Sunday, May 03, 2009

FDA - Drugs, Vaccines & Vitamin Supplements (Part 2)

Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Cover-Up Absconds With $2M
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
March 11, 2010 11:25 AM
A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research.
Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC's claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen's 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic.
His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines. Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children. Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits.
Thorsen, who was a psychiatrist and not a research scientist or toxicologist, parlayed that study into a long-term relationship with CDC. He built a research empire called the North Atlantic Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA) that advertised its close association with the CDC autism team, a relationship that had the agency paying Thorsen and his research staff millions of dollars to churn out research papers, many of them assuring the public on the issue of vaccine safety.
The discovery of Thorsen's fraud came as the result of an investigation by Aarhus University and CDC which discovered that Thorsen had falsified documents and, in violation of university rules, was accepting salaries from both the Danish university and Emory University in Atlanta -- near CDC headquarters -- where he led research efforts to defend the role of vaccines in causing autism and other brain disorders. Thorsen's center has received $14.6 million from CDC since 2002.
Thorsen's partner Kreesten Madsen recently came under fierce criticism after damning e-mails surfaced showing Madsen in cahoots with CDC officials intent on fraudulently cherry picking facts to prove vaccine safety.
Leading independent scientists have accused CDC of concealing the clear link between the dramatic increases in mercury-laced child vaccinations beginning in 1989 and the epidemic of autism, neurological disorders and other illnesses affecting every generation of American children since. Questions about Thorsens's scientific integrity may finally force CDC to rethink the vaccine protocols since most of the other key pro vaccine studies cited by CDC rely on the findings of Thorsen's research group. These include oft referenced research articles published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and others. The validity of all these studies is now in question.
Vaccine Failure -- Over 1000 Got Mumps in NY in Last Six Months
Posted by Dr. Mercola
March 06 2010
More than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York have been sickened with mumps since August.
Almost all of those infected with the virus are of the Orthodox or Hasidic Jewish population. The mumps outbreak began at a summer camp for Orthodox Jewish boys in Sullivan County, New York. Health officials have linked the outbreak to an 11-year-old boy at the camp. He had recently returned from the United Kingdom, where a mumps outbreak had spread to 4,000 people.
The boy had been fully vaccinated against the mumps, as had 77 percent of the patients in New Jersey. The vaccine is not 100 percent effective, according to the CDC.
Mumps is a contagious disease caused by a virus. Initial symptoms include fever, headache, muscle aches and loss of appetite, and the disease can cause your jaw and cheeks to swell, with further complications including the inflammation of the brain, testicles or ovaries, and deafness.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
In what is being described as the largest mumps outbreak in the United States since 2006, more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York have come down with mumps.
In the United States, children typically receive their mumps vaccination as part of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises children to receive their first dose between 12 and 18 months, and their second between the ages of 4 and 6.
This vaccine is supposed to make people immune to measles, mumps and rubella … yet 77 percent of the 1,000+ who have recently been sickened with mumps were vaccinated.
You Can Still Get Mumps if You’ve Been Vaccinated
This leaves a glaring question … does the MMR vaccine -- which is one of the most controversial shots on the CDC’s schedule -- even work?
Well, according to the CDC, maybe yes, maybe no.
They say the vaccine is not 100 percent effective, but rather 76-95 percent effective.
In fact, the second MMR dose is necessary because up to 20 percent of individuals do not develop measles immunity after the first dose. The second dose is intended to provide a “second chance” for the vaccine to work, which is further evidence of this shot’s ineffectiveness.
Even so, the CDC’s estimates of efficacy seem to be rather generous, given that 77 percent of those currently infected with the mumps on the East Coast have been vaccinated. And in 2006, when mumps infected more than 6,500 people in the United States, cases occurred primarily among college students who had received two doses of MMR vaccine.
At that time, just about the only people who were truly immune to mumps were older Americans who had recovered from mumps as children, and therefore had received natural, lifelong immunity.
So just how does the CDC determine a vaccine’s efficacy?
The CDC’s former head, Dr. Julie Gerberding, described the process in a press briefing during the 2006 mumps outbreak. As you’ll read, it’s hardly a scientific process:
“There are several different methods for determining vaccine efficacy, but when we have cases of mumps, the first question to ask is, is this person not vaccinated, have they had one dose of vaccine or do they have two doses of vaccine?
One thing we can do is compare people with mumps to people like them who did not have mumps, and by comparing the frequency of vaccination in the people who have the disease with people who do not have the disease, we have tools that allow us to estimate vaccine efficacy in that context.
So that really is the simplest way, and those are the kinds of things that our teams are looking at with the state health officials in the field as we speak.”
Again, even she went on to say that “even when the vaccine is optimal, it is never 100-percent protective.”
The Problem with Artificial Immunity (Vaccination)
Vaccines are never 100 percent protective because they provide only temporary, typically inferior immunity compared to that your body would receive from naturally contracting, and recovering from, a disease.
In the case of mumps, for instance, immunity is typically permanent for those who get it in childhood. As Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, explains:
“Vaccines are supposed to fool your body’s immune system into producing antibodies to resist viral and bacterial infection in the same way that actually having the disease usually produces immunity to future infection.
But vaccines atypically introduce into the human body lab altered live viruses and killed bacteria along with chemicals, metals, drugs and other additives such as formaldehyde, aluminum, mercury, monosodium glutamate, sodium phosphate, phenoxyethanol, gelatin, sulfites, yeast protein, antibiotics as well as unknown amounts of RNA and DNA from animal and human cell tissue cultures.
Whereas natural recovery from many infectious diseases stimulates lifetime immunity, vaccines only provide temporary protection and most vaccines require "booster" doses to extend vaccine-induced artificial immunity.
The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body’s natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind’s biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.”
This knowledge leaves many open-ended questions about the vaccine process in the United States, and whether it is ultimately causing more harm than good. Barbara Loe Fisher continues:
“First, is it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity?
Second, do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? Both questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man.”
A Serious Decision
There are basic differences between naturally acquired immunity and temporary vaccine-induced antibody production. But few are willing to look at this issue -- least of all conventional medicine, which in reality is ruled by pharmaceutical companies.
Unfortunately, if we as a society continue down the road they’re paving for us, and they’re wrong about the efficacy, safety, and overall long-term side effects of vaccines, then we’re on extremely dangerous ground.
Mumps used to be a routine childhood disease. Many of you reading this likely had your turn, the virus ran its course while you stayed at home in bed, and you’ve been rewarded with lifelong immunity. In most cases mumps, like many of the childhood diseases we’re now vaccinating our children against, is not a serious disease.
In rare cases, serious complications can develop, but you must weigh this risk against that of the vaccine, which, for one, definitely contains substances with known toxic properties. The other aspect to the equation is that even if you get the vaccine, you may still get the mumps, which means you’ve accepted the risk of the vaccine itself with no benefit whatsoever.
I believe it’s the time is ripe for an open conversation about vaccines, one that addresses the glaring questions about efficacy and side effects, and leaves room for real, honest answers -- and alternatives.
In the meantime, healthy dietary habits and a robust immune system are two important factors that influence your ability to successfully combat viral assaults like mumps.
All of the information you need to boost your immune system and health is available, for free, on my Web site in a clear, concise format that is broken down for beginners, intermediate, and advanced. I encourage you to browse through this information today for tips on how to stay healthy, naturally.
Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck
Thursday, February 18, 2010
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) It's being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer's speakers' bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.
Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as "proof" that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There's only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!
Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.
It wasn't the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.
As a result of Dr. Reuben's faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 "scientific" papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.
After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.
He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (
Business as usual in Big Pharma
What's notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It's not the fact that so-called "scientific" medical journals published his fabricated studies. It's not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.
