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 [

US Supreme Court Grants Another Huge Gift to ‘Big Pharma’

Article from nsnbc – 18th July 2013 – Earnest A. Canning *** (FFN).

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that citizens who are severely injured, maimed or even killed by FDA-approved — but unreasonably dangerous — generic prescription drugs, have no right to seek compensation from the giant pharmaceutical companies which manufacture and market them to unsuspecting consumers, writes Ernest Canning.

In its 5-4 decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. vs. Bartlett [PDF](“Bartlett“), the Court annulled a $21 million judgment that had been awarded to New Hampshire resident Karen L. Bartlett. Her use of the generic drug, Sulindac, in 2004, produced catastrophic injuries when she suffered an acute toxic necrolysis (aka Stevens-Johnson Syndrome).

In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito described her injuries as “tragic” and acknowledged that over 65% of Bartlett’s body “was burned off, or turned into an open wound. She spent months in a medically induced coma, underwent 12 eye surgeries, and was tube fed for a year. She is now severely disfigured…and is nearly blind.”

For Alito, and the rest of the Court’s right-wing majority, the severity of Bartlett’s injury proved inconsequential when measured against Big Pharma’s bottom line and their interest in selling generic drugs, which account for 75% of the prescription drugs sold in the U.S.

Read on for rest of article on nsnbc:

* * *Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). Follow him on Twitter: @Cann4ing.

US Health Officials Implicated In Cover-Up Of Vaccines’ Role In Causing Autism

CHS is publishing the following for those who may not have heard of this when the news broke in October 2011.  So if as they try to claim – vaccines don’t cause autism – what is there to cover up?  It speaks for itself.  Read on.

Scandal Exposed in Major Study of Autism and Mercury

SILVER SPRING, Md., Oct. 25, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD) exposes communications between Centers for Disease Control (CDC) personnel and vaccine researchers revealing U.S. officials apparently colluded in covering-up the decline in Denmark’s autism rates following the removal of mercury from vaccines.

Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that CDC officials were aware of Danish data indicating a connection between removing Thimerosal (49.55% mercury) and a decline in autism rates.  Despite this knowledge, these officials allowed a 2003 article to be published in Pediatrics that excluded this information, misrepresented the decline as an increase, and led to the mistaken conclusion that Thimerosal in vaccines does not cause autism.

In Denmark, Thimerosal, a controversial mercury compound used as a preservative in certain vaccines, was removed from all Danish vaccines in 1992.  The well-publicized Danish study published in Pediatrics 2003 claimed that autism rates actually increased after Thimerosal was phased out.  This study subsequently became a cornerstone for the notion that mercury does not cause autism. However, one of the FOIA documents obtained from CDC clearly indicates that this study omitted large amounts of data showing autism rates actually dropping after mercury was removed from Danish vaccines.

One coauthor, from Aarhus University, Denmark, was aware of the omission and alerted CDC officials in a 2002 email, stating “Attached I send you the short and long manuscript about Thimerosal and autism in Denmark … I need to tell you that the figures do not include the latest data from 2001 … but the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001” (emphasis added).

We know the article’s lead author was aware of the missing autism data because he stated in an email reply, “I am not currently at the university but I will contact you and <names withheld> tomorrow to make up our minds.”

Nevertheless, in the final draft version of the publication submitted to Pediatrics, the data from 2001 showing a decline in autism was not mentioned.  Ignoring this omission, the CDC continued to endorse the article and, in a December 10, 2002 recommendation letter to the editor of Pediatrics, encouraged expedited review and publication of the article.  The misleading Danish article was published by Pediatrics in 2003.

Dr. Poul Thorsen, one of the co-authors and “scientist in residence” at the CDC 2000-2002, subsequently was terminated by Aarhus University and indicted in Atlanta for embezzlement this year in relation to his $11 million grant from the CDC.

CoMeD has demanded that the CDC launch an immediate investigation of the CDC officials involved based on scientific fraud.  CoMeD is also calling for the full retraction of the deceptive article which appeared in Pediatrics.

“This type of malfeasance should not be tolerated by those who are entrusted with our children’s health and well-being,” stated Lisa Sykes, President of CoMeD.

SOURCE Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD)

RELATED LINKS
http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org

The Institute for Nearly Genuine Research – Visit Now – Site Map

Below we post the site map of Dr Methodius Isaac Bonker’s Institute for Nearly Genuine Research.

The Institute for Nearly Genuine Research is a great favourite here at CHS – a “must-visit” site for its unique combination of wacky humour with facts about pretty much all of the horrendous pseudo-science about psychiatry and its multitudes of exceptionally toxic drugs – the “dumpster” drugs of the pharmaceutical world – many of which are so toxic the pharmaceutical industry can only get away with supplying them to the psychiatric profession for use by people who have [allegedly according to psychiatry] mental illness of one kind or another.

Psychiatry is the chosen field of practice of the UK’s Dr Ben Goldacre – who enigmatically whilst working in psychiatry for the English National Health Service has been writing a “BadScience” column for the UK’s Guardian newspaper for some years and runs a BadScience Forum all to the end of exposing pseudo-science. 

How is it possible to hold one’s head up when writing about what is claimed to be Bad Science and pseudo-science and be involved professionally in psychiatry?  Difficult one that.  Easy to look into everyone else’s backyard – it avoids having to look into your own.

Site Map Dr Bonker’s Institute for Nearly Genuine Research

• Bonkers Institute Home Page
• About the Institute for Nearly Genuine Research
• Contact
• Funding
• Affiliates
• Certification
• Funny Pages
• Marvelous Mental Medicine Show ~ Gallery of Modern & Vintage Drug Ads:
  • Early remedies
  • Thorazine shuffle
  • Stelazine straitjacket
  • Extrapyramidal scheme (selling drugs to treat diseases caused by drugs)
  • Women’s issues
  • Kid stuff
  • A-typical scam
  • Noncompliant drug evasion ~ an effective prophylactic maneuver
  • This advertising violates international law, but who cares?
  • Neuropsychopharmacological odds & ends
• Scientific studies:Dr. Bonkers for President Campaign Headquarters
  • Schizophrenia Treatment in 7 Easy Steps Addictive Properties of Shiitake Sesame Vinaigrette
    • Tratamento da esquizofrenia em 7 etapas fáceis
  • Utilization of Placebo Rat Poison in Controlled Clinical Trials
  • Chemical Imbalance NOS: Useful Diagnostic Category?
    • Desequilíbrio Químico SOE: uma categoria útil para o diagnóstico?
  • Therapeutic Efficacy of Cash in the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression Everything You Need to Know About Electroshock
    • Os benefícios terapêuticos do dinheiro no tratamento de ansiedade e depressão
  • Asymptomatic Depression: Invisible Epidemic and Huge Untapped Market
    • La dépression asymptomatique : une épidémie invisible, un marché inexploité
    • Asymptomatische Depression: Eine stille Epidemie mit hohem Marktpotenzial
    • Depressione Sottosoglia: l’epidemia silenziosa con alto potenziale di mercato
    • A Depressão Assintomática: epidemia invisível e vasto mercado ainda inexplorado
    • La Depresión Asintomática: epidemia invisible y gran mercado aún sin explotar
    • Asymptomatisk Depression: En osynlig epidemi och en stor outnyttjad marknad
  • Science Made Simple: Shopper’s Guide to Mental Disorders
    • ADHD Made Simple
    • Anxiety & Panic Made Simple
    • Bipolar Made Simple
    • Depression Made Simple
    • Schizophrenia Made Simple

    Special Bonus Section:

    • Canine Behavior Made Simple
  • Shopper’s Guide to 22 Worthless Drugs
    • 1,182 Abilify side effects
    • 819 Adderall side effects
    • 1,658 Celexa side effects
    • 1,989 Cymbalta side effects
    • 1,994 Depakote side effects
    • 2,356 Effexor side effects
    • 1,366 Geodon side effects
    • 1,100 Klonopin side effects
    • 2,233 Lamictal side effects
    • 1,886 Lexapro side effects
    • 2,672 Neurontin side effects
    • 2,497 Paxil side effects
    • 1,817 Prozac side effects
    • 1,935 Risperdal side effects
    • 1,195 Ritalin & Concerta effects
    • 1,656 Seroquel side effects
    • 2,025 Strattera side effects2,270 Tegretol side effects
      • Strattera tuomoxiting fuzuoyong ~ baibicongsheng bbcs
    • 1,773 Wellbutrin side effects
    • 1,356 Xanax side effects
    • 2,194 Zoloft side effects
    • 2,962 Zyprexa side effects

