase the possibility of developing potentially AIN3 pre-cancerous lesions.

Since Gardasil® is not recommended to be used in conjunction with HPV genotype monitoring, the data for HPV 6, 11, 16, 18-related AIN means nothing to average medical consumers, or their physician. Without adequate genotyping no one knows which sexually active man or woman may benefit from the vaccine, or which HPV genotype is causing the lesions developing after vaccination.

Merck also included results on efficacy in regard to AIN1. AIN1 lesions are totally reversible, therefore, pose no threat to anyone. They can be caused by numerous “non-carcinogenic” HPV genotypes.

According to Dr. Garner, lead clinical monitor in the Gardasil® AIN trials, speaking to VRBPAC members at the FDA review hearing,

” …unlike cervical cancers, not all anal cancers are associated with HPV.  So HPV cannot be said to be, quote/unquote, necessary and sufficient for the development of anal cancer.”

During the same meeting, Dr. Vicki DeBold, the consumer representative member of the VRBPAC expressed many concerns, one of which was,

“One of the reasons that I’m not comfortable is due to some of the data that’s on slide 23 that the FDA presented where we see much higher levels of immunogenicity in the younger age groups, and I can’t help but to wonder if some of this reactivity that we’re seeing here might also have a relationship to some of the safety issues that have been raised not only by the last public speaker but the enormous number of reports that are coming into not only the National Vaccine Information Center but VAERS.

I am not reassured by the safety data that have been presented, partly because they’re using a reactive placebo, an aluminum-based placebo, rather than something that is nonreactive.  I think that it makes it very difficult, if not totally impossible, to understand what is truly going on.”

The SaneVax Team wants to know:  How can the results of studies conducted on MSM (males who have sex with males) of specific ages be used to determine potential outcomes when using Gardasil® in other men, or women for the possible prevention of anal cancer.

There are substantial hormonal differences between pre-pubescent males and young adult males, as there are substantial differences between males and females. A one-size-fits-all ‘vaccine’ just does not make sense unless studied for safety and efficacy in all target populations.

According to the National Cancer Institute, “Vaccines are medicines that boost the immune system’s natural ability to protect the body against ‘foreign invaders,’ mainly infectious agents that may cause disease.”

HPV (human papillomavirus) is a foreign invader. Cancer cells are not. Cancer cells are host human cells that have mutated to allow uncontrolled growth, hence the tumors. Scientists are trying to make patient’s cancer cells to be recognized as foreign invaders by the host immune system to create therapeutic vaccines to treat cancers with little success. A preventive vaccine against cancer is incomprehensible.

HPV vaccines were never designed to attack the cancer cells; they were designed to produce a greater immune response to ‘foreign invasion’ by human papillomavirus. The hope is that by eliminating the virus, cancer rates will be reduced. No one will know whether this will actually happen for at least 15 to 20 years. However, based on the post-vaccination reports, many Gardasil-vaccinated women have continued to develop cervical cancer and precancerous lesions.

The SaneVax Team wants to know: Why is Gardasil® approved by the FDA as a cervical cancer preventive when there is no clinical evidence that reducing some self-reversing lesions is indeed associated with reduction of cervical cancer rates?

The SaneVax Team wants to know: Have any of the ingredients in this vaccine, which is being promoted as protection against various types of cancer thought to be caused by HPV, been approved for use under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, or the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act?

The SaneVax Team and medical consumers around the world, once again request the FDA rescind their approval of Gardasil® until studies are conducted with appropriate endpoints.

The SaneVax Team and medical consumers around the world demand scientific proof that Gardasil® is safe, effective and necessary.

[Note from SaneVax:  Three members of the VRBPAC officially retired the day before the hearing to decide whether they would recommend extended use of Gardasil® for men and boys. These three members were Dr. Jack Stapleton, VRBPAC chairman, Dr. Jose Romero and Dr. Pablo Sanchez. Drs. Romero and Sanchez attended the Gardasil portion of the meeting, but since they were retired, one can presume they did not vote on the ultimate outcome. That left only six members of what was originally a twelve member committee in attendance. To make up for the shortage of voting personnel, the FDA appointed nine ‘temporary voting members.’ One of these nine, Dr. Theodore Tsai, was an industry representative – the second industry representative in attendance. According to the FDA charter for VRBPAC, industry representatives are not allowed to vote. Even so, at least one of the industry reps in attendance was listed as a voting member. There is apparently no public record of who voted and who did not.]

Sources:
1. Visit http://sanevax.org/news-blog/2011/04/sanevax-asks-the-fd … for complete article with links to all sources.

# # #

SaneVax believes only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices should be offered to the public. Our primary goal is to provide scientific information/resources for those concerned about vaccine safety, efficacy and need.

— end —     Visit Press Room

Contact Email		:	Click here for SANEVax contact Form
Issued By		:	Norma Erickson, President of SaneVax Inc.
City/Town		:	Troy
State/Province		:	Montana
Country		:	United States
Categories		:	Health, Consumer
Tags		:	gardasil, fda, merck, hpv vaccine, human papillomavirus, efficacy, safety
Last Updated		:	Apr 11, 2011
Shortcut		:	http://prlog.org/11430865

Disclaimer: Issuers of the press releases are solely responsible for the content of their press releases. PRLog.Org can’t be held liable for the content posted by others.   Report Abuse

Latest Press Releases From “SaneVax, Inc.”

• SaneVax Asks the FDA: Gardasil® What is Wrong With This Picture?
• SANE Vax, Inc. Declares Major Victory in Gardasil Awareness Campaign
• SaneVax Introduces One More Gardasil Girl: Taylor from Indiana
• SaneVax Introduces One More Cervarix Girl: Gemma from the United Kingdom
• SaneVax Introduces One More Gardasil Girl: Kylie from Arkansas

More …