The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr. Reuben's actions really aren't that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.
Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn't operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.
Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben's faked studies even though this journal claims to be a "scientific" medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn't it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.
Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on "good science." It's all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being "woo woo" wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that's based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.
You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is "scientific" while natural medicine is "unproven." Sure it's scientific -- about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a "let's play doctor" gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.
For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on "scientific evidence," just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.
Drug companies support fraudulent research
Don't forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben's research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.
The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben's research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to "prove" that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). "Here's another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink)."
And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to "prove" exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don't believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician's wand and chanting, "Abra cadabra... let there be RESEARCH DATA!"
Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a "scientific" paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.
I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little "research magic" conveniently fills the void.
The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever "scientific evidence" they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.
What is "Evidence-Based Medicine?"
The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what's really behind "evidence-based medicine."
The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as "fact!"
When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting "evidence-based medicine" as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on "real science," what they really mean is that it's based on fraudulent science but they've all secretly agreed to call it "real science." When they claim to have "scientific facts" supporting their position, what they really mean is that those "facts" were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.
"Evidence-based medicine," it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals -- without getting caught by his peers -- then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?
Here's what is says: "Scientific medicine" is a total fraud.
And this fraud isn't limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven't yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in "scientific" medical journals. They've been quoted in the popular press. They've been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as "safe and effective" for widespread use.
And yet underneath all this, there's nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?
How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?
Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben
Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable "scientific" journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on ever could.
Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I'm sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more "scientific" studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.
You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you're a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!
Because if there's one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it's in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.
Is the Gardasil Vaccine an Experiment on Your Children?
By Mary Tocco
February 13, 2010
Since the introduction of the Gardasil vaccine, there has been a growing concern about safety and efficacy. As our vaccine producers come up with more vaccines, we must continue to fight this theory as dangerous and unnecessary. What is a theory about the cause of cancer, having never been proven, are the grounds for this vaccine. Once a vaccine to prevent HPV infection is raised as a weapon to prevent cervical cancer, then it's pretty clear that the medical establishment has gone all the way in accepting a theory without proof. I believe all vaccines are based on theory, not fact.
To say that a virus is the main cause of cervical cancer is no more than a hypothesis. We all know that there are many environmental influences that cause one to have cancer. We are giving “False Hope” to parents when we state this vaccine will reduce the chances of their children getting cervical cancer. Another concern, like all the other vaccines recommended, there are no long-term safety or efficacy studies done on this vaccine and the short- term studies are of great concern.
The vaccine contains aluminum adjuvants which can enter the brain (heavy metal toxicity) and can cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain. The placebo used in the studies contained aluminum. About 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systematic adverse events including headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea or myalgia. The Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.
The vaccine has not been studied in conjunction with the administering of other vaccines like the Hepatitis B vaccine. For some reason, the risk of drug interaction is completely ignored when it comes to the vaccinations. Never before in the history of humanity have we injected so many toxins directly into the human body! It is very risky to mandate three doses of this vaccine for all pre-teen girls when we do not know the long-term effects.
Judicial Watch, a U.S. government watchdog, became concerned while noting large donations to key politicians originating from Merck. We have a huge problem with conflict of interest surrounding all vaccines. A freedom of information request from the group Judicial Watch in May of this year discovered that during the period from June 8, 2006 - when the vaccines received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to May 2007 there were 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine reported to the FDA. By 2009, they found 22 Deaths Relating to HPV Vaccine Event Reports Obtained from FDA Detail over 8,000 Adverse Reactions to Gardasil. The numbers continue to go up!
Tom Fitton, the President of Judicial Watch, stated the following, “The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors.” Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug.” A recent study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also questioned the general effectiveness of Gardasil.
In my opinion, the focus of cancer as with all health problems should be in prevention without toxic injections. I believe that cancers are the result of immune system breakdown, toxicity, nervous system interference and nutritional deficits. We must work daily to improve health in a “pro-active” manner that will assist the body in cleansing, healing and function. The answer does not lie in a shot! The vaccine is experimental and carries much risk. Rest assured my daughters will not get it!
Here is another news story: By John-Henry Westen
TORONTO, September 20, 2007 ( - As Canada, in large part due to aggressive behind the scenes lobbying, rolls out the not-comprehensively-tested Merck HPV vaccine for girls as young as nine, a look at developments on the vaccine south of the border should cause Canadians serious concern. In the United States a similar lobby campaign by the same company launched the mass HPV vaccination of girls beginning in June last year.
In just little over a year, the HPV vaccine has been associated with at least five deaths, not to mention thousands of reports of adverse effects, hundreds deemed serious, and many that required hospitalization.
Judicial Watch, a U.S. government watchdog, became concerned while noting large donations to key politicians originating from Merck. A freedom of information request from the group in May of this year discovered that during the period from June 8, 2006 - when the vaccines received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to May 2007 there were 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine reported to the FDA.
Three deaths were related to the vaccine, including one of a 12-year-old. One physician's assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.
As of 2009, over 9,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions and 24 deaths. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.
Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.
U.S. sales of Gardasil are expected to reach $1 billion in the first year of its availability.
Again, as parents we must carefully ask the questions: Are vaccines safe? Are there adequate safety studies done? Are vaccines effective? Do they protect or are they causing more injury? Do I have to vaccinate, what are my rights? These questions are answered on my DVD called, “Are Vaccines Safe? I do not tell parents what to do; I simply bring out the facts. This is the most controversial health decision parents will ever have to make on behalf of their children. Please do not just “go with the flow” or “Trust your doctor”…the consequences last a life time no matter what your decision.
This is my favorite quote: "When a man is honest and he hears the truth, he embraces the truth or he ceases to be honest" -Author Unknown
Someone is lying (or very deceived) and covering up this whole issue! I seek the truth and stand on the science I present. If they are lying, which I believe they are, they are injuring millions of children and people across the globe for financial gain. Please don’t let your child be another victim of their vaccine deception.
Also See:
Vaccine for Girls Raises Thorny Issues
Parents Weigh Anti-Cancer Benefits Against Concerns About Cost and Lost Innocence
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Amy Groff has heard all about the new vaccine that guards girls against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer. But the Cincinnati mother has no interest in getting her 11-year-old inoculated.
"We haven't even talked about the birds and the bees yet," Groff said. "She needs to be innocent a little bit longer."
Ellen Hoffman, who lives outside Chicago, also has decided to hold off giving her 11-year-old daughter the shots. Her reason, though, is that the vaccine is so new.
"We don't know enough about it to know whether it's safe," Hoffman said. "If children are not in a risky situation, then it seems to me it's better to wait and see."
While many parents are clamoring for the vaccine for their daughters, others are less enthusiastic. Some worry about safety. For others, it's the cost. For still others, it's queasiness about even thinking about sexual activity among girls so young.
The reservations highlight the complex matrix of social, psychological, economic and logistical obstacles that public health authorities face in trying to spur widespread use of the vaccine, which is being hailed as one of the most important advances in women's health in decades.
"This is not going to be easy," said Jon S. Abramson of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who chairs an influential expert committee that advises the government about vaccines. "This is a really important vaccine. But it's going to be complicated. This raises some issues we've never had to deal with before."
The vaccine, known as Gardasil, protects against human papillomavirus (HPV), a ubiquitous sexually transmitted virus that causes genital warts and cervical cancer. In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil for women and girls ages 9 to 26, making it the first vaccine marketed specifically to prevent a cancer.
Experts are recommending that girls start getting the vaccine routinely at age 11 or 12 in the hopes of catching them before they become sexually active and saving them from a malignancy that strikes about 10,000 women in the United States each year and kills about 3,700, according to the American Cancer Society.