• Michigan FOIA Lawsuit Uncovers Psychiatry’s Dark Secret
• An Open Letter to Senator Grassley of Iowa
• Wayne State University’s prestigious “Addition Research Institute”
• University of Michigan Depression Center: Way Beyond Sadness
• Comments to the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative
  Effectiveness Research, by Grace E. Jackson, M.D.
• The mentally ill are society’s lepers:
  On Being Sane in Insane Places, by D.L. Rosenhan
• A-Z Index to Fake Diseases, Courtesy of the CDC
• The Many Faces of Prozac (fluoxetine hydrochloride)
• Average rate of grey matter loss:
  the more pills you swallow, the more brain tissue you lose
• A little sampler of Chinese ADHD medicine
• Advice to Eli Lilly & Co. shareholders: sell now
• Who remembers CATIE?
• Newtown tragedy: What was found? What’s missing?
• See how the money flows: find YOUR doctor in our database
• Remember Rebecca Riley 2002–2006

Autism Charity Scientist Is From Vaccine Developer Of Top Selling Vaccine – The Top Fifteen Selling Vaccines – SaneVax Inc News Release

There is a most interesting news release just out from SaneVax about the top selling vaccines [full text below]. 

As a comment on the SaneVax site shows not only is Pfizer at the top of the list but it was a Pfizer scientist, Robert H Ring who went to head first of all “translational” and then scientific research at “Autism Speaks” US autism non profit [charity]: plainly Pfizer would have a lot to lose if the vaccine bubble was pricked – and the autism story is one of the key vulnerable points. Damning reports about Pfizer’s Prevnar vaccine emerged from Belgium late last year.  The vaccine market is poised to expand exponentially for the indefinite future: based on Paul Offit’s 10,000 vaccine dogma.  Unfortunately, when Offit appeared on BBC Newsnight earlier this year, Mr Jeremy Paxman (who isn’t very bright) forgot to use his wellknown catchphrase suggesting he “Come off it!”.

Autism Speaks is widely criticised within the autism community as not being representative. It rapidly grew from nothing and clearly has very considerable financial backing.  It claims it has “grown into the world’s leading autism science and advocacy organization, dedicated to funding research into the causes, prevention, treatments and a cure for autism; increasing awareness of autism spectrum disorders; and advocating for the needs of individuals with autism and their families.  We are proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish and look forward to continued successes in the years ahead.“

But their track record is as weak and nebulous as their “policy” on autism being caused by vaccines – it is hardly a policy – see it here: Autism Speaks “Policy” on Autism and Vaccines.  US government agencies and Merck’s Director of Vaccines Division, former US Centers for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding were much clearer in 2008 when the story broke about a child developing autism after 9 vaccines given in one day – Hannah Poling:  Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines.

___________________________________________

2012: The Top Fifteen Selling Vaccines July 14, 2013 By Norma Erickson

The ‘medical miracle’ of vaccines has proven quite miraculous on at least one front, the financial one. Investors in the manufacture, distribution and administration of vaccines have reaped handsome rewards since the creation of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

The topic of vaccine safety became prominent during the mid 1970s with increases in lawsuits filed on behalf of those presumably injured by the diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DPT) vaccine. Legal decisions were made and damages awarded despite the lack of scientific evidence to support vaccine injury claims. As a result of these decisions, liability and prices soared, and several manufacturers halted production. A vaccine shortage resulted and public health officials became concerned about the return of epidemic disease. To reduce liability and respond to public health concerns, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986.

This change in liability created an environment where vaccine manufacturers could evolve from threatening to get out of the vaccine production business to generating the following sales in 2012:¹

1. Prevnar 13® – $3.718 billion – Pfizer
2. Gardasil® – $1.900 billion – Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
3. PENTAct-HIB – $1.522 billion – Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
4. Infanrix/Pediarix – $1.183 billion – by GlaxoSmithKline
5. Fluzone – $1.152 billion – by Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
6. Hepatitis franchise – $986 million – by GlaxoSmithKline
7. Varivax – $846 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
8. Menactra – $735 million – by Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur
9. Zostavax – $651 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur
10. RotaTeq® – $648 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur
11. Synflorix® – $587 million – by GlaxoSmithKline
12. Pneumovax®23 – $580 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur
13. Rotarix – $549 million – by GlaxoSmithKline
14. Adacel – $469 million – by Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
15. Prevnar – $399 million – by Pfizer

For the five producers of the top 15 vaccines, this is a total of $15.925 billion; not at all bad for an industry that was threatening to close down operations 30 years ago. Apparently, limited liability does wonders for the bottom line.

Whether the miraculous nature of the limited liability vaccination programs instituted since the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created extends to safety and efficacy remains hotly debated.

For instance, in 1980 there were three recommended vaccines given in five shots before age 2; DPT (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis), MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) and OPV (oral polio vaccine). The autism rate in 1980 was estimated at 2/10,000. Now, children could receive as many as 24 shots by 2 years of age and five shots in a single visit¹ and the autism rate is now 1/88.²

No, this information does not prove causation. However, any reasonable person can see that a correlation exists. This correlation needs to be thoroughly investigated by people who are not stakeholders in vaccines or vaccination programs.

Until that research is completed, exercise your right to informed consent.⁴ Do your research.

Get these questions answered before you decide if a vaccine is right for you or your child:

• How serious is the disease being vaccinated against?
• What are the chances of being exposed to this disease?
• What is the normal outcome of contracting this disease?
• What is the worst case scenario of contracting this disease?
• What are the ingredients in this vaccine?
• Do I have an allergy to any of the vaccine ingredients?
• How effective is this vaccine?
• What are the adverse effects currently associated with this vaccine?
• Have I experienced an adverse reaction to any prior vaccination?
• Does my family’s health history make me more likely to suffer an adverse reaction to this vaccine?
• Does my current state of health indicate I can be vaccinated now, should wait to vaccinate later, or not vaccinate at all?
• What are the alternative ways to protect against this disease?

Above all, remember vaccines can and do cause injury or death for some individuals.

Don’t play vaccine roulette – evaluate the risks, benefits, and alternatives – be a wise medical consumer!

References:

1. Top 15 Selling Vaccines of 2012, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, July 2013
2. History of Vaccine Schedule, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, reviewed by Paul A. Offit, MD
3. Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), CDC
4. Informed Consent, Medline Plus, National Institutes of Health

Filed Under: SANE Vax Press Releases, United States, Vaccines Tagged With: top selling, vaccines

New Research – Maternal Antibodies Linked to 1 in 4 Cases of Autism in Kids

Antibodies in Mom Linked to Autism in Kids Jul 10, 2013 By Salynn Boyles, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today [Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Dorothy Caputo, MA, BSN, RN, Nurse Planner].

Maternal autoantibodies that target key proteins in the fetal brain could explain almost one in four cases of autism, according to two studies published online this week in the journal Translational Psychiatry.

In one study, researchers from the University of California, Davis MIND Institute identified seven antigens specific to autism and then showed that the antibodies to these antigens were present in the blood of 23% of mothers who had children with the disorder and less than 1% of mothers with normally developing children.

In a second study, female rhesus monkeys exposed while pregnant to the autism-specific antibodies from the blood of mothers of children with autism gave birth to offspring that displayed behavioral traits consistent with the disorder. Male monkeys, but not females, born to the antibody-exposed mothers also had brain growth patterns consistent with male children with autism, seen in neuroimaging studies.

Read on for more:

Antibodies in Mom Linked to Autism in Kids Jul 10, 2013 By Salynn Boyles, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today

NSW Australia Ceases Free Whooping Cough Vaccine

Free whooping cough vaccines will no longer be offered to pregnant women in New South Wales Australia.

Government should cough up for free vaccine Sydney Morning Herald Kirsty Needham July 14, 2013

New mothers will no longer be offered a free whooping cough vaccine the next time they see their GP in the frantic few weeks after bringing baby home. Instead, they have been told to fork out between $40 and $200 and organise their own immunisation before they get pregnant, or in the third trimester of their pregnancy.

