Three New Studies Show “Psychiatric Drugs Provide No Benefit and Are Dangerous”

Three new published studies [one a pharmaco-genetic study is groundbreaking] confirm that widely prescribed psychotropic drugs that pose serious risks of harm, offer no therapeutic benefit.

The following article is republished from The Alliance for Human Research Protection, non-profit charity, New York USA – infomail  11th August 2011.  [For more factual debunking information on psychiatric drugs which the drug industry does not advertise and presented with humour see also THE BONKERS INSTITUTE FOR NEARLY GENUINE RESEARCH].

For two decades, medical professionals, the public, and public health policy officials who determine the allocation of public funds for healthcare, have been misled about the safety and benefits of psychiatric drugs–in particular, the newer, expensive drugs, the so-called SSRI antidepressants, and the new neuroleptics, marketed as ‘atypical antipsychotics’.

Pharmaceutical industry marketing hype, deceptively packaged as “scientific study findings,” gained the appearance of legitimacy when they were accepted by the FDA for licensure, and accepted for publication in medical journals. Those reported “findings” were fraudulent, concocted and aggressively disseminated by manufacturers of these drugs.

The deception has seriously undermined the integrity of the scientific literature, and misled physicians who unwittingly prescribe hazardous drugs causing patients irreparable harm.

Thanks to years of litigation during which company documents have been uncovered, the truth has been revealed. We now know that SSRI antidepressants and the ‘atypical’ antipsychotics have failed decisively to demonstrate therapeutic benefits in clinical trials and in clinical practice Instead, these drugs have triggered debilitating, chronic illness and even life-threatening risks: antidepressants increase the suicide risk and trigger serotonin syndrome, which is potentially fatal. Antipsychotics undermine normal metabolic, cardiovascular, hormonal function, resulting in cardiac arrest, obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes.

1. A groundbreaking pharmaco-genetic study by Australian psychopharmacology experts–Dr. Yolande Lucire, a forensic psychiatrist, and Christopher Crotty, a pharmacogeneticist–report in the peer reviewed journal, Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, (abstract below) an alarming finding. They report a significant association among genetic variants, metabolism of psychiatric drugs, and severe, homicidal akathisia.

http://www.dovepress.com/antidepressant-induced-akathisia-related-homicides-associated-with-dim-a7993

The authors examined the relationship between genetic variants in the CYP450 family, the interaction of antidepressant-induced akathisia, and violence, including homicide in 129 forensic patients who had referred to Dr. Lucire by lawyers.

Of 138 persons tested for CYP450 genes, 129 had experienced adverse events, “mainly akathisia, due to psychiatric drugs, and nine were first degree relatives of those treated who also had a history of adversity on other drugs.”

Of the 129 persons who experienced drug-induced adverse effects, 8 had committed homicide, 3 had committed suicide, and one had sleepwalked to her death.

The authors report that:

In all of the cases presented here, the subjects were prescribed antidepressants that failed to mitigate distress emerging from their predicaments, which encompassed psychosocial stressors such as bereavement, marital and relationship difficulties, and work-related stress. Every subject’s emotional reaction worsened while their prescribing physicians continued the “trial and error” approach, increasing from standard to higher dose and/or switching to other antidepressants, with disastrous consequences. In some cases the violence ensued from changes occasioned by withdrawal and polypharmacy.

In all of these cases, the subjects were put into a state of drug induced toxicity manifesting as akathisia, which resolved only upon discontinuation of the antidepressant drugs.

This paper has detailed and substantiated in specific terms how the metabolism of each of the antidepressant drugs used by the subjects would have been seriously impaired both before and at the time they committed or attempted homicide. They were experiencing severe reported side effects, adverse drug reactions due to impaired metabolism complicated by drug–drug interactions against a background of variant CYP450 alleles.”

The authors state:

The results presented here concerning a sample of persons given antidepressants for psychosocial distress demonstrate the extent to which the psychopharmacology industry has expanded its influence beyond its ability to cure. The roles of both regulatory agencies and drug safety “pharmacovigilantes” in ensuring quality and transparency of industry information is highlighted.”

Two other recently published studies, one in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the other in the Journal of the American Medical Association, also debunk the validity of psychiatry’s prescribing practices whose rationale is mostly commercially propagated.