"This is now a vaccine-preventable problem," said Stanley Gall of the University of Louisville, a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "We have a huge opportunity to make a significant improvement in the health care of women."
The prospect of the vaccine initially raised alarm among groups promoting sexual abstinence until marriage, who feared it might encourage promiscuity. Most now say they support the shots, as long as parents can decide whether their daughters get vaccinated and it is not mandatory for school. Such a requirement is advocated by many experts and has been proposed in at least one state, Michigan.
Interviews with pediatricians and parents around the country in recent weeks indicate that most are enthusiastic about the vaccine. Many doctors promote it, many young women want to get it, and many parents are eager to have their daughters inoculated.
"We're seeing a fairly remarkable uptake of Gardasil," said Rick Haupt of Merck & Co., which reported sales of the vaccine had reached $70 million, exceeding analysts' projections.
Deborah Hager of Perkasie, Pa., immunized her 11-year-old daughter, Rachel, even though she is raising her to be abstinent until marriage.
"I just figured I might as well give it to her now so we know she's protected," Hager said. "Hopefully, she'll believe as we do, but you don't know what's going to happen down the road."
But the vaccine faces significant hurdles, experts say, not the least of which is the price. At $120 a dose, plus doctors' charges, a full three-shot series costs $400 to $500. While many insurance plans are covering the vaccine, others have not yet decided, have not determined how much they will reimburse or have not announced when their reimbursements will begin.
As a result, while many pediatricians are stocking the vaccine, others have delayed ordering it, saying they are unable to pay thousands of dollars without being assured they will recover their costs.
"Nobody is receiving Gardasil in my office until some accommodation is reached where I can afford to purchase the vaccine," said Dan Levy, an Owings Mills, Md., pediatrician.
Even if their pediatricians are stocking the vaccine, some parents are waiting until they know whether they will be reimbursed.
"Some parents say, 'Yes, I'm going to get it, and I don't care about the insurance,' " said Edward Rothstein, a Sellersville, Pa., pediatrician. "But more often they say, 'Let me go home and check with my insurance company.' Girls who should be getting it aren't getting it because parents are justifiably concerned about cost."
Wait and See
Because of the uncertainties, some doctors are telling parents of young girls to wait a year until the insurance situation sorts itself out.
"My approach has been, 'I have this great new vaccine. I think everybody needs to get it. But because it's so new and so expensive and you have to have three doses, if you are not in that just-ready-to-have-sex age, let's wait a year and see if the insurance company picks it up,' " said Pamela Parker, a Silver Spring pediatrician.
Proponents of the vaccine say they are encouraged by the number of insurers that have committed to covering the vaccine, and they expect others to follow soon. Merck officials say the company is taking steps to mitigate the cost, including giving pediatricians more time to pay for their stocks and providing it free to poor women.
"We're doing whatever we can to make sure cost is not a barrier," Haupt said.
For poor uninsured children, Merck this week announced it had reached an agreement with federal health officials to make the vaccine available at a discounted price to state programs for the indigent.
After the insurance issue is resolved, experts say another complication will be the logistics of getting pre-pubescent and teenage girls into a doctor's office three times within a six-month period for the shots. Unlike for infants, there are no standard office visits for girls in that age group that would facilitate three separate shots.
Then there is the issue of safety. While the vaccine has been tested on thousands of women who were followed for as long as five years, some parents want more time to go by to be sure.
"There just isn't enough information on it yet to make a call about whether it's safe," said Gina Catizone of Northbrook, Ill., mother of a 10-year-old. "I'm not rushing out to do this."
And although studies show the most effective way to use the vaccine is before girls become sexually active, some parents and pediatricians balk at that idea, saying girls that age are too young to have the subject broached.
"It's almost an assault on their innocence to be talking about those things when they do not even know what I'm talking about," said David Castellan, a Lewisburg, Pa., pediatrician.
A Question of Timing
Some parents and pediatricians worry the vaccine may give girls a false sense of security.
"If they think they are protected against one venereal disease, they may think they're protected against all venereal diseases," said Ravinder Khaira, a Sacramento pediatrician. "That's just the way some kids think."
Others say they are not convinced the protection will last into adulthood. So some pediatricians are advising parents who are confident their daughters will be abstinent until they are older, perhaps even until marriage, to wait.
"I would like to protect them at the point of being exposed -- like what travelers do before heading off to a country with endemic disease," said Joseph Zanga, a professor of pediatrics at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C.
Merck's Haupt acknowledged that studies have documented immunity for only five years, but said evidence suggests the immunity is long-lasting. "We have ongoing surveillance studies suggesting it will have a durable immune response," he said.
Supporters argue that parents have no way of really knowing when their daughters will become sexually active or whether they may be sexually assaulted. And even if they remain abstinent until marriage, their husbands may be infected.
"It really does make the most sense to immunize girls when they are 11 or 12," said Susan Rosenthal, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. "That way you're done, and you know they are protected."

Mumps outbreak spreads among people who got vaccinated against mumps
Thursday, February 11, 2010
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) To hear the vaccine pushers say it, all the recent outbreaks of mumps and measles are caused by too few people seeking out vaccinations. It's all those "non-vaccinated people" who are a danger to society, they say, because they can spread disease.
Reality tells a different story, however: It is the vaccinated people who are causing these outbreaks and spreading disease!
Just this week, an outbreak of mumps among more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York has raised alarm among infectious disease authorities. The outbreak itself is not unusual, though. What's unusual is that the health authorities slipped up and admitted that most of the people infected with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
In Ocean County, New Jersey, county spokeswoman Leslie Terjesen told CNN that 77 percent of those who caught mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
77 percent of those infected had been vaccinated
Usually this information is censored out of the press. The vaccine industry wants the public to believe that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. So the media typically refrains from reporting what percentage of the infected people were already vaccinated against the infectious disease.
But in this case, the 77 percent figure slipped out. And now intelligent observers are increasingly seeing the truth about these vaccines:
• Infectious disease vaccines simply don't work. If they did, then why did all these children who were already vaccinated still get mumps?
• Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?
• The people who administer vaccines never tell you that their vaccines don't really work. They tell you that you'll be "protected" with the vaccine, implying a near-100% level of protection (which is blatantly false).
• Even if you're vaccinated against a disease, you may still catch that disease anyway! So what's the point of the vaccine?
The lies of the CDC
The CDC claims the mumps vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, but they offer no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim. To date, there has never been a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published on the mumps vaccine in humans. The so-called "scientific" evidence supporting these vaccines is purely imaginary.
I still have a $10,000 reward offered for anyone who can provide a single scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 vaccine ( To date, not a single person has stepped forward to claim that $10,000. I might as well raise the reward to a million dollars, because I'll never have to pay it: There is no scientific evidence proving the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines!
Does being vaccinated raise your risk of infection?
The CDC also says that 2009 was a bad year for mumps outbreaks. They blame all the people who refuse to be vaccinated for causing these outbreaks. Their theory, of course, is based on the imaginary idea that mumps vaccines halt mumps infections. But once again, it's all imaginary! As we saw this week in New Jersey, most of the people who get infected in these outbreaks are the very people who were vaccinated!
If mumps vaccines actually worked, then what you should see instead is the mumps infection spreading among those who refused the vaccines, right? It's only logical.
In fact, if vaccines really work, then why should the vaccinated people be bothered at all by those who don't get vaccinated? After all, if their vaccines protect themselves from disease, then non-vaccinated people are no threat to them, right? So why are vaccinated people so pushy about forcing non-vaccinated people to get vaccinated?
Many thousands of Americans who died from H1N1 swine flu were the very people who got vaccinated against H1N1 (
The great vaccine hoax exposed
Take a look at nearly every outbreak of infectious disease in recent years and you'll find the same pattern. You'll either see that most of those who got infected were already vaccinated, or you'll see those statistics completely stripped out of all media reports.