In 2012, the NSW government axed the free vaccine for grandparents, fathers and carers.

This year, whooping cough cases are down – averaging 200 a month in NSW.  From this week, women will be largely on their own, with vaccinations offered in NSW public hospital maternity units now described as a ”safety net” only. Health Minister Jillian Skinner says axing most free adult whooping cough vaccines is not a budget issue. The state’s chief health officer Kerry Chant claims telling women to vaccinate before or during pregnancy is ”strengthening the response”.

Autism Epidemic Linked to Epidemic of Vaccine Induced Diabetes – Wall Street Journal

BALTIMORE, July 12, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — The following release was issued by Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.

A new peer reviewed study was published in the current issue of Open Access, Scientific Reports (Volume 2, Issue 3, 2013) linking the autism epidemic to the epidemic of vaccine induced type 1 diabetes. Growing evidence shows that a large percentage of cases of autism have an inflammatory or autoimmune component. The new data shows autism is strongly linked to type 1 diabetes another epidemic inflammatory disease where the epidemic has been proven to be caused by vaccines. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD.

“We have been publishing for many years that vaccine induced inflammation is causing an epidemic of type 1 diabetes and other diseases. Our new data, as well as the extensive data from others regarding the role of inflammation in the development autism, leaves little doubt vaccines play a significant role in the autism epidemic,” says Dr. J. Bart Classen, MD.

Dr. Classen’s research indicates that the large number of vaccines given to patients is leading to an epidemic of chronic inflammation resulting in epidemics of autoimmune diseases, allergies, and a comprehensive inhibitory response manifesting as obesity and metabolic syndrome.

“The best data indicates that vaccine induced chronic disease is now of a magnitude that dwarfs almost all prior poisoning of humans including poisoning from agents like asbestos, low dose radiation, lead and even cigarettes. Most patients don’t even realize that they are suffering from the adverse effects of vaccines. Even more concerning patients and or their parents are being harassed, accused of practicing poor dieting and exercise habits leading to development obesity and diabetes when in fact they suffer from vaccine induced obesity and diabetes,” says Dr. J. Bart Classen.

Copies of many of Dr. Classen’s papers can be found on the website http://www.vaccines.net.

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.

SOURCE Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.

/Web site: http://www.vaccines.net

PRESS RELEASE  July 12, 2013 The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content.

Leading Pediatrician Criticises India Rotavirus [anti-diarrhea] Vaccine – Unscientific Safety Claims – Ethical Contravention – Poor Efficacy

Misplaced hoopla over Indian anti-diarrhea vaccine (Comment) Business Standard & IANS  June 25, 2013

Newspapers and television channels in India and abroad were abuzz recently with reports that an Indian rotavirus (anti-diarrhea) vaccine had been developed and tested. We were told that the vaccine, called Rotavac, is to be sold at $1/dose (Rs.60) compared to the existing brands costing $10-$50/dose. The announcement was made at a symposium on rotavirus vaccine in New Delhi.

Many doctors and scientists were however appalled by the way this was presented. Important scientific achievements are usually submitted for validation to a peer-reviewed journal. The Rotavac vaccine trial has not been subjected to this process. It was merely announced at the symposium and in a series of press conferences. The public were informed without giving the scientific community a chance to examine the evidence.

The episode reminds one of “cold fusion”. In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann claimed that nuclear fusion was possible at room temperature. Instead of publishing their findings in a peer reviewed journal, the University of Utah, where they worked, held a press conference to announce the success of cold fusion. (<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01&gt;) Very little concrete evidence was given but it generated huge interest in the press. Later the results could not be replicated and today, the term “cold fusion” represents bad science or junk science.

Like with cold fusion, very little data was provided about the new Rotavac vaccine. Tit-bits were put together by enterprising science journalists, and kitting them together a clearer picture is emerging. The press release of the Department of Biotechnology suggests that a contract research organization called Quintiles was responsible for several aspects of the trial, including medical monitoring during the trial, data management, site monitoring, pharmacovigilance, and biostatistics.

Professor Gagandeep Kang, a lead coordinator of the trial from Christian Medical College Vellore, has reportedly told a journalist from Mint that the researchers decided to go public with the results even before the study was completed (slated for December 2013) because the independent Data Status Monitoring Board (DSMB) had recommended it be made public as the vaccine, according to the board, had “an excellent safety profile” and was “efficacious in preventing severe rotavirus diarrhea in low-resource settings”. The DSMB thus made its recommendation, according to the Mint article.

The primary responsibility of the DSMB is to review study data periodically for participant safety and to make recommendations concerning the continuation, modification or termination of the trial. It is unusual for the committee to make recommendations on how the study findings are disseminated. That notwithstanding, it is intriguing to examine how the DSMB could have reached a conclusion about the safety and efficacy of the new Rotavac vaccine. The data on the vaccine efficacy was provided by Quintiles.

Details of the vaccine’s efficacy in terms of lives saved are not made public. According to a press report, approximately 4,300 people received the study drug and 2,700 received a placebo and acted as controls. With so few patients recruited, it is difficult to understand how the DSMB could have concluded the vaccine was at least as safe as the ones in the market.

The 1999 rotavirus vaccine RotaShield was withdrawn when it was shown to cause one intussusception – a medical condition where a section of the intestine slides into the next – per 10,000 vaccinated. The vaccine that was developed subsequently – the attenuated human rotavirus vaccine Rotarix – causes one intussusceptions in 50,000. This Rotarix vaccine was studied in 70,000. With a sample of 4,300 it would be impossible to compare the side effects of the new vaccine against the vaccine already available in the market. The DSMB could not have recommended an early publication announcement based on superior safety compared to the available vaccine.

The efficacy of the vaccine in the study was 50 to 58 percent. It is a toss-up in a given child whether he will be protected after receiving the new vaccine. The efficacy of the Rotarix vaccine in the West is 90 percent. Superior efficacy cannot have been the reason for early publication and the premature publicity either.

Peer-reviewed journals have strict rules against premature publicity. Only presentations to scientific conferences are allowed. The concern here is that given this publicity, the real data may never be reviewed in a good quality scientific journal and the scientific community will forever have to be satisfied with such bits of information from the lay press. One is left wondering if low efficacy and insufficient data on safety compared to the existing vaccine may have been the reason for not publishing the study in a peer-reviewed journal.

The code of medical ethics of the Medical Council of India specifically prohibits physicians from endorsing drugs in this manner and calls on all members to expose unethical conduct. The latest media blitz represents a radical change in how vaccine research is published. The public needs to discuss if this is acceptable.

(25.06.2013 – 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)

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

Health ministry withdraws recommendation for cervical cancer vaccine June 15, 2013 THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

Japanese govt. withdraws their recommendation of HPV vaccine due to safety Health News June 17, 2013 By: Jeannie Stokowski-Bisanti Examiner.com

Japan withdraws support for HPV vaccines due to infertility side effects Lance Devon Natural News July 8, 2013

Baby’s family awarded damages after Court rules 6-in-1 Hepatitis B containing vaccine caused her death

Baby’s family awarded damages after hexavalent vaccine ruled cause of her death – From examiner.com July 7, 2013 by Jeannie Stokowski-Bisanti – Health News.

And despite the serious historic problems with Hepatitis B containing vaccines the UK’s JCVI [Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation] seems to be still planning on introducing GSKs Infanrix Hexa in the UK for infants and when those at risk are intravenous drug users and practitioners of unsafe sex – NOT babies.  This is backed by the British Medical Association the doctors’ trade union which has close links with the drug industry and whose house journal, the British Medical Journal, has commercial deals with the drug industry from which they make substantial amounts annually.

See here for a list of numerous EU countries effecting withdrawals of Infanrix Hexa when it was found to be contaminated [a separate and different issue from the overall safety issues].

And even before this new case there have been numerous withdrawals of EU marketing authorisations for multivalent vaccines containing Hep B vaccine and serious conditions caused by Hepatitis B containing vaccines:

Secret EU Government Report – Wide Range of Child Vaccine Deaths & Injuries – From Just One Six-In-One Vaccine

UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety

Court Fines Doctor Who Did Not Tell Patient Hepatitis B Vaccine Causes Multiple Sclerosis

US Government Concedes Hep B Vaccine Causes Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

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

Autism Investigated – Seth Mnookin’s Introduction at Harvard: “His dad’s a buddy of mine!”