2. The authors of the BMJ report, “Antidepressant Use and Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Older People: Population Based Cohort Study” analyzed data for 60,746 persons in the UK who were over 65 and diagnosed with depression between 1996 and 2007. The authors followed the subjects until December, 2008. found that those prescribed SSRI antidepressants are at increased risk of death and heart attack, stroke, falls and seizures than those who were prescribed the older, cheaper, tricyclic antidepressants.

During those 10 years, patients not taking any antidepressants had a 7% risk of dying from any cause. But the risk rose to 8.1% for those taking the older antidepressants and increased to 10.6% for patients prescribed SSRIs.

All classes of antidepressant drug were associated with significantly increased risks of all cause mortality, attempted suicide/self harm, falls, fractures, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding compared with when these drugs were not being used. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the group of other antidepressant drugs were associated with increased risks of stroke/transient ischaemic attack and epilepsy/seizures; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were also associated with increased risks of myocardial infarction and hyponatraemia.”

3. According to government data, 10% to 20% of soldiers who see heavy combat develop lasting symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and about a fifth of those who are treated are prescribed an antipsychotic drug. The JAMA report, by prominent psychiatrists on the faculty of Yale University, examines the treatment outcome for veterans suffering from PTSD, whose treatment with SSRI antidepressants failed, who were then prescribed antipsychotics. See, “Adjunctive Risperidone Treatment for Antidepressant-Resistant Symptoms of Chronic Military Service–Related PTSD A Randomized Trial

The finding:

after six months of treatment, the veterans who were prescribed Risperdal were doing no better than a similar group of 124 veterans, who were given a placebo. About 5% in both groups recovered, and 10% to 20% reported at least some improvement, based on standardized measures.

We didn’t find any suggestion that the drug treatment was having an overall benefit on their lives,” said Dr. John H. Krystal, the director of the clinical neurosciences division of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Center for PTSD and the lead author of the study.

The New York Times reports:

The surprising finding, from the largest study of its kind in veterans, challenges current treatment standards so directly that it could alter practice soon, some experts said.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Charles Hoge, a senior scientist at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, who was not involved in the study, stated:

I think it’s a very important study given how frequently the drugs have been prescribed. It definitely calls into question the use of antipsychotics in general for PTSD.”

Although the study focused on one antipsychotic, Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal, experts agree that the results most likely extend to the entire class, including the drugs, Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify.

These three reports are the latest in a string of scientific reports, untainted by industry influence, that examined the evidence and found that current psychiatric drug prescribing practices are of little, if any, therapeutic value. But since the drugs pose serious risks of harm by triggering drug-induced (iatrogenic) illness–which significantly increases healthcare costs–why does the U.S. government waste billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their cost?

Read more…. http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/831/9/

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
[001] 212-595-8974

UK Guardian Newspaper Caught Falsifying the Historical Record of Vaccine-Caused-Autism

In a first for journalism, the UK’s Guardian national daily newspaper has been caught falsifying their own newspaper’s public record in a bid to airbrush the facts about vaccine-caused-autism.  Whilst some other media outlets have adopted the approach of ignoring the evidence and writing and broadcasting one-sided reports, this time The Guardian newspaper has been caught changing it.  The Guardian removed the evidence – gone without a trace – from their online newspaper.

Like many other papers, The Guardian allows readers to post comments on articles published in their online version.  On Saturday 6 August 2011 the paper published a commentary by Tracy McVeigh “Research linking autism to internet use is criticised“.  This was about a public row over claims by Lady Susan Greenfield that there is a link between the increase in autism and the increase in the use of the internet.  Greenfield is a medical academic and researcher on brain physiology, particularly on Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases.

Inevitably this attracted debate between commenters about the causes of autistic conditions.

The surprising part is what The Guardian did in response to postings of clear evidence of an admitted link between vaccines and autistic conditions.  They obliterated the posts as if they had never been made on their newspaper’s site.  There is no trace of the posts to be found.  They are just gone, barring a trace for one of them only – the first to be removed.  There was no justification for this and none has so far been provided despite having been requested.  The posts met the “Community Standards” whereas in contrast offensive comments from anti-vaccine safety campaigners are not removed.