It's all part of the grand vaccine cover-up. Vaccines simply do not work as promised. Vaccines do not offer the level of protection against infectious disease that they promise. In fact, vaccines are far less effective than vitamin D in preventing infections!
Instead of shooting up our children with over 100 different vaccines (which is now standard practice, by the way), what we should be doing is boosting their immune function with vitamin D, zinc and immune-boosting nutrients from medicinal plants. That would protect them from all common infectious diseases at the same time, and it doesn't require needles or the use of dangerous chemical preservatives like thimerosal, which is linked to autism.
Don't believe the recent attacks on Dr. Wakefield. This was an organized smear campaign designed to discredit Dr. Wakefield before he could publish the results of his "14 monkeys" study that shows severe neurological harm caused by vaccines given to young primates (
There is a way to protect people from infectious disease: Give them the immune-boosting nutrients their immune systems need to defend themselves against disease. Outbreaks of infectious disease would plummet along with seasonal flu deaths.
Of course, so would sales of vaccines. And that's the whole reason you never hear health authorities recommending vitamin D even though it's far more effective than any vaccine at preventing infectious disease ( The CDC, we now know, is little more than the marketing branch of Big Pharma's vaccine operations. That's why the former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, is now suddenly the president of Merck's worldwide vaccine division (
Vaccines make lots of money, but they don't make people immune to disease. The fact that so many vaccinated people are being stricken with the very diseases they were vaccinated against is proof that vaccines fail to deliver what they promise.
FDA approves Crestor for people who have no health problem to correct
FDA approves drugs for healthy people – a bonanza for drug companies. Selling drugs only to sick people is a limited market. Now they can reach those who have nothing wrong with them and convince them that taking pharmaceuticals will keep them healthy.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Big Pharma has been trending this direction for a long time: marketing medicines to people who don't need them and who have nothing wrong with their health. It's all part of a ploy to position prescription drugs as nutrients -- things you need to take on a regular basis in order to prevent disease.
The FDA recently gave its nod of approval on the matter, announcing that Crestor can now be advertised and prescribed as a "preventive" medicine. No longer does a patient need to have anything wrong with them to warrant this expensive prescription medication: They only need to remember the brand name of the drug from television ads.
This FDA approval for the marketing of Crestor to healthy people is a breakthrough for wealthy drug companies. Selling drugs only to people who are sick is, by definition, a limited market. Expanding drug revenues requires reaching people who have nothing wrong with them and convincing them that taking a cocktail of daily pharmaceuticals will somehow keep them healthy.
All this is, of course, the greatest quackery we've yet seen from Big Pharma, because once this floodgate of "preventive pharmaceuticals" is unleashed, the drug companies will be positioned to promote a bewildering array of other preventive chemicals you're supposed to take at the same time. Did you take your anti-cancer pill today? How about your anti-diabetes pill? Anti-cholesterol pill? Don't forget your anti-Alzheimer's pill, too.
Medications are not vitamins
The very idea that these drugs can somehow prevent a person from becoming sick in the future strains the boundaries of scientific credibility. Only natural therapies like nutrition can prevent the onset of disease, not patented chemicals that don't belong in the human body in the first place.
The logical argument of the drug companies who push these "preventive" prescriptions is essentially that the human body is deficient in pharmaceuticals, and that deficiency can only be corrected by taking whatever brand-name drugs they show you on television. Forget about deficiencies in zinc, or vitamin D, or living enzymes; what your body really needs is more synthetic chemicals!
The FDA agrees with this loopy logic. And why wouldn't it? Subscribing to this pharmaceutical delusion is an easy way to instantly expand Big Pharma's customer base by tens of millions. Overnight, the market for Crestor ballooned from a few million people with high cholesterol to the entire U.S. population of 300 million people.
If Crestor can help healthy people be healthier (which it can't, but let's play along with this delusion for the sake of argument), then it's only a matter of time before they start adding Crestor to infant formula. I mean, why not? If it's so good for healthy people, then it must make babies healthier, too, right?
So let's add Crestor to sports drinks. Let's sprinkle it into the iodized salt supply. Let's drip it into the municipal water! (Don't laugh: This idea of dripping cholesterol drugs into the water supply has already been suggested by more than one doctor.) Let's merge the pharmaceutical supply with the food supply and charge people prescription drugs prices for "functional" foods laced with these chemicals!
Small Community Cancer Cure Crushed by Big Pharma, Part I
Thursday, December 17, 2009 by: Paul Fassa
(NaturalNews) A small Canadian community's success with curing cancer naturally was recently crushed, forcing its provider into exile in Europe. Rick Thompson had discovered a cure for himself and then had shared it at no cost with others in the small rural town of Maccan, Nova Scotia.
Rick offered results without side effects, and the Maccan residents took advantage. The results were amazing with even cancer patients. There are always problems promoting alternative cures. But here was an additional obstacle. The cure was hemp oil with the illegal substance THC.
Rick`s Reasons
Rick Thompson experienced a head injury at work in 1997. Afterward he was afflicted with post concussion syndrome. He was put on pharmaceuticals, which created dysfunctional side effects. He heard about the medical benefits of marijuana. So Rick purchased a bag and began smoking daily.
Eventually, both the post concussion syndrome and the pharmaceutical drug fog vanished completely. Rick's doctor discouraged him from smoking. So Rick decided on growing his own hemp and extracting the oil with THC. He reduced a pound of plants by slow boiling in a solution to get a small tube of thick THC concentrated oil.
Soon after he began, Rick was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma. After one of the three cancers was removed surgically, it came back. So he decided to try the THC laden hemp oil topically. Within days, all three skin cancers were completely healed. Rick deduced that THC hemp oil cured cancer, but smoking marijuana would not.
Helping Others
So Rick began sharing the hemp oil within his community for free. Everyone experienced remarkable improvement by taking a drop orally twice daily or applying it topically. Rick Dwyer, the manager of the local Royal American Legion branch was very impressed. His father's terminal lung cancer was cured in weeks after the medicos had sent him home to die.
Quickly the word was out locally about Thompson`s THC hemp oil. Several others were cured without side effects from a variety of serious ailments, including cancer.
Then both Ricks decided there should be town meetings in the Legion hall about the THC hemp oil, and that they would see what to do about spreading the word. They wanted the world to know about this natural cure.
The Consequence of Helping
The publicity from a curious Canadian media raised enough of a stir for the Legion to close the Maccan branch and fire Rick Dwyer as the local manager. Then the locals became concerned about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RMPC) clamping down on Rick Thompson`s life saving operation.
So Rick Thompson went to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to acquire legal exemption for using his oil as medical marijuana. He took 14 dozen sworn affidavits from those he had helped in Maccan. But they were disregarded and his request was turned down. Nine months later he appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.
This time, Rick had ten cured citizens and six doctors present to testify. Their testimonies were not even allowed. His appeal was rejected, and his little local operation of supplying free cannabis cures was threatened. Slowly it dawned on him that it wasn't just the legal system that prevented natural cannabis cures.
Rick Thompson realized that the cancer industry is focused on treating, not curing, for high profits. Monopoly medicine and Big Pharma's concern for maintaining a massive cash flow have been the prime motive for keeping all natural cures down.
Europe Enters a Nutrition Science Dark Age
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
December 14, 2009
As the clock strikes 12:01AM on January 1, 2010, Europe will enter a nutrition science Dark Age. The stultifying effects of that backward movement will hit food and dietary supplement companies hard all around the world. The movement toward replacing private choice with government fiat proceeds apace internationally. Europe’s condemnation of food supplements and claims about them is among the latest examples of that movement.