A new website  has recently been launched – Autism Investigated – edited by Jake Crosby.  Here is an early article:

Seth Mnookin’s Introduction at Harvard: “His dad’s a buddy of mine!” By Jake Crosby

On March 29th, a few weeks after I publicly challenged the vaccine lobby’s blogger David Gorski (“Orac”) on his broken promises related to thimerosal removal, I challenged the vaccine industry’s media go-to guy Seth Mnookin, at his alma mater of Harvard no less. The event was organized by the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, and the topic was “Does the public believe in science?” Not only did it cover the vaccine controversy, but also controversies over climate change and of course stem cell research.

As with the event in New York City where I had my first conversation with Seth Mnookin over a year ago, this event was also in the form of a panel discussion. Sitting on the panel with Mnookin were two Harvard Professors and a writer for USA Today.

The moderator was M. William Lensch, Faculty Director of Education for the Institute. He introduced each member of the panel, but gave a special introduction for Seth Mnookin.

Speaking jovially, Lensch said of Mnookin, “His dad’s a buddy of mine!”

Lensch revealed that he was introduced to Seth Mnookin’s writing through his father Jim Mnookin, who was the 2011′s “Hedge Fund Consultant of the Year.”

“Jim told me to read Seth’s book about the Red Sox.” Lensch said how much he loved that book and about what an avid fan he is of the Boston Red Sox.

“So the Red Sox got Seth Mnookin this speaking gig,” I thought to myself.

Read on for more here:

Seth Mnookin’s Introduction at Harvard: “His dad’s a buddy of mine!” By Jake Crosby

Here is some information regarding what Autism Investigated is about from “About Us – Welcome to Autism Investigated!“:

“The purpose of this site is to investigate the who, what, when, where and why of the autism epidemic, particularly the role vaccines play in causing it as well as the government’s role in covering up that cause. To maintain independent coverage, Autism Investigated will not accept sponsorship or commercial advertising of any kind.”

Jake Crosby is regularly attacked by the bile spitting rants of crank Dr David Gorski in Gorski’s alter ego “ORAC” on the crankiest of crank blogs “Respectful Insolence” at ScienceBlogs.com.  Obviously Crosby must be worth reading to attract that level of bile and venom from the seemingly psychologically, mathematically and scientifically challenged Dr Gorski.

Every so often, we like to try to get into the mind of an anti-safety crank, like Gorski or a quack, or crank of another variety, because understanding what makes cranks tick can potentially be useful in trying to counter them. On the one hand, it’s not easy, because understanding really bad science shared by nearly all cranks doesn’t come naturally.  But it can be useful to try from time to time. While it might not be possible to see things how they do, it can be revealing to try to understand why they behave the way they do.

Argentina – GSK Lab Fined – 14 Babies Died in Illegal Vaccine Experiments During Vaccine Trials By GSK Hired Doctors

GlaxoSmithKline Argentina Laboratories Company was fined 400,000 pesos for irregularities during lab vaccine trials following a report issued by the National Administration of Medicine, Food and Technology (ANMAT in Spanish) for irregularities during lab vaccine trials conducted between 2007 and 2008 that allegedly killed 14 babies. 

The charges in the cases included experimenting with human beings and falsifying parental authorizations in the vaccine-trials conducted by the doctors’ laboratory from 2007 to 2008 for GSK.  15,000 children, under the age of one, from Mendoza, San Juan and Santiago del Estero provinces were included in the research reports Buenos Aires Herald GSK fined over vaccine trials; 14 babies reported dead Tuesday, January 3, 2012 By Javier Cardenal Taján.

Pediatrician Ana Marchese, who reported the case to the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals (FESPROSA), and was working at the Eva Perón children’s public hospital in Santiago del Estero by the time the studies were being conducted, said :

GSK Argentina set a protocol at the hospital, and recruited several doctors working there.”

“These doctors took advantage of the many illiterate parents whom take their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing these 28-page consent forms and getting them involved in the trials.”

“Laboratories can’t experiment in Europe or the United States, so they come to do it in third-world countries.”

“Once a picked patient arrives, it would automatically disappear to be taken somewhere else in order to be treated by those doctors specially recruited by GSK. These sorts of practices are not legal and occurred without any type of state control, plus they don’t comply with the minimum ethical requirements.”

Colombia and Panama were also chosen by GSK as staging grounds for trials of the vaccine against the pneumococcal bacteria.

An ANMAT press statement indicated the irregularities detected during the COMPASS vaccine trial program were related to “failures in the process of obtaining the necessary consent letters from participants, hence violating the patients’ rights; as well the inclusion of patients that did not fully meet the required clinical conditions to be submitted into the program.” but that “none of the deaths mentioned in the media were related to the vaccines given, since all the involved patients received what is called a blind placebo, which is a simile of the vaccine but without any active substance.”

According to Pharmaceutical Technology:

GlaxoSmithKline was also criticised by Judge Marcelo Aguinsky for keeping inadequate records of the children’s ages and medical histories. It is unknown how many babies suffered serious side effects and adverse reactions from the injections, or if 14 is the true number of babies who died during the trials.

GlaxoSmithKline fined over controversial vaccine trials on Argentine babies 11 January 2012

Read here for full Buenos Aires Herald story:

Buenos Aires Herald GSK fined over vaccine trials; 14 babies reported dead Tuesday, January 3, 2012 By Javier Cardenal Taján.

Other reports include:

GSK malpractice case raises questions about trial standards The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9815 Page 508, 11 February 2012

Australia – Unvaccinated Children To Be Banned From Childcare & Fines For Childcare Centres Who Take Them

In New South Wales, Australia, unvaccinated children will be banned from childcare facilities, and centres which enrol them will face fines, after changes to the local laws passed through State cabinet (28 May 2013):  Vaccinate your children or declare why not, parents told  Sydney Morning Herald 29 May 2013; Big win for No Jab, No Play as NSW state cabinet approves tough new vaccination laws Alicia Wood, Jane Hansen and Leigh van den Broeke The Daily Telegraph May 29, 2013

This action follows a campaign by one of the state’s major newspapers, the Daily Telegraph (owned by News Corporation), against parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.  This pro-vaccination campaign has gained the support of both the right (the government) and left wing major political parties.  It allows follows one-sided reporting by other major media outlets including the major daily newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, whose medical writer supports vaccinations and the Channel Ten program, the Project, that recently told viewers that it would not allow anti-vaccination supporters on its program.

In such a political and media environment, it would be virtually impossible for reasoned and logical debate to occur on the matter of vaccination adverse reactions and the concern that many people have regarding the potential dangers of vaccinations.

NSNBC Full Report – More than 50% of those Diagnosed with Measles in Pakistan had been Vaccinated

Sat, May 25th, 2013 By Christof Lehmann (nsnbc)

Islamabad city hospital continues receiving children suffering from measles. Authorities inform that all necessary precautions have been taken. More than 50% of the children brought to the hospital are children who previously have been vaccinated. The Pakistani figures corroborate recently released British documentation for a 30-year long cover-up of vaccinations inefficiency and the involved health risks. 

The outpatient departments of Pakistan´s Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) and Ployclinic, reportedly receive 20 – 25 measles cases per day, and sources at the PIMS Childrens Hospital report that the Outpatient Department receives more than 120 cases every month.

The head of the pediatric department at the Children Hospital, Dr. Tabish Hazir reports, that there has been a measles outbreak in the twin cities since December 2012 and that the health authorities are still declining to accept it. Dr. Tabish Hazir states, that “It is a bitter fact that despite mass anti-measles vaccinations and all-out efforts to contain the disease, cases continue to surface”. 

Significantly, Dr. Tabish Hazir implicitly states the fact which critics of the vaccination program have stated all-along, which is, that the vaccinations are ineffective and that the considerable health risks involved in the vaccination program does not justify the mass immunization.

50% of those diagnosed have been vaccinated. According to Dr. Tabish Hazir, “More than 50% of  the children brought to the hospital were those who already had been vaccinated.”. 

Dr. Tabish Hazir stated, that since January 2013 more than 550 children have been clinically diagnosed with measles at PIMS. 180 of these cases came from urban areas of Islamabad, 40 from Bhara Kahu, 25 from Alipur Farash, 15 from Bari Imam and 126 fom Rawalpindi and the rest is distributed among other parts of the country.  So far, only one death has resulted from the outbreak.