The importance of this of course is that it underlines the points that:-

  • news media are intentionally covering up the public disaster where 1 in 64 British children [1 in 40 being British boys] have an autistic condition and 1 in 100 US children do also;
  • when they should instead report such a terrible thing fairly and campaign to do something about stopping this happening;
  • the evidence presented is so strong that a UK national newspaper cannot answer it and airbrushes it from its online pages.

What happened was that in response to numerous comments claiming vaccines are not implicated in causing autistic conditions CHS intervened.  CHS posted publicly made quotes and links to evidence confirming numerous US government agencies and officials have confirmed vaccines do cause autistic conditions.  These include:

  • Merck’s current Director of Vaccines Julie Gerberding when she was Director of the US Centers for Disease Control;
  • the US Health Resources Services Administration;
  • the US Federal Court;
  • the US Secretary of State for Health and Human Services.

The evidence and posts appear below in full.  These include posts noting the financial ties between the Guardian newspaper and medical publishers with undeclared substantial conflicting financial and business interests in the pharmaceutical industry.

In all four posts were removed.  Three without trace and one was removed with the incorrect claim left in its place that “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards.

If you want to make a difference then do something and write to the Guardian “Readers’ Editor” Nigel Willmott (nigel.willmott@guardian.co.uk) and ask him to tell you what The Guardian and its Board have to say about this and what they think their journalists should do if they caught another newspaper or broadcaster rewriting and publishing an adulterated history or engaging in misconduct.

______________________________________

THE FIRST POST REMOVED WITHOUT TRACE

ChildHealthSafety

8 August 2011 7:46AM

Here is a public opportunity to see The Guardian’s censorship of facts and evidence in action. The following facts are publicly documented yet The Guardian’s Comment is Free [LOL] censors removed it in its entiretly to airbrush the unpalatable facts from their agenda journalism. There was and could be no contravention of any Guardian “Community Standards” [well not official ones that is – only the ones that say the Guardian only publishes facts which fit its political agenda journalism and removes all others.

Tracey McVeigh’s article on Lady Susan Greenfield’s public unscientific comments about the causes of autistic conditions has provoked comment about the causes of autistic conditions.

In response to various comments we posted quotes from numerous US government officials and agencies with links to original sources on what causes autistic conditions. The Guardian censors removed the posting. There is no conspiracy theory here – only documented fact – and The Guardian does this kind of thing repeatedly.

This posting was made 7 August 2011 11:14AM and you can check out above that it was removed.

Floost 7 August 2011 9:49AM

I think arec pretty much nailed it ….. given ageofautism’s dangerous views on vaccination, I think you got off lightly.

So how about the views of 1) Merck’s current Director of Vaccines Julie Gerberding when she was Director of the US Centers for Disease Control 2) the US Health Resources Services Administration 3) the US Federal Court? 4) the US Secretary of State for Health and Human Services?

All have confirmed autistic conditions can be caused by vaccines.

GERBERDING:

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

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

US HRSA:

[when confirming of the 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in secret settlements]:-

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

US HRSA to reporter Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News 5th May 2008

US FEDERAL COURT
[PDD is the US term under DSM IV for ASD – Autistic Spectrum Disorder]:

“…… Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. …… Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

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

US SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES:-

The Department for Health and Human Services conceded the Hannah Poling case – that Hannah’s autistic condition was caused by 9 vaccines [ie. not just the MMR] administered in one day. Last year the US Federal Court determined a settlement which reportedly amounts to US $ 20 million over Hannah Poling’s lifetime:

Court Awards Over $20 Million for Vaccine-Caused Autism PR Newswire (press release) – Sep 15, 2010

Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award CBS News September 9, 2010

“Settlement reached in autism-vaccine case” September 10, 2010 By Carrie Teegardin The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.


THE SECOND POST REMOVED WITHOUT TRACE

ChildHealthSafety

8 August 2011 9:20AM

In our post above noting direct censorship of public facts by The Guardian perhaps we should have added “Follow the Money”.

GUARDIAN & BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Guardian partners with British Medical Journal Group for online first Tuesday 3 March 2009 00.00 GMT

“Derrick Malone, Guardian Product Manager said: “People naturally turn to the Internet when researching health issues and we were keen to provide our users with factual information they could trust to complement our extensive features on health issues. The pages were developed entirely in house by the GNM technology team in collaboration with BMJ Group.”