The nations of Europe gave up considerable national sovereignty to the European Union a number of years ago. The members states have repeatedly reaped the bitter fruit of that decision. One of those bitter fruits is about to fall from the EU tree. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), established to preside over food supplements and claims for food supplements by the European Commission, has determined that only a small percentage of food supplements is sufficiently safe and bioavailable to remain on the European market. Under European Commission regulations no food supplement may be lawfully sold anywhere in Europe unless EFSA scientists opine that the food supplement is both safe and bioavailable as “substantiated by generally accepted scientific evidence.” EFSA makes that determination in response to dossiers submitted from the regulated companies. If no dossier is submitted for a nutrient either because the science required cannot be obtained affordably or because no one has the resources to pursue the claim, EFSA condemns the nutrient, deeming it inappropriate for market.
Thus far out of over 40,000 dossiers submitted, EFSA has limited its authorizations to certain vitamins and minerals and has rejected wholesale all other vitamins, minerals, herbs and botanicals of various kinds. Moreover, it has refused to allow claims of health benefit for a whole host of products. These are the very same products that have been legally sold in Europe for decades without any significant injury to the population. In short, EFSA is achieving a massive constriction in the product and information offerings in the European marketplace to the great detriment of European consumers. Fully informed consumer choice is being wiped out. EFSA is dumbing down the European marketplace, ridding it of substances that have improved the lives of Europeans and of emerging science necessary to comprehend the potential health benefits of food supplements.
This draconian system of prior restraint over products and scientific speech deprives European consumers of the right to determine for themselves what food elements to ingest and what credence to give emerging science concerning food supplements. Those decisions are now being made by EFSA bureaucrats intolerant of dissent from their new state orthodoxy on nutrition science.
EFSA is the nanny state writ large. Its scientists presume to know better than all private scientists, all food supplement manufacturers, and all consumers what is in the best interests of those consumers. In the real world of nutrition science, virtually nothing can be said to have been proven to a conclusive degree. Science, including nutrition science, is evolutionary and open to debate. Scientists rarely agree on the extent to which a proposition backed by studies is proven. Consequently, almost all of the emerging science on which consumers depend to exercise informed choice is based on credible, but inconclusive evidence. That should not surprise us because almost all medical science upon which physicians make life and death decisions every day is likewise in a realm of relative scientific uncertainty (lacking conclusive proof to establish its efficacy). In steps, EFSA with its own brand of state certainty substitutes its condemnatory judgment for free market exchanges, ridding the market of nutrients and censoring from the market information indispensable to the exercise of informed consumer choice.
The environment is one not of enlightenment or respect for individual rights. It is not far from the mind set that preceded the Renaissance, a time when Copernicus waxed bold by declaring that he thought the earth orbited the sun, not the other way around. The church of old, like EFSA, views such claims of emerging science with considerable skepticism and so censors them, depriving citizens of a chance to judge for themselves the credibility of the claims.
When EFSA’s opinions become law through adoption by the European Commission, European consumers are locked out of nutrition science debate. They are deprived of emerging science and the right to exercise their own judgment as to the relative worth of nutrition science speech offerings. Instead, state censors keep the vast majority of science out of the market and permit here and there dribs and drabs to enter, skewing the information marketplace in ways they favor. Thus, an elitist guard possesses a monopoly on information access and deigns paternalistically to provide the public a small sampling it thinks “safe” for European consumption. This gross example of censorship offends the very notion of individual liberty. Europeans are thus enslaved anew by an anti-Enlightenment philosophy that regards government as the end all be all in the universe of food and nutrition science.
Depriving European consumers of emerging science leads to decisions in the market that either presume health benefits to be greater than they likely are or conversely to be non-existent. When science is kept from the point of sale, consumers tend to base decisions on non-scientific factors, such as taste or superstition. If I am ignorant of the health benefits of carotenoids and fiber in a carrot, why would I choose a carrot over a twinkie? The twinkie tastes so much better. Enlightened minds can make that election, choosing either to favor taste over science or science over taste. Not so if information that leads to enlightenment is illegal to obtain at the point of sale.
We should not think this matter limited to Europe. Not only do we depend mightily on access to European markets for our food stuffs but we also depend on European food stuffs here that may disappear as a result of EFSA’s new draconian limitations.
At a time of recession when we can scarce afford new significant limits to markets, Europe is eliminating a significant sector of its food supplement marketplace. American dietary supplements will be blocked from import and enjoined from selling dietary supplements all across Europe. There will be resultant lost profits here and unemployment. Likewise, import markets in the United States dependent on European food supplements are going to be awakened rudely to the fact that products legally sold before New Year’s are no longer lawfully saleable.
Certain ranking members of Congress and leading political managers at the Food and Drug Administration are infatuated with the European example. They would like nothing better than to replicate it here through harmonization of American laws with those of the European Union.
The world of food regulation, like so much of the world, is now marching steadily in the direction of state control and away from individual liberty. Access to products with health enhancing features will be far more difficult in Europe and in the United States in the months and years to come. Nutrition science will remain locked out of the marketplace to the grave detriment of consumers, causing only an information elite to benefit from knowledge of how certain nutrients can extend longevity and reduce the incidence of disease.
This process of bureaucratic expansion and assumption of jurisdictional control over matters previously governed by individual private decision making is an insidious encroachment that replaces freedom with servility. If we can neither be allowed to choose for consumption foods and food elements freely nor be allowed access at the point of sale to information concerning the potential of those substances to extend longevity and reduce disease risk, we can hardly call ourselves free. Does anyone seriously doubt that the decision of what to eat and the right of access to basic information on the health effects of what we eat are fundamental to human liberty?
Europe’s move back into a Dark Age in the field of nutrition science should alarm us. Although we cannot but feel the adverse impact of the European restrictions, we can only hope that the full brunt of the new Dark Age enveloping Europe is confined to that continent, not welcomed here courtesy of sympathetic agents in our Food and Drug Administration.
Why Drug Companies are Working to Control Natural Supplements
by Tom DeWeese
December 1, 2009
As the battle over government-controlled health care continues, many Americans simply want out of the whole mess. They instead seek a plan of wellness based on healthy eating and natural supplements.
That approach, however, is the opposite of the health care agenda of the American Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical industry. Those forces, which literally control America’s health industry, are based on sickness. The sicker you are, the more drugs you will buy.
In addition, insurance companies, working hand in hand with the AMA and the drug companies, refuse to provide coverage for the wellness approach. Most won’t pay for natural supplements nor will they pay for visits to homeopaths or chiropractors. The only thing most Americans can do when sick (and unable to afford to pay for natural treatment out of their pockets) is to stick with the big pharma/AMA game plan. In short, it is cheaper to be sick than to try to stay well.
However, in spite of a stacked deck in favor of the sickness agenda, more Americans are going for wellness and the natural supplement industry is growing. In response, and to preserve their dominance over health care, big pharma is lobbying hard to get the Food and Drug Administration to make many natural supplements available only by prescriptions issued by AMA licensed doctors. In other efforts, they seek to drastically reduce the dosage of natural supplements sold over the counter, making them useless. Again, only a prescription would allow a workable dosage.
As the drug industry works to get the FDA to take control of supplements here in this nation, there is also an international body working to make such regulations world-wide. Its name is CODEX (the European Food Supplements Directive).
For a full insight into the diabolical minds of the drug companies, according to Mike Adams, Editor of Natural News, here are ten reasons why organized medicine supports CODEX:
1- It eliminates access to key nutrients that prevent disease, thereby creating a population of diseased, malnourished customers who will inevitably turn to high-profit prescription drugs.
2- It focuses people on the debate over the safety of nutritional supplements, distracting them from the debate over the safety of prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs.
3- It makes nutritional supplements more expensive, putting their purchase out of reach of more consumers.