Dr. Tabish Hazir stressed the urgent need for new epidemiological studies as more than 50% of the children brought to the hospital were those who had already been vaccinated against measles. “It is important that the characteristic of the virus be closely monitored and studied. Blood samples should be sent to The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, for laboratory test and verification”. 

The fact that Pakistan has to send laboratory samples abroad, and especially abroad to the USA and the CDC is being criticized by critics of the vaccination program, as the CDC has repeatedly come under fire for highly biased reports and for “pushing vaccination programs”.

Despite high incidence no outbreak. The Director of Health of Pakistan´s CDA, Dr. Urooj Hassan stated, that despite the high number of cases, there has not been an outbreak of measles in Islamabad and that all the necessary measures had been taken since the first case of measles was reported in the capital.

UK Documents released in Freedom of Information Act request document 30-year long cover-up of vaccines inefficiency and health risks. Earlier in 2013, documents which had been released in a Freedom of Information Act Request in the United Kingdom caused grave concerns about the efficiency of vaccination programs and their health risks.

The released documents clarified that there has been a 30 year long cover-up of the facts that the United Kingdom´s health officials have known that vaccines don´t work, have known that vaccines cause the diseases against which they are supposed to immunize, have known that vaccines constitute a health hazard to children.

Furthermore, the released documents clarify that the UK´s health officials have colluded to lie to the public and worked to prevent safety studies.

NSNBC Editor´s note: To put this into perspective; Infant mortality from measles in Pakistan is lower than infant mortality caused by US-Military Drone Attacks.

Related articles:

Measles outbreak: City hospitals continue to receive new cases

The Vaccine Hoax is Over. Documents from UK reveal 30 Years of Coverup

About the Author

Christof Lehmann – Dr. Christof Lehmann is the founder and editor of nsnbc. He is a psychologist and independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and a wide range of other political issues. His work with traumatized victims of conflict has led him to also pursue the work as political consultant. He is a lifelong activist for peace and justice, human rights, Palestinians rights to self-determination in Palestine, and he is working on the establishment of international institutions for the prosecution of all war crimes, also those committed by privileged nations. On 28 August 2011 he started his blog nsnbc, appalled by misrepresentations of the aggression against Libya and Syria. In March 2013 he turned nsnbc into a daily, independent, international on-line newspaper.

Measles Vaccine Continues to Fail Worldwide – Over Half of Hospitalised Measles Cases Were Vaccinated – Reports Pakistan Express Tribune

Clearly, the time is long overdue in Century 21 for effective treatments to be developed for basic childhood diseases:

more than 50 per cent of the children brought to the hospital were those who had already been vaccinated against measles” Dr Tabish Hazir Head of Pediatrics, Pims, Pakistan

Measles outbreak: City hospitals continue to receive new cases By Sehrish Wasif – Express Tribune – With International Herald Tribune Published: April 27, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

Previously reported on CHS:

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

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

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

The article by Padmanabhan Ramachandran and colleagues available here suggests:

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

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

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

An invited commentary accompanying the article is entitled

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

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

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

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

Conflict of Interests

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

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

Just as MMR vaccine was created by Merck’s marketing to add an unnecessary mumps vaccine to the US childhood immunisation schedule – and which causes health problems today – the same is being done in India and the Far East – with a vaccine which kills.

A just published commentary in the Indian Journal of Medical Research shows how science and objectivity have taken a back seat in this irrational push for dubious vaccines.  The commentary reviews a research article being used to make the case for the addition of Hib and Hep B vaccines to the DTP – Diphtheria Tetanus and Polio – vaccine.  The research article is also published with open access.

This has created an unneeded vaccine which kills:

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

The WHO found that Hib and Hep B vaccine uptake was poor.  This is primarily because it is not a significant health problem in countries like India.  It was decided to ‘piggyback’ these vaccines on the DPT vaccine – which is widely accepted and used.

The resulting pentavalent vaccine combines Hib and Hep B with DPT vaccine. It put up the cost of DPT 25 to 50 fold and has resulted in at least 21 deaths in India. It has been delisted by the drug regulatory authority in Vietnam after 9 deaths last week.

“Oh, what the Hell!” – Autism and MMR before the Lancet paper? Mumps, marketing, and monopoly!

Here is the fourth in Dr Andrew Wakefield’s videos [15 minutes]- and the prior three can also be found below.

FIRST OF PRIOR THREE VIDEOS [16 minutes]

SECOND OF PRIOR THREE VIDEOS [7 minutes]

THIRD OF PRIOR THREE VIDEOS [10 minutes]

Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet Paper – Lancet Ombudsman “there is a scientific argument which is continuing and has yet to be sorted out to everyone’s satisfaction. “

Letter from the Lancet Ombudsman, Professor Charles Warlow to those asking for Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper to be reinstated in the Lancet.  The letter could have stopped at the second paragraph.  It didn’t.

X, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX St

Edinburgh EH9 XXX

17^th May 2013

To all those who emailed me re the Wakefield 1998 Lancet paper and Mr Justice Mitting’s ruling on March 7^th 2013.

I am writing the same letter to all of you because you wrote more or less the same email complaining that The Lancet has not reversed its decision to retract the above paper.

In fact this is an editorial decision which as Ombudsman is not my business; I have to deal with complaints about process, delays, rudeness and such like. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am not in a position to make a ruling on your complaint.

However, I think you should be reassured that not only is the paper extremely well known amongst interested scientists, and indeed most people involved in medical care and research as well as the wider public, but also that in a sense it still exists—in libraries around the world, in paper copies of The Lancet. Retracted articles do not disappear from the published (on paper) literature. The Wakefield article is therefore still accessible to most if not all those who are grappling with the problem of autism, bowel disorders and the MMR vaccine.

Notwithstanding the GMC’s reinstatement of Professor Walker-Smith I note that Mr Justice Manning remarked “There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Dr Wakefield’s] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.” Clearly there is a scientific argument which is continuing and has yet to be sorted out to everyone’s satisfaction.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Charles Warlow

Lancet Ombudsman

Health Wars

Is this the kind of world you want? 

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

30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards – A paper presented at a scientific conference reviews official records of confidential internal government meetings obtained under Freedom of Information.

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics – official statistics show vaccines do not live up to the claims made for them and other very basic health measures like clean water and sanitation are far more valuable especially in the third world.

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action – following legal action under the Freedom of Information Act: Starting in 1986 Canada, to 1988 Japan and the UK to the present this previously unpublished account is definitive carefully researched and accessible.  The British government has prevented its child citizens being compensated and treated. Money and politics override child health safety.  Children continue to be injured.

Vaccines are not just big business – market worth US$52 billion by 2016.  Investors are piling in to emerging nations in Asia Pacific, India, Eastern Europe, Turkey and Russia, South Africa and Latin America.  The connection between vaccines and the harm they cause is difficult to prove so most people cannot easily understand the connections – like lifetime chronic disease so you don’t get to realise the extent of the problem.

They drain less wealthy countries of billions of dollars from health budgets and divert life saving health resources – India US$8 billion spent causing 67,000 cases of paralysis in children and death.

Ordinary people and the courageous few medical professionals who tell you are attacked, bullied and abused by people who do it for sport in their spare time – in groups organised on the internet “The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping by the way” managed by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.

Mainstream media are manipulated and manipulate you in turn.

Check out the three short videos below and ask yourself – is this man – Andrew Wakefield – universally attacked and reviled by the mainstream worldwide – a fraudster – who lost his career as a leading medical doctor and researcher – accused of being a child killer by Bill Gates.

Or is he wronged for speaking out to keep you and your children safer and protected from the massive money machine of the vaccine industry – who are turning your children into pin-cushion profit centres to keep them and the banksters in champagne.  Is he what another Doctor who was also attacked but won says he is – an honest and caring doctor whose only concern is for the health and safety of children in the UK and worldwide.

Donate here – Dr Wakefield Justice Fund and read more about it here.  And get involved online – using just your internet connection, computer and phone you can do it all just from your home or whereever may be – any time day or night 24/7.

In the three short videos here Wakefield exposes the motives, the marketing, and the deception behind US and UK MMR vaccine policies. He urges the UK’s head of immunization to debate him in public and answer key questions on vaccine safety in the wake of untold levels of sickness in today’s children and sparked by recent British Government propaganda, and calls by vaccine millionaire Dr. Paul Offit to end religious exemptions in the US and mandate vaccination in the UK.