Rachel Armitage, Director, BMJ Evidence Centre said: “We’re pleased to partner with the Guardian and bring our knowledge to a wider audience. The information is based on our ‘Clinical Evidence’ product, which provides doctors with access to the very latest and most relevant medical knowledge and is used to make treatment decisions.”

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL & DRUG INDUSTRY
The Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal was forced to make an embarrassing correction regarding the BMJ’s own failures to disclose its conflicting financial interests in the drug industry.

Here is the correction forced ultimately by online criticism from New York charity The Alliance for Human Research Protection:-

“The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378).

However, this also still fails to mention the most glaring conflict of all, which it all – BMJ’s business partnership with Merck through their information arm, Univadis (‘MSD signs partnership with BMJ group’).

THE THIRD POST REMOVED WITHOUT TRACE

ChildHealthSafety

9 August 2011 8:45AM

Artros @ 8 August 2011 9:32PM

Between the Internet, vaccines and dental amalgams, I think I’ve seen it all. Come on, man, vaccines? That’s like saying “influenza causes autism.”

Comments like this have been answered with quotes posted by us [with links to original publicly documented sources] but The Guardian removed them twice despite being in accordance with “Community Standards”. The second time there is no trace whatsoever of the original posting – The Guardian’s Comment is Free [LOL] removed it in its entiretly. This is an example of a national news media outlet using censorship to rewrite history and airbrushing facts from the record which directly contradict their strongly held personal beliefs.

The quotes were from 1) Merck’s current Director of Vaccines Julie Gerberding when she was Director of the US Centers for Disease Control 2) the US Health Resources Services Administration 3) the US Federal Court? 4) the US Secretary of State for Health and Human Services? All have confirmed autistic conditions can be caused by vaccines.

The second posting [8 August 2011 7:46AM] was removed with no trace of it ever having existed, whereas the position of the first posting can still be seen [7 August 2011 11:14AM].

We also added a posting [8 August 2011 9:20AM] with links to original sources showing the commercial and financial partnerships deals between The Guardian and The British Medical Journal and The British Medical Journal and the drug industry. That posting was removed without trace – no footprints, no traces, just gone.

So two of the three comments are gone and one has the following claiming without any truth that:

“This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards.”

Frankly, normal sensible intelligent people may find such behaviour of The Guardian a little troubling.

If these comments were removed without trace, how much of what The Guardian publishes online is a moving target – being removed, deleted, altered and/or added to in order to write history according to what the Guardian wants it to be instead of what it is? Very Pravda.

And “Community Standards”? Please, no laughter at the back of class:-

10. The platform is ours, but the conversation belongs to everybody. We want this to be a welcoming space for intelligent discussion, and we expect participants to help us achieve this by notifying us of potential problems and helping each other to keep conversations inviting and appropriate. If you spot something problematic in community interaction areas, please report it. When we all take responsibility for maintaining an appropriate and constructive environment, the debate itself is improved and everyone benefits.

In short:

– If you act with maturity and consideration for other users, you should have no problems.

British journalism at its finest and no Rupert Murdoch to blame it on.

Andrew Wakefield On Jon Rappoport Show – Listen on mp3

The Jon Rappoport Show – 27 July 2011

Jon interviews world-famous Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was stripped of his medical license for suggesting that vaccines could do harm. What forces are aligned against him?

Including the Murdoch, News Corporation, News International & British Medical Journal connections.

British Medical Journal Fraud Allegations – Truth Laid Bare – Summary Re Autism & Dr Wakefield

For those familiar with the British Medical Journal’s allegations of fraud against Dr Andrew Wakefield, here is a summary of the main points for reference and assistance to cut it down to easily manageable proportions.

For those not familar, read these CHS posts for background and detail:-

The BIG Lie – Wakefield Lancet Paper Alleged Fraud – Was Not Possible For Anyone To Commit

The BIG Lie II – British Medical Journal Caught Out – Wakefield Fraud Allegations Based On Incorrect Information

Summary of British Medical Journal/Wakefield Fraud Allegations – Truth Laid Bare

Contrary to the key aspect of the BMJ Editors’ allegations that Andrew Wakefield changed prior medical histories of the children to fabricate a new finding of developmental disorders related to bowel conditions in children, Wakefield did not originate the data reported in the 1998 Lancet paper.