4- With the loss of vitamin sales, many natural retailers will be forced out of business, and this is good for organized medicine. The fewer health shops exist, the less competition there is for prescription drugs.
5- It establishes a legal precedent of control over not just supplements, but food. This sets the stage for the future banning of nutritious foods that prevent disease such as blueberries and garlic.
6- It allows for the arrest and incrimination of key proponents of natural health (vitamin manufacturers, retailers and consumers), removing them from the public stage so that they no longer have a voice.
7- It discredits the entire nutritional supplements industry, creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of consumers who aren’t aware of the real motivations behind the law.
8- It erects huge barriers to the introduction of new supplements to the market by forcing manufacturers to spend millions of dollars on compliance, even for substances that have been safely consumed by humans as medicine for thousands of years.
9- It sets a legal foundation from which other nutrients can be outlawed. Each year, watch for the ratchet to be tightened as a growing list of supplements are banned.
10- It allows natural health critics to use circular logic to attack the industry. They’ll say, “If these vitamins weren’t dangerous, then they wouldn’t have been outlawed, would they?”
Of course, they will tell you its all for your protection. It’s for the children. IT’S FOR THEIR STINKING PROFITS!
Merck's Vioxx scandal widens: Drug maker knew Vioxx was deadly for years before risk was made public
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) The Vioxx scandal widened this week as new research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reveals that Vioxx maker Merck held data for three years that proved Vioxx caused an alarming increase in the risk of heart attacks and strokes. And yet Merck chose not to release that data. In fact, it took three more years of patients dying from heart attacks before Vioxx was pulled off the market, and even then, Merck insisted the drug was not dangerous.
This new study was based on a meta-analysis of several unpublished studies that Merck obviously didn't want to see published in medical journals. Drug companies routinely engage in this subterfuge: They cherry-pick which studies they want published while burying the rest. They also choose which studies to forward to the FDA, all while claiming the whole charade is based on "evidence-based medicine."
It is, sort of. If you add the word "selective" in front of the phrase, making it: "Selective evidence-based medicine."
So how were the authors of this new study able to find these unpublished studies that Merck would much prefer remained hidden? They were disclosed in court proceedings against Merck. So many people were harmed by Vioxx, you see, that some of them decided to sue. And in that legal process, many "secret" studies were revealed. Some smart-minded researchers decided to analyze the data in those studies and that's what reveals Merck knew Vioxx raised the risk of heart-related side effects by 35 percent and yet did nothing to warn the public about those risks.
In essence, these documents prove that Merck knowingly and maliciously allowed a deadly drug to continue to be sold to patients for years. It's a clear case of profits before patients from a drug company mired in one scandal after another. (Merck is also the maker of Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine.)
In its defense, Merck says its own scientists couldn't find any link between Vioxx and heart attack deaths. Understandably, it's difficult to find anything when your profits depend on not finding it.
The Merck conspiracy
Now that this data is public, it reveals that Merck's executives and / or employees were engaged in a conspiracy to withhold important drug safety data from the public and the FDA. The aim of this conspiracy was simple: To maximize profits through the sale of a product they knew was killing people.
Of course, only the naive are surprised to hear this. Informed NaturalNews readers already know this is the default behavior of drug companies. They'll do anything to make a buck, including fabricating clinical trial data, withholding important evidence, misrepresenting their drugs in television ads and lobbying lawmakers to make their drugs mandatory. The idea that they would knowingly sell a deadly drug to the general public -- while sitting on data for years that proved the drug was dangerous -- isn't really surprising. Not once you know how the pharmaceutical industry really works, anyway.
Many people (and many states) are fed up with the criminal behavior of drug companies. Nearly 10,000 individuals filed personal injury lawsuits against Merck over the Vioxx scandal. Most were settled for $4.85 billion in 2007, but many lawsuits remain. Eleven states' Attorneys General have also filed lawsuits against Merck, alleging the company committed fraud in its marketing of the drug to state Medicaid programs. Those lawsuits have yet to be resolved.
Pfizer pleads guilty to felony crime in fraudulent marketing of Bextra, pays billions in fines
Wednesday, September 02, 2009 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) For the last several years, I've referred to drug companies as "criminal" operations. They have engaged in price fixing, marketing fraud, science fraud and many other criminal activities that we've written about here on NaturalNews. And yet, until today, they always managed to avoid the criminal charges by settling with the government for a few million dollars in payouts. This was their racket: Violate the law, then when you get caught, just settle with some cash. (And there's always some spare cash to go around since fraudulent science and fraudulent marketing is very, very lucrative.)
But all that changed today with the announcement of a Dept. of Justice criminal case that has resulted in Pfizer pleading guilty to a felony crime. Which crime? "...for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead." You can read the DOJ documents describing the settlement here: ...
Essentially, Pfizer asked the FDA to approve Bextra for a variety of diseases and conditions, and when the FDA refused those approvals, Pfizer decided to go ahead and market the drugs for those diseases and conditions anyway (off-label marketing).
But that's not all. In the DOJ statement, you'll read the following:
Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs -- Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug -- and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.
False claims, kickbacks, felony crimes and civil fraud... it seems that the truth about pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer is finally starting to emerge.
And here's the best part: Pfizer's own whistleblowers will cash in! "Six whistleblowers will receive payments totaling more than $102 million from the federal share of the civil recovery," says the DOJ.
$2.3 billion in fines
Along with this admission of guilt for committing a felony crime, Pfizer is paying well over $1 billion in criminal fines, plus another $1 billion or so to resolve civil allegations against its fraudulent marketing practices. In all, the multi-billion dollar settlement is the largest in the history of the DOJ.
All I can say is: Good work! I've often stated that the pharmaceutical industry should be subjected to our nation's laws, and yet it has operated in a largely lawless fashion for decades. The FTC, for example, which should be investigating the drug industry monopolies that rip off American consumers and limit consumer choice, has all but ignored the monopolistic (and highly illegal) practices of the pharmaceutical industry. But the Dept. of Justice has now apparently decided that enough is enough -- it's going to investigate and prosecute serious criminal fraud being committed by drug companies.
It all makes me wonder whether the folks in Washington have finally figured out that Big Pharma is bankrupting America, and that if true health care reform is to have any hope of reeling in the runaway costs of "sick care," it's going to have to address the fraud and criminality of the pharmaceutical industry. You can't run a national health care system that's affordable and effective if a large part of the system is based on monopoly priced, fraudulently marketed and scientifically falsified drugs.
This is now becoming apparent at both the state and federal level. Check out these quotes from some of the players involved (quoted from the DOJ press release):
"Today's landmark settlement is an example of the Department of Justice's ongoing and intensive efforts to protect the American public and recover funds for the federal treasury and the public from those who seek to earn a profit through fraud. It shows one of the many ways in which federal government, in partnership with its state and local allies, can help the American people at a time when budgets are tight and health care costs are increasing," said Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli. "This settlement is a testament to the type of broad, coordinated effort among federal agencies and with our state and local partners that is at the core of the Department of Justice's approach to law enforcement."
"This historic settlement will return nearly $1 billion to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance programs, securing their future for the Americans who depend on these programs," said Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services. "The Department of Health and Human Services will continue to seek opportunities to work with its government partners to prosecute fraud wherever we can find it. But we will also look for new ways to prevent fraud before it happens. Health care is too important to let a single dollar go to waste."
"Illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies puts the public health at risk, corrupts medical decisions by health care providers, and costs the government billions of dollars," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. "This civil settlement and plea agreement by Pfizer represent yet another example of what penalties will be faced when a pharmaceutical company puts profits ahead of patient welfare."