Extent of UK Measles Scam Unfolds – Welsh Health Officials Issued False Reports To UK Media of “Confirmed” Measles Cases Which Did Not Exist

We stated on May 3 about the UK scam claims by health officials of numbers of measles cases:

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

We were 100% right.  See links below to CHS’ recent articles. Public Health Wales’ [PHW] own figures of confirmed measles cases to the end of March 2013 were 8 for the whole of Wales:

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

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

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

PHW’s own general standard information on its website states:

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

But Public Health Wales claimed vastly more laboratory confirmed measles cases than existed in confirmations from their own laboratory and England combined. This is what was put out on British news by Public Health Wales during April:

Chronology of claims of confirmed cases – source ITV News:

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

That was the number claimed to the end of March.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the backtracking May 3:

A PUBLIC health expert says measles cases in the Swansea area may have peaked. The number of laboratory confirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested.” Dr Sara Hayes, director of public health at Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, said she believed the number of people with the disease will fall in the next few weeks.”  Dr Hayes said: “We do not seem to be seeing the scale of morbidity we were anticipating. There is a suggestion we have reached a peak in the outbreak.  “I am hoping we will see a decline in the next few weeks.

Measles cases in Swansea may have peaked, according to a public health expert Friday, May 03, 2013 Liz Perkins South Wales Evening Post

It is claimed recently some laboratory tests had been sent to England for testing and that the figures were not in Public Health Wales’ own reports.  However, when the February and March figures were published by Health Protection Wales, no qualification to that effect appeared either on the HPW’s website and it does not appear in the reports,  so was thus not being applied to the February and March figures by Public Health Wales.   It appears a more recent claim added to PHW’s website on 9th May. And when the Welsh measles outbreak was at its peak in April the number of confirmed cases for four months January to April was stated publicly to be 370 in total – an average of 28 cases a week and that is in a Welsh population of 3 million.

Read our earlier reports for details of the false claims about:

• how officials claimed 1 in 1000 children will die from measles – when there have been 80,000+ cases of measles in the UK since 1992 and no healthy individual has died from acute measles in that time;

• how officials claimed a 25 year old father had died from measles when an autopsy could not find the cause of death and three doctors who saw him did not diagnose measles despite being in Swansea, Wales UK, the centre of what was being claimed to be an epidemic requiring “crisis” measures;

• how the BBC surreptitiously changed its online news reports to remove false claims that just before the MMR vaccine was introduced to the UK in 1988 there were ‘millions’ of annual UK measles cases with 100 measles child deaths every year – it just was not true – but the BBC hid the fact they changed the news to cover up they had published false news;

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

UPDATE MEASLES UK 2013 – BBC News Secretly Removes Fake News Claims from Website – Health Officials in Tail-Spin Over Vastly Hyped Claims of Welsh Measles Epidemic

And:

South Wales Measles Death – Mother Blames Docs – “3 Docs Said ‘Not Measles’ & Sent Him Home With Water & Paracetamol”

British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

“Measles To Be Eradicated in 1967 With 55% Vaccine Coverage”

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

UPDATE MEASLES UK 2013 – BBC News Secretly Removes Fake News Claims from Website – Health Officials in Tail-Spin Over Vastly Hyped Claims of Welsh Measles Epidemic

How times change. A month ago health officials were predicting a UK-wide measles epidemic with multiple measles deaths and disabilities, with everyone not previously vaccinated to get the MMR vaccine. 

Welsh Health officials were first caught out when the British media discovered that the figures being given out to them were of only suspected cases and that doctors massively over-report measles cases.  As CHS has reported, sometimes as many as 73 in every 74 reports are NOT measles: [Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, mumps, and rubella, England and Wales: October to December 2004 – CDR Weekly, Volume 15 Number 12 Published: 24 March 2005: Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries Of Official Statistics].

Even the standard general officially published “blurb” available online confirms this but Public Health Wales appears to have omitted to tell the media:

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

Over at Age of Autism Jenny Allan reports that the BBC removed from their BBC online news the bizarre claim that prior to 1988, when MMR vaccine was introduced there were ‘millions’ of annual UK measles cases with 100 measles child deaths every year: Jenny Allan | May 06, 2013 at 08:10 PM.  

Thanks to information from Jenny Allan we show what the BBC has now “doctored” from its online news reports to remove the fake news the BBC had reported from the wildly exaggerated claims quoted by Dr Sara Hayes.   They have also changed the headline but the original headline is here in a tweet from the BBC’s health “journalist” (?) Fergus Walsh who seems to have “led the charge” at the BBC to scare parents with fake news: “Measles: Swansea epidemic cases could exceed 600 http://bbc.in/Xpi860“.   Here is the extract from the original – with the parts shown in red now deleted:-

Measles: Swansea epidemic cases could exceed 600 – BBC Health – Measles 9th April 2013

“Death risk’ in outbreak

…….

“We are not in any way judgmental about why their children may have missed the MMR in the past. The important thing is that they get the jab now,” she added.

Before the introduction of the MMR in 1988, about half a million children caught measles and about 100 died from it each year in the UK.”

It is deeply troubling that any organisation holding itself out to report news “doctors” that news.  This is an example of the BBC publishing untrue claims as news and then only when it has been found doing it does it then airbrush the fact from history.  There is no single reference on the online page to record the BBC retracting its untrue news claims nor any public apology.  This is makes BBC news reporting look crooked.  Clearly, this kind of practice makes it difficult to trust the BBC’s reporting.  Little surprise then that the muslim world does not trust the western first world who seem to manipulate their lives. Will the responsible people working as journalists at the BBC complain?   Or maybe they should get a job elsewhere?

Instead of airbrushing false news when caught the BBC should have admitted it got it wrong so the British tax and licence payers and the world can see and the BBC should apologise.

The media were not initially reporting the suspected numbers of measles  cases compared to the laboratory confirmed figures but were later.  They are still falling down badly on the job with the BBC at the forefront – seeming to operate as as self-styled Pravda for the British Government. 

Following a 2nd May news release from health officials the backtracking has started.  It was being reported in Welsh newspapers [one of which in Swansea was being blamed for the “outbreak” by publicising the problems with the MMR vaccine]:

A PUBLIC health expert says measles cases in the Swansea area may have peaked. The number of laboratory confirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested.” Dr Sara Hayes, director of public health at Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, said she believed the number of people with the disease will fall in the next few weeks.”  Dr Hayes said: “We do not seem to be seeing the scale of morbidity we were anticipating. There is a suggestion we have reached a peak in the outbreak.  “I am hoping we will see a decline in the next few weeks.

Measles cases in Swansea may have peaked, according to a public health expert Friday, May 03, 2013 Liz Perkins South Wales Evening Post

Scam claims appear to include that 1 in 1000 would die from measles when completely false. In the last 20 years+ since 1992 there have been 80,000+ measles cases [counting up to now] in England & Wales and zero deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles in that time. That is a clear and completely true and accurate statement which the vast majority of people find surprising in the light of the information health officials put in the media. They would surely conclude they are being scammed: Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine.

The 1 in 1000 figure appears to be based on figures published in the BMJ for Bulgaria, a much poorer country which is likely to have an even worse system for reporting measles cases and mortality than Public Health Wales:  The Bulgarian figures could easily be vastly over-hyped, far more so than in the UK and with a little help from some of our “friends” in some parts of the drug industry and some of their many hangers-on in medical professions. 

And the Bulgarian figures do appear to be over-hyped.  It is bizarrely claimed in the BMJ that there were 30,367 cases reported in Europe in 2009-2010 with most reported cases in 2010 in Bulgaria of 22,005.  This is coupled with the fantastical claim that “Of these, 21,877 people were admitted to hospital”: Measles outbreak in Europe BMJ 2011 Published 15 June 2011) BMJ 2011;342:d3724

But that is how reliable the British Medical Journal is in Century 21.

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

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

The claims of a 25 year old man being alleged to have died from measles also appears a scam claim.  He had already spent five days in hospital being treated for severe asthma. The same hospital refused to re admit him several days later, apparently very ill with some kind of rash.