To allege fraud requires a comparison between the information originated by the clinicians and what the Lancet paper says.

The BMJ and their commissioned author Mr Deer did not do that.

They also changed what the paper was reporting to fit what they wanted it to say to allege fraud.

They cherry-picked information from family doctor records and the GMC hearings to allege there were discrepancies.

The Lancet paper explicitly reports on

12 children … with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain”.

Deer and the BMJ changed this to reporting 12 children:

  • 1) with autism, who regressed,
  • 2) had “non-specific colitis”; and,
  • 3) whose symptoms of autism were first indicated within 14 days of the MMR vaccine.

But the Lancet paper was not reporting that. So what Deer and the BMJ did was to 1) select data 2) which would not match what they claimed the Lancet paper reported.

For example:

  • 1) only 9 of the 12 were diagnosed with an autistic condition;
  • 2) most had non specific colitis [11/12] but not all;
  • 3) most regressed but the first indications of a behavioural change were not documented for all so the paper could clearly not report first signs of behavioural changes occurring within 14 days.

The BMJ Editors and their author Brian Deer also did not have important information, such as the final assessments of the bowel conditions of the 12 children investigated within the Royal Free by the clinicians – not Wakefield – showing most diagnosed with non specific colitis [11/12].  So the numbers of children with diagnoses which BMJ/Deer reported were wrong.

Nor did they have the “Personal Child Health Records” documenting whether a child is developing within the “normal range” of development or not.

These aspects of information not available in the GMC proceedings were dealt  with and mentioned in the GMC transcripts but Deer and BMJ seem to have “overlooked” them.

The 1998 Lancet paper was drafted by Dr Wakefield but it reported the findings of the 12 expert specialist Royal Free Hospital clinicians. The various versions were circulated to the other 12 authors for comment, amendment and approval.  Wakefield was a researcher and not an investigating clinician.

In particular, the medical histories of the 12 children reported in the paper were taken by Professor John Walker-Smith of The Royal Free Hospital, London, England.  The diagnoses of bowel conditions of the 12 children were made by Dr Dhillon, with consideration and comment by his colleagues.  The diagnoses of autistic and other conditions in 8 children were made by Dr Berlowitz and in 4 cases by independent external medical experts not connected with The Royal Free Hospital.

The BMJ engaged in blatant cherry-picking. 

  • One month before her MMR vaccine Child 8 was recorded by an independent specialist developmental pediatrician [unconnected with The Royal Free Hospital] as within the normal range of development aged 18 months.  One month after the MMR vaccine, aged 20 months, the same pediatrician records she was functioning at the age of 12 months.  She regressed 8 months in the space of 1 month following the MMR vaccine.
  • Child 1’s mother reported he was having trouble hearing before MMR.  The BMJ and their author Brian Deer claim this was a sign of autism.  The family doctor however recorded Child 1 had a discharge from his ear, indicating an ear infection.  How did the BMJ and their peer reviewers failed to notice that?  Or was it they did not care as long as they could accuse Andrew Wakefield of fraud?

Bizarrely, to cover up the failure over the Personal Child Health Records the BMJ’s author Deer claimed only a negligent doctor would refer to them and scathingly referred to them as “baby books”. The fact is he had never seen them. More importantly, it is clear they these “experts”, he and the BMJ, did not know these are “prospective developmental records” and were cited specifically in the 1998 Lancet paper as a source of information for clinical and developmental histories reported.  But still thought themselves “expert” enough to allege fraud against Andrew Wakefield.

The PCHR is an 81 page book issued by the NHS to every UK parent of a newborn child to capture information up to the age of 5 years recorded by health visitors, midwives, nurses, doctors and parents to ensure the health and normal development of children in the UK.  It is the obvious place of first reference when checking a developmental history.  Neither Deer nor the BMJ even noticed the omission.

And that is how you end up with a Table like this to claim the children did not have the symptoms the BMJ claimed incorrectly that the Lancet paper said they had [published in the BMJ, January 6. 2011 – Click on image to open in new window]:-

BMJ & Its Editors’ Failures to Declare Conflicting Drug Industry & Vaccine Manufacturer Financial Interests.