"Health care fraud has a significant financial impact on the Postal Service. This case alone impacted more than 10,000 postal employees on workers' compensation who were treated with these drugs," said Joseph Finn, Special Agent in Charge for the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General. "Last year the Postal Service paid more than $1 billion in workers' compensation benefits to postal employees injured on the job."
"The size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine of $1.3 billion, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer's crimes," said Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. "Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws. Today's enormous fine demonstrates that such blatant and continued disregard of the law will not be tolerated."
These are such harsh words against Pfizer that you might think I wrote them. Yet they're printed word-for-word by the Dept. of Justice. Read them yourself here:
Do you see what all these statements have in common? Money is tight. Big Pharma's price fixing and marketing fraud was well tolerated when easy money was readily available, but now that the writing is on the wall with record government debt, falling tax revenues and huge budget cuts at the state level, every dollar counts. Suddenly Big Pharma's fraud looks like a lucrative target where some money can be recovered and restored to state coffers.
A tidal wave of legal action against drug companies?
I have a feeling these Pfizer fines are just the beginning. In an economy where unemployment is skyrocketing and state and federal budgets are getting squeezed, pharmaceutical companies look a little suspicious sitting on a big pile of cash. Where did all that cash come from? And why aren't the American people any healthier after spending all that cash on Big Pharma's medications?
Everybody in the law enforcement side of government already knows the pharmaceutical industry operates in blatant violation of the law. Now it's just a matter of figuring out what it will cost in legal fees to prove Big Pharma's crimes and recover yet more billions from companies like Pfizer. State administrators are running this formula through their heads right now: If we spend, say, ten million dollars on legal fees and investigative efforts against the drug companies, we stand a good chance of recovering a hundred million dollars (or more) in money that can go straight into the state treasury... and that means we don't have to shut down as many schools, or state parks, or social services, etc. in order to balance the state budget.
It's a tempting equation, especially during difficult economic times. And now that the DOJ has proven they can get a guilty plea and a few billion dollars out of just one pharmaceutical giant, the gold rush is on: More states (and perhaps more nations) will see this as a green light to go after the money.
What we're likely to see now with Big Pharma is a lot like what happened with Big Tobacco. The tobacco industry wasn't sued by states because it manufactured a product that killed people -- that sort of thing has always been tolerated in America -- it was sued because the states saw easy money combined with a great cover story. "We're saving people from tobacco!"
Now, there's a new cover story that we'll see repeated as the states go after Big Pharma: "We're saving our health care system!"
And it's largely true. Health care cannot financially survive if the biggest corporate players routinely engage in criminal fraud as a way of doing business.
That's why this DOJ settlement with Pfizer over the criminal marketing of its Bextra drug is a step in the right direction. While one criminal conviction won't end Big Pharma's fraudulent drug racket over night, it is at least a shot over the bow of pharmaceutical manufacturers, warning them that there are limits to the degree of deception in which they can engage.
As part of the settlement with the DOJ, by the way, Pfizer also agreed to an "expansive corporate integrity agreement" designed to root out and halt criminal behavior by its own employees in the future. It's fascinating that corporate ethics in America have sunk so low that a company must actually launch an internal corporate integrity program just to teach its employees and officers to avoid engaging in felony crimes.
Did the Federal Gov't. Hide a Flu Epidemic in 1993 and Why?By Bill Sardi
August 17, 2009
For decades now, since the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, US life expectancy has progressively risen. But federal government documents reveal a sudden unexplained increase in the US death rate in 1993, so severe as to cause a decline in US life expectancy for the first time in over 8 decades. Examine the chart below (Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2004 -- National Center for Health Statistics)

Nearly 93,000 more deaths were reported in 1993 than the previous year. My memory bank didn’t recall any outstanding disease or epidemic back then.
What was the cause of this severe increase in the death rate? I began to investigate.
Not caused by a non-infectious diseaseThe Monthly Vital Statistics Report said death rates for HIV infection (9.8%), COPD-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (8.2%) and pneumonia/influenza (8.1%) rose steeply from 1992 to 1993. However, the ten leading causes of death didn’t change over that time period. The Centers for Disease Control said deaths due to heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), HIV infection and pneumonia/influenza as well as diabetes made the largest contributions to the overall mortality increase. The cause(s) of the increase in the death rate were spread among various diseases by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), far too broad to explain any single cause. Not a word was said about this startling setback in life expectancy.
But that same government document said some of these increases in chronic disease (diabetes, heart disease, COPD) were “the result of the two influenza epidemics of 1993.” [Page 9, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Volume 44, No 7(S), Feb. 29, 1996]
1993: Two flu epidemicsWhat two flu epidemics is the report referring to?
A CDC review of mortality patterns in 1993 also states “the decline in life expectancy likely reflects increases in death rates for chronic disease during the two influenza outbreaks of 1993.” [Morbidity Mortality Weekly 45:08), 1161-64, March 1, 1996] There it is again, confirmation that two flu epidemics in the same year caused an increase in deaths with an admission it resulted in a decline in the life expectancy of Americans.
Timeline of historical flu outbreaksAmericans may be roughly familiar with the historical timeline of flu outbreaks provided in the chart below. The chart has been adapted to show the severity of each influenza outbreak and also the SARS coronavirus pandemic of 2003. I have added the 1993 flu outbreaks to the chart.
Note that the 1993 flu outbreak which resulted in nearly 93,000 more deaths than the prior year resulted in more deaths than the well-known Asian and Hong Kong flu pandemics and would be second only to the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 in comparable deaths. The Spanish flu had temporarily set back US life expectancy gains from 50.9 years to 39.1 years. Of course, this was the pre-antibiotic era. There were no anti-bacterial or anti-viral drugs then.

According to charts provided by the CDC and other health organizations, it’s as if there was no flu epidemic in the US in 1993. I had to dig deep into the health reports of that year to find further confirmation that it was the flu, and no other disease, that caused the American life expectancy to steeply decline for one year.
Data showed only 3,430 more deaths among HIV-infected residents then the prior year. [Morbidity Mortality 45: 121-25, 1996] Another study showed only 254 excess flu deaths among person with HIV for 1992-93 and only 191 the following year. [Archives Internal Medicine 161: 441-46, 2001] So HIV-infected persons, through at higher risk for death from the flu, cannot explain the unusual number of deaths attributed to influenza in 1993.
It’s also possible that flu vaccination rates declined in that year, but a quick search on Google found evidence to the contrary. Vaccination rates were rising while the flu outbreak of 1993 proceeded. (See chart below)

It struck elderly nursing home residents. But why?
So I began to re-read a government document I had flagged with a red paperclip during my investigation. A flu surveillance report published by the CDC states that the “1992-93 influenza season was dominated by influenza B, but increasing circulation of influenza A (H3N2) viruses toward the end of the season” which struck nursing home populations with deadly consequences. For reference, type-A flu viruses are the most virulent and most common. Type B are less common but almost exclusively strike humans.
The report went on to say that influenza B viruses predominated early in the season and were mainly limited to school-age children, and “no excess mortality was observed.” Then sustained excess mortality began in mid-March of 1993 and coincided with outbreaks in nursing homes. [Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 46: (SS1), 1-12, Jan 31, 1997]
Like the more recent swine flu outbreak which began in Mexico, the second flu bout in 1993 began late in the season.
For comparison, the Mexico swine flu virus began in March or April of 2009 whereas the second 1993 flu outbreak began in March and peaked even later in August and September. The pathogenic virus involved in 1993 was identified as Type A H3N2 A/Beijing/32/92 strain. [Morbidity Mortality Weekly March 18, 1994 / 43(10); 179-183]
Still, why would the government hide such an epidemic, particularly the second one in 1993? I had no clue.