Additionally according to a video report from The Telegraph of an interview with his mother, three doctors did not diagnose this new condition as measles [in the middle of the supposed epidemic in Swansea] and sent him home with paracetamol, following which he died: South Wales Measles Death – Mother Blames Docs – “3 Docs Said ‘Not Measles’ & Sent Him Home With Water & Paracetamol”

His angry family confirmed he had been fully vaccinated against measles as a child. The authorities stated this young father had measles virus, but the cause of death could not be established by an autopsy [postmortem examination].  The formal inquest into this death has been postponed [conveniently].  Someone being treated for severe asthma may have been treated with immunosuppressant drugs like steriods. An hospital is a centre of infection with all sorts of infections circulating. That combination is a recipe for potential problems.

Welsh health authorities seem now to be in a spin over their over hyping of what seems to have been a very small measles outbreak, and some may now be dissembling.

Their statistics appear to be confused.  There is no published explanation why here they claim 1137 laboratory confirmed cases in 2012: Measles notifications (confirmed cases) England and Wales 1995 – 2012* by quarter.  And here they claim 2030 CONFIRMED CASES OF MEASLES, MUMPS & RUBELLA England and Wales, 1996 – 2012*. 

CHS understands the lower figure is claimed to be for direct notifications by health professionals only and the higher figure is for notification by health professionals and others.  But no explanation on either site of where the figures are from nor how compiled nor any qualification to explain.  And the explanation being given raises more questions than it answers.

As for the Public Health Wales figures for the Swansea and all Wales “outbreaks”, there are no qualifications of any kind on the reports published as total monthly figures such as the February and March monthly All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections reporting only 8 laboratory confirmed cases in the whole of those months from the whole of Wales.  There are some reports that health officials are now claiming that these reports are only for specimens tested in Wales and “the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation“.  That also raises more questions than it answers. 

CHS can report that there are more revelations yet to come on the Welsh outbreak – so “stay tuned”.

If samples are sent for “confirmation” that means the results are sent back to Public Health Wales. There is no point sending them for “confirmation” if the results are not sent back. So Public Health Wales should have ALL the data. And “confirmation” indicates these are confirmations of tests already carried out.

Additionally, weekly reports are published and then updated in monthly reports.  The reports themselves published by Public Health Wales contain no qualification they are incomplete and set out the figures as all of the laboratory tested cases.  If the reports were wildly inaccurate there would be no point publishing them.  The monthly reports do not appear to have any qualification to the effect that they do not contain all of the lab results – including those confirmed for them outside Wales.

Officials say the true figures will not be published for another three months – how so very convenient.

Here is the extract from the original – with the parts shown in red now deleted:-

Measles: Swansea epidemic cases could exceed 600 – BBC Health – Measles 9th April 2013

“Death risk’ in outbreak

…….

“We are not in any way judgmental about why their children may have missed the MMR in the past. The important thing is that they get the jab now,” she added.

Before the introduction of the MMR in 1988, about half a million children caught measles and about 100 died from it each year in the UK.”

Wakefield Libel Case vs BMJ, Godlee & Deer – Appeal Hearing 22nd May – Texas Third Court of Appeals

Age of Autism reports:

The judge has set May 22 for an appeal in Austin, Texas of the jurisdiction issue in Dr. Andy Wakefield’s defamation suit against the British Medical Journal, Editor Fiona Godlee and “journalist” Brian Deer. The case was dismissed by a judge who said Wakefield was not entitled to sue the British publication in Texas, but Wakefield appealed.  Supporters of Dr. Wakefield will be in attendance.

See here for the latest filings, and stay tuned for updates.

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

The latest news indicates this is not just a rogue batch or vaccine from one manufacturer but a problem with the vaccination as such. So very bad news for babies and their parents in the UK. Worse of course for countries having mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination programmes.

Whilst introduction into the UK of a new multiple vaccine which includes Hepatitis B is awaited and being pushed by drug industry funded front organisation The Hepatitis Foundation UK, the Vietnamese Ministry of Health decided on May 4 to suspend the use of Quinvaxem, the made-in-Korea vaccine against DTP, Hib & Hepatitis B after nine deaths and dozens of cases of severe allergic reactions among local infants were reported over the past six months: [ Vietnam suspends Quinvaxem vaccine following 9 deaths Tuoi Tre News 05/06/2013].

In India the vaccine is under question after 18 deaths there and another 23 in other countries: [Pentavalent vaccine: Doing more harm than good? Express Pharma The Indian Express Limited 9th May 2013].  These figures do not include the already documented deaths in European infants. 

Hepatitis B vaccine has been shown in many peer reviewed research papers [including from Harvard University – detailed references in linked CHS article] 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: [UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety]

From Express Pharma:

That there are 41 deaths are a matter of serious concern. Should the programme be now suspended?

………………

Immunisation with the new Pentavalent vaccine resulted in the recent death of two babies in Kerala. This combination vaccine was to replace the trivalent DPT (against diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus vaccine) and additionally protects against Haemophilus influenzae type b and Hepatitis B. The post mortem certificate in both babies stated:

“Based on the findings in the autopsy, preliminary reports of microbiological and histopathological findings, no definite opinion as to the cause of death can be furnished. Death due to natural disease, injury and aspiration pneumonia are ruled out.

However, death as a result of post vaccination sequelae could not be ruled out.”

……..

There were eight deaths in Bhutan.

There were 25 instances of serious adverse events in Sri Lanka including five deaths.

There were three deaths in Pakistan.

There were 10 children who suffered serious adverse events of whom seven died in Vietnam.

There were at least 15 deaths in Kerala and two in Tamil Nadu and one in Haryana making the total 18 deaths in India.

These deaths, in different countries using vaccine from varied manufacturers, rules out defects in some specific batch of the vaccine, and also indicate that they are unlikely to be because of incorrect administration of the vaccine.

The WHO considers two deaths due to vaccination as a cluster that mandates rapid evaluation of the risk to public safety.

As CHS has previously reported, Hepatitis B containing vaccines in particular have an extremely poor historical safety record:

Court Fines Doctor Who Did Not Tell Patient Hepatitis B Vaccine Causes Multiple Sclerosis

US Government Concedes Hep B Vaccine Causes Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety

Despite this the UK’s Joint Committed on Vaccination and Immunisation state publicly:

….. the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) wishes to recommend universal hepatitis B vaccination” : JCVI response on hepatitis B vaccination The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9818, Page 803, 3 March 2012

And the British Medical Association state on the website of an organisation funded by numerous drug companies:

BMA Policy is that universal immunisation in childhood for hepatitis B should be introduced.” Hepatitis B vaccination in childhood 20 May 2010

The website is the Hepatitis Foundation UK, which is funded “with grateful thanks” to Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Bristol-Myers and Gilead Sciences “without whose support the work of the Hepatitis B Foundation UK would not be possible.” Hepatitis Foundation UK Sponsors.

BBC World News – Bill Gates’ & WHO’s Polio Eradication Plans Under Fire Today – Polio Cannot Be Eradicated & “US$ 8 Billion Spent On This Only Well Spent If We Learn Never To Do This Again”

Watch here on YouTube the BBC News Impact programme which hosted a debate today during which the US$ 8 billion polio eradication vaccination programme was put under fire.  Defending the programme was an advisor to the Pakistan Government and also the World Health Organisation’s polio programme Director, Dr. Hamid Jafari.  Putting very eloquently the case against the programme was Dr Jacob Puliyel, Head of Paediatrics of St Stephen’s hospital Delhi.

Dr Puliyel’s criticisms can be viewed @ 6m 19  and @ 11m 16.

The programme presenter posed the question of why spend all this money when it is diverting resources from bigger killers.  Annual deaths of 37 in Afghanistan, 58 in Pakistan and 122 Nigeria respectively were compared to annual malaria deaths of 600,000 and HIV/Aids of 1.7 million.

Dr Puliyel pointed to major problems with the programme:

• non polio paralysis cases were 61,000 in India and are associated with polio vaccination campaigns;

• “vertical” [ie. single] disease programmes address only one disease and divert resources from other areas;

• the disease cannot be eradicated and polio vaccination campaigns will have to continue forever.

Dr Puliyel also compared what happened to the DPT vaccination programme during the polio campaigns.  DPT coverage dropped from 70% to 55% because the DPT programme is not being delivered to the patients and polio is instead.