The BMJ Editors’ subsequent Conflict of Interest correction was no ordinary matter – they failed to disclose material conflicting interests, it involved three senior editors of the BMJ and it relates to amongst other matters, ongoing business and financial partnerships between the BMJ and the pharmaceutical industry.

The correction was forced finally by explicit criticism posted in the BMJ electronic responses from the US New York based charity the Alliance for Human Research Protection [AHRP].  This was in addition to public outcry in a deluge of emails from parents of children with autistic conditions in the USA and elsewhere.

It should have gone further.  A clear statement should have been made in the next available journal to follow and it should be presented in every printed edition and on the home page of the online edition for every edition.

They tried to minimise their very serious error by some circumspect reasoning described by AHRP as “startling”.  The BMJ editors claimed We didn’t declare these competing interests because it didn’t occur to us to do so. Mildly put that shows that editorial diligence and forethought was lacking.

That in itself should have been enough to retract the journal articles … that was their contention with Andrew Wakefield.

Couple that with witness and institutional conflicts of interest not revealed or elaborated to the general public and the possible ethical breaches of patient confidentiality then one wonders how this still remains in the public arena.

What Does This Mean For You, Your Children, Your Family, British Doctors And The Wider Medical Professions

You cannot trust your doctor and you cannot believe him or her.  When you visit your doctor he or she is part of this.  He or she is sitting back and letting this go on under his or her nose without complaining – keeping silent – saying nothing.  He or she is the person prescribing for you and your children and families drug industry products which kill and injure because they have not been tested properly like Vioxx and vaccines and/or because they are useless, but he or she is happy to enjoy the money earned doing that.  He or she is the person who gets your private medical information but you cannot trust them with it because he or she sits back and does nothing when children’s medical records are illegally disclosed and used by a journalist who then writes about them in the British Medical Journal.

He or she is a member of The British Medical Association, the doctors’ trades union, or one like it outside the UK.

The BMA is a symbol of our morally and politically sick society.

The BMA sits back and takes the substantial profits of wrongdoing from its own journal, the British Medical Journal.  The BMA’s official line is that it does not control the running of the BMJ and its stable of other journals and pretends to the public and patients it can do nothing about it.  The BMA is a politically powerful organisation with the British government but pretends it cannot control its own house journal mailed every week to all of its members.  But if the BMA cannot control its own house journal, guess who can exercise control over the BMA?  Yep, BMJ Editor-in-Chief Dr Fiona Godlee is a Chief Officer of the BMA: [BMA Chief Officers]. Her name appears first on the BMJ Editorial falsely accusing Dr Andrew Wakefield of fraud.

Over and above all that, the BMA is a trades union.  It does not represent you or your children or your wider family when it comes to health.  It is there to get and keep money in the pockets of its members, and it looks like when it comes to the BMJ and the drug industry, it really does not care how it does that.

And when the BMA makes public statements on health matters and lobbies the British government for what it wants, you can be sure that is not done with you the patient, your children and family in mind, even if that is claimed to be the case.

The current Chairman of the BMA is Professor David Haslam and the Chairman of The BMA Council is Dr Hamish Meldrum: BMA Chief Officers.

Dr Meldrum’s résumé says:

… he is keen to ensure that both the organisation and the profession are well prepared to meet the challenges of ensuring that doctors are supported and fairly rewarded in delivering the highest possible quality care to their patients and that the NHS remains true to its founding values and principles in an increasingly complex environment.

His interests, outside medicine and medical politics, when he has time, include sport (watching lots and participating in keep fit, tennis, swimming and dormant golf), hill-walking, photography, music (quite varied tastes), cooking (also varied tastes) and wine.

It does not say anything about maintaining the reputation of the British medical profession for high standards of ethics and probity. Enjoy your “dormant golf” Dr Meldrum.  With all those outside sporting interests Dr Meldrum’s time is clearly taken up with a lot of balls.  With so many in the air, has he dropped the BMJ’s?

US GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

Toxins from genetically modified crops are finding their way into over 9 in every ten babies new research reveals.  Read this UK news story for more:-

US GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies – UK’s Daily Mail national newspaper – By Sean Poulter 20th May 2011

Read the full paper here:-

Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada

A. Aris, S.Leblanc Journal of ReproductiveToxicology xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Here is the abstract:-

Reprod Toxicol. 2011 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print]

Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.

Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Clinical Research Centre of Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

Abstract

Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW) were studied. Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.

Scientists and Drug Companies Scheme to Avoid FDA Scrutiny and Exploit US Vaccine Programme Immunity Against the Public Interest

From Age of Autism

Just eight days after the Supreme Court of the United States ruling granting vaccine manufacturers virtual immunity over prosecution ( Bruesewitz v. Wyeth) , scientists and company representatives met at a congress in Baltimore to “Understand the Changes in the National Vaccine Plan to Maximize Government Sponsored Funding and Avoid FDA Scrutiny”. The “workshop” which took place on 2 March 2011 was the first event in a Vaccine Business Congress held under the auspices of the Institute for International Research USA . Amongst the many participants at the congress were representatives of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Roche, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the National Cancer Institute (NIH) (IIRUSA Welcome , IIRUSA Agenda ).

Despite frequent bleating from industry apologists that vaccine manufacturers do not make money the pre publicity for the event showed the industry in rampant mood. The on-line brochure states:

“VACCINES are the continuing success story, earning over $27 billion in 2009 alone, despite difficult economic times for the pharmaceutical industry. By 2012, vaccines are expected to bring in more than $35 billion in revenue.”

The brochure demonstrates the utter negligence of the US Congress, administration and courts in leaving its citizenry subjected and exposed to an industry, forced to inject its products by mandate into their children, forced to pay for them through taxation and finally to do so without any sanction against manufacturers should damage occur. Is it any surprise then that instead of regarding the manufacture of safe and effective products as a solemn ethical duty, they just turn round and brazenly discuss how to milk the contemptible system to the uttermost? Please send this article to your Congressmen and women, and ask them what they intend to do about it.

With thanks to Hilary Butler and others.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

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

See below video of a Fox News exclusive report yesterday announcing the publication today of a new peer reviewed study containing powerful evidence that not only do vaccines cause autistic conditions but the US government has been paying out multi-million dollar settlements to the few children and their families lucky enough to have been able to prove their cases.  But unlucky enough to have had their family life and child’s life destroyed by vaccines.  STOP PRESS @16:39 BST: The paper just published can be downloaded here:  Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury, by Mary Holland, Louis Conte, Robert Krakow, and Lisa Colin

Fox reports that a Congressional Investigation is being called for.

ROBERT MACNEIL:  Autism now affects more American children than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined. In the last decade, the numbers of children diagnosed on the autism spectrum have risen rapidly. The Centers for Disease Control now puts the rate at one in 110. Amazing US News Report – Part II – US Reporter Bob MacNeil – Autism more serious for US children than cancer, diabetes and AIDS combined

The official rate for autism in the USA at 1 in 110 children [4 in 5 being a boy] vastly outstrips the hazards of infectious diseases, yet the US government and health officials worldwide continue to cover up this scandal whilst the US medical professions, American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics continue to get rich from the dollars charged to parents without warning this could take their child’s life and health away forever by giving upwards of 50 vaccines to their children in infancy.  The safety of multiple vaccines has never been studied and adverse vaccine reactions are known to be highly under reported.

It is bizarrely illegal in the USA for US parents to sue drug companies for injury to their child caused by vaccines.  US Government’s health officials deny any causal link but US tax dollars are still paid out in secret multi-million dollar settlements to parents and their injured children.  Parents are told if they talk their child could lose the compensation. 

The first case to be made public was that of Hannah Poling.  Hannah’s case was broken in February 2008 when the details were leaked to and published by US award winning New York journalist and author David Kirby.  The story was one of the top ten US news stories of 2008 and received coast to coast news coverage.

The new peer reviewed study will be published today May 10 [US time] when the Summer Edition of the PACE Environmental Law Review, is published and put online from the Pace Law School with its world-renowned environmental law faculty.

For more information by David Kirby on The Huffington Post today:
High Rates of Autism Found in Federal Vaccine Injury Program: Study Says More Answers Needed