When asked whether the polio programme was worth the money he answered:

I do not believe this vertical programme has improved anything where public health is concerned” and that the US$8 billion was “Well spent if at least we learn never to spend money again on a vertical programme like this in the future“.

Leading British Newspaper Calls for Inquiry Into Massive Increases in Autism, Speech & Language Disorders in Children – 1 in 77 Now Diagnosed With Autism

Just Published

One schoolchild in 77 in Scotland has an autism diagnosis, while the number of children with speech and language disorder has also increased sharply.

Whether the figures are the result of better record-keeping or a more disturbing rise in the underlying incidence of autism, the case for an independent and thorough inquiry is now compelling.”

Case for an inquiry into autism figures – The Scotsman 06/05/2013 02:06

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

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

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

UPDATE 13/5/13 – April figures:

We stated on May 3, when this article was posted

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

We were 100% right.

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

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

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

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

Public Health Wales own information also states:

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

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

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

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

Chronology of claims of confirmed cases – source ITV News:

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

That was the number claimed to the end of March.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE 17 MAY

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

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

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

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

——-  ******* ——-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[click on photo for enlarged image in new window]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And compare with this:

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

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

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

Let’s wait for the April figures. 

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

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

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

South Wales Measles Death – Mother Blames Docs – “3 Docs Said ‘Not Measles’ & Sent Him Home With Water & Paracetamol”

The death of a 25 year old South Wales man who had measles when he died had not been attributed to measles by doctors.  He was sent home with water and paracetamol after three doctors said he did not have measles.  A postmortem [autopsy] is due to be held later this week to establish the cause of death and whether measles was implicated.

In a video interview with The Telegraph newspaper [Embed Code], his mother said he was let down by the medical profession.  She said he could not walk to the surgery and three doctors saw him and said it was not measles.  He was sent him home with water and paracetamol. The Telegraph written report quotes the mother saying “He was covered in a rash, and what with the measles epidemic in Swansea we wanted to get him to hospital. He had been in Morriston Hospital for five or six days before he was sent home.”

Read the story and view the video on Telegraph website: Measles death: man was sent home from hospital By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent 20 Apr 2013.

MEASLES WAS NEVER THE SCARY DISEASE OFFICIALS CLAIM NOW

According to the British Medical Journal from 1959 experienced family doctors considered measles to be a generally mild disease.  They were far from the panic they are today scaring parents.  You can read the facts from the BMJ in this CHS article:

British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1 IN 1000 MEASLES DEATHS FIGURE IS FALSE

There is also nothing like 1 in 1000 deaths from measles as being quoted by public health officials to whip up a public scare.  Parents are being frightened by false claims by health officials.  The real figures in modern times are totally different and are well-known to health officials.

NO UK DEATHS FROM MEASLES IN HEALTHY CHILDREN SINCE 1992

Since 1992 there have been no deaths in healthy children but well over 80,000 measles cases.  The only two deaths reported as measles are now only one [according to National Statistics]: a 14 year old with a lung condition on immunosuppressants was classified as measles in 2006; but the 2008 death also in an immuno compromised child is now doubted to be a measles death.

PHW’s director of health protection Dr Marion Lyons quoted recently:

“Measles is a potentially fatal disease and around one in every 1,000 people who contracts measles in developed countries will die.”.

Swansea measles epidemic: Man who died had measles – BBC 19 April 2013

Data from the Health Protection Agency shows there have been over 80,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 but only two deaths since then from acute measles and none in healthy children.

See the figures and especially the quote at bottom of HPA web page:

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.  “

Measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales, 1940-2008

NHS VACCINE SAFETY FIGURES USELESS

The claims to vaccine safety compared to the hazards of measles from the Department of Health are also wholly unreliable.  Those nice tables from the NHS comparing risks of vaccines to risks of diseases are useless because they fail to take account of under-reporting of adverse reactions to drugs.

It is necessary to multiply by at least 50 times for any drug as a rule of thumb.  [Under-reporting in all drugs and not just vaccines is 98 in every 100 adverse reactions: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.].

But for vaccines it is thought to be a higher rate of under-reporting and could be 1 in 200.

VACCINES IN GENERAL CAUSE AUTISTIC CONDITIONS

Listen to what the experts say from the US government, US and Italian Courts.  And do not forget, these Court cases were not the judges deciding on the balance of the evidence but the US and Italian government authorities conceding the cases on the basis of their own experts’ advice:

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

US Court Awards Multi-Million Dollar Payouts To Two More US Children With Vaccine Caused Autism

American parents awarded £600000 in compensation after their son developed autism as a result of MMR vaccine

MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court

MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

Fox News – US Pays $ Millions In Secret To Vaccine-Caused-Autism Injured Kids

MMR Vaccine Causes Autism Italian Case Now Reported in English National Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Click Graph to Enlarge – Opens In New Window]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First UK Measles Death Suspected In South Wales – Who Is Responsible?

EDITORIAL:

Having blamed Dr Andrew Wakefield for the current measles outbreak, the media and health officials telegraphed their intention last Sunday to blame him for the first UK death from measles for some years eg. First death feared in MMR scare The Sunday Times By Mark Hookham 14 April 2013.

And now today just a short while ago the first suspected death is being reported: Death of 25-year-old man being investigated as part of South Wales measles outbreak:  Daily Mail 11:10, 19 April 2013 Rachel Reilly.

It is not known whether the man did have measles or died from it nor whether he had been vaccinated.  An omission from early reports today is why anyone suspects a measles infection.  Nothing is said which is somewhat odd.

This man would have been around 18 months old when the MMR vaccine was introduced so could well have been vaccinated then.  But it is not so easy to blame Dr Wakefield.  The suspected but unconfirmed measles victim would also have been 10 years old when Dr Wakefield came on the scene in 1998. A post-mortem is expected to be carried out later to confirm the cause of death, according to police and public health officials say the news reports.

This situation  has occurred despite UK vaccination rates being at an all time high and despite the majority of measles cases being in the 1 to 5 age group as confirmed in Parliament by Lord Howe.

If this man has died as a result of measles then the people clearly blameworthy are Dr David Salisbury and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.  Ever since 1998 they purposefully and intentionally took away the sensible option of allowing those parents who did not trust the MMR vaccine or government assurances to have access to a single measles vaccine.

With MMR vaccination rates claimed to be at well over 90% and approaching 95%, there is a small minority of less than 10% not availing themselves of the MMR vaccine.  So if there are parents who did not then and now still do not trust Dr Salisbury and the JCVI over the MMR vaccine – and they have good reasons not to – they are a minority who have been deprived of single measles vaccines since 1998 when Dr Salisbury and the JCVI oversaw the withdrawal of the option of single vaccines then.

So to get the coverage up higher would only take having an option of a single measles vaccine for between 3% and 5% of the remainder.  That could easily have been achieved across the entire EU but instead health officials did nothing about it – leaving those parents and their children with nothing.

It was government saying to parents its “our way or the highway” – which is a dangerous precedent politically to set over any aspect of healthcare.  No choice and no freedom.

But a policy of choice would see higher combined rates of uptake with those few families taking the single measles vaccine.  The long sought and repeatedly W.H.O. postponed nirvana for public health policy of the eradication of measles in the UK could have been achieved a decade ago if not for Professor Salisbury and his JCVI.  This post would not be being written now.

It is clearly nonsense to blame Dr Wakefield for something which has solely been within the control of Dr Salisbury and the JCVI for a decade and a half.  Dr Wakefield did not decide to withdraw the vaccine – Dr Salisbury and others did, so they must accept responsibility for their own decisions and stop trying to scapegoat others.  They have sat back complaining about vaccination uptake for 14 years with the sensible option available to them throughout.

And politically, what is the role of the state in public health matters affecting individual children and their families?  At what point is the State justified in intervening? Should parents have the right to decide wisely or not on matters affecting the health of their children.  Should the state override and intervene and if so, when and to what degree? Can the state be trusted to? Or more to the point, can those officials entrusted with the task be?

Or should the State facilitate by offering choice in a matter so important that choice could be the only and best sensible approach – common sense prevailing.

Health officials and the media were hedging their bets in trying recently to pin a feared death on Dr Wakefield last weekend.  There have been 76,000 reported cases of measles in the UK since 1992 but only two deaths since then from acute measles and none in healthy children:

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

…….

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

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