Free flu shots begin in 1993I had uncovered much of this information over two years ago. But the reason for the cover-up remained elusive until I read a Health & Human Services press release issued in 1999. It said that Medicare coverage for flu shots for the elderly began in 1993 as the Administration launched an effort to increase immunization rates among older adults. The shots were free for those enrolled in Medicare Part B. The release can be found here:
The big difference from prior years was that elderly Americans were getting free flu shots.
According to The Vaccine Guide (North Atlantic Books, 2002), during the 1992-1993 season, 84 percent of samples for the predominant type A virus in circulation in the US population were not similar to the virus in the vaccine. The flu vaccine that year would be largely worthless. But that wouldn’t explain such a huge increase in deaths, particularly in nursing home populations that apparently hadn’t received flu shots in prior years due to lack of provisional funding.
There was a very slight increase in the risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome in the period 1992 to 1994 from flu shots (one additional case per million persons vaccinated). [New England Journal of Medicine 339: 1797-802, 1998] This would still not be sufficient to produce a setback in life expectancy.
A death vaccine?Now the big question comes to mind. Was the flu vaccine in 1993 lethal in some way? This could be the only explanation as to why this deadly flu outbreak has been hidden from the public. If so, it would be a severe blow to the nation’s flu vaccination program.
There is a hint of evidence in Europe that either a deadly flu virus or a “death vaccine” was in circulation that year. Dutch National Influenza Centrum reported that nursing home residents in 1993 experienced a severe outbreak of the flu that struck 49% of them and caused 10% to die. That’s a death rate four times greater than the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. The cause of the deaths was attributed to the Type A H3N2 flu viral strain. [Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1993 Sep 25; 137(39):1973-7]
Could there have been some deadly vaccine in use in the US in 1993? So-called “hot” lots of vaccines are not a matter of public record. Flu vaccines inject a “little bit of disease” to provoke the production of antibodies and produce long-term resistance to a particular strain of the flu. Nursing home patients are often frail and immune compromised. Every flu vaccine is a new invention, produced in advance of the next flu season and usually comprised of a new combination of three viral strains that virologists believe will be in circulation during the upcoming flu season. The three viral strains in these trivalent vaccines could have been deadly to frail elderly patients.
It is often stated that flu vaccines are comprised of “dead” or “attenuated” viruses. In fact, viruses are not alive, they are proteins and genetic material that require a host cell for replication. Virulent flu viruses are “grown” in mammalian eggs until less virulent strains are produced, which are then used in vaccines.
In the process of making a vaccine in this manner, a hidden virus may be introduced, such as the Simian 40 virus that was mistakenly introduced in the polio vaccine some years ago. New methods of making vaccines would eliminate this problem. But was a deadly combination of viruses hidden in the flu vaccine used in 1993? Certainly no flu vaccine manufacturer would admit to that.
The FDA has been lax in its monitoring of flu manufacturing facilities. For example, in December of 2000 The Idaho Observer noted that Medeva, a British flu vaccine maker, had received a warning letter from the US FDA over filthy conditions in its manufacturing plant, but the FDA had given the green light to sell 20 million doses of its “Fluvarin” flu vaccine in the US in that same year without re-inspecting the plant.
Proof That Thimerosal Induces Autism-Like Neurotoxicity
Dr. Mercola
August 06 2009
A new scientific study proves that the mercury-based compound used as vaccine preservative -- known as ‘thimerosal’ -- induces neural damage similar to that seen in autism patients.
According to the study, thimerosal-induced cellular damage caused concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death. Thimerosal at low concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells.
Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:I’m always pleased to see another study confirming what vaccine-safety advocates have tried to get across for so long—that the mercury-based preservative thimerosal is seriously bad news and should never be injected. I don’t know how much proof will be required take to get the truth to finally get through, but a mountain of evidence is apparently still not enough for some nay-sayers.
This latest study confirms that damage does occur in human neuronal and fetal cells, even at low concentrations.
As you’ve likely heard by now, rates of autism in the U.S. have increased nearly 60-fold since the late 1970s, rising right along with the increasing number of vaccinations added to the childhood vaccination schedule.
This oftentimes debilitating neurological disorder now affects about one in 150 U.S. children, but an article in the Daily Mail two years ago reported the rate of autism in Great Britain could be as high as 1 in 58.
Although autism may be apparent soon after birth, most autistic children experience at least several months, or even a year or more of normal development -- followed by regression, defined as loss of function or failure to progress.
Typically, by the age of three, at which time the child has received at least 24 of their scheduled vaccinations, symptoms of autism are fully apparent, affecting their communication and social skills, and impairing the child's ability to play, speak and relate to the world.
The Genetic Catch-AllMany have tried to debunk the autism-vaccine link, oftentimes blaming the disorder on genetic factors, but the connection refuses to go away. And for valid reasons.
So far, scientists have been able to link genetic defects to a mere one percent of autism cases. Although the other 99 percent are still unaccounted for, conventional media rarely underscore this fact, focusing instead on the minority link to genetic predisposition.
For example, last year the U.S. government concluded that childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of autism in 9-year-old Hannah Poling. According to U.S. Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, the shots "significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder" and resulted in a brain disorder "with features of autism spectrum disorder."
Again, they finally conceded that those with genetic predispositions can develop autism when injected with thimerosal. But industry is still refusing to take any responsibility for having anything to do with the other 99 percent of autism cases, and our health officials are playing along, protecting the interests of industry, not that of your child.
And bear in mind, mercury is not the one and only potential danger hiding in vaccines. Aluminum is yet another neurotoxic poison used as an immune-suppressing adjuvant. (For more on that, please see this previous article, which covers that issue in greater detail.)
All this lopsided logic serves no one except Big Pharma, and their fingerprints are all over the so-called “evidence” proving that vaccines are safe.
The Cover-Up of Thimerosal DangersFour years ago, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote a must-read Rolling Stone article exposing the truth about the drug industry's greed, and the secret gathering where a plan was hatched to cover up the dangers of thimerosal.
According to Kennedy’s account, in June of 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials -- including high-level officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the top vaccine specialists from the World Health Organization (WHO), and representatives from every major vaccine manufacturer -- secretly gathered to discuss the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines.
Data indicated that the toxic heavy metal appeared to be responsible for a drastic increase in autism and other neurological disorders among children.
However, rather than taking every precaution to protect public health, they spent the majority of the next two days plotting how to protect the industry’s bottom line by getting rid of the troubling data.
The CDC played their part in the cover-up by:
Paying the Institutes of Medicine to produce a new study that would debunk the link between thimerosal and brain disorders
Withholding unflattering findings by claiming the original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated
Handing its massive database of vaccine records over to a private company, effectively pronouncing it off-limits to researchers and preventing dissemination of the data through the Freedom of Information Act
Although thimerosal was eventually removed from the majority of childhood vaccines in 2001, it’s still used in some multi-dose vials, and is present in nearly all seasonal flu vaccines.
And, thimerosal-containing vaccines already produced were not recalled, so children most likely continued to receive the tainted vaccines until stocks were depleted.
So, What Do We Know About Thimerosal?Thimerosal (TMS), which is used in vaccines as a preservative, is 49.6 percent ethylmercury (eHg). It is already an established fact that exposure to mercury can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions -- all similar to traits defining, or associated with autism.
The study above just puts yet another nail in the coffin.
Because of the ever increasing number of required childhood vaccines, thimerosal has become a major source of mercury in children. Within the first two years of life, a child may already have received a quantity of mercury that clearly exceeds safety guidelines.
Genetic predisposition and a number of other environmental factors, such as exposure to other toxins, and diet, are likely major contributing factors that determine whether a child will be able to manage the toxic insult, or develop a neurological disorder like autism.
Other Issues Compounding the Dangers of ThimerosalThe timing of vaccines is also an important factor. According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, multiple vaccines given close together over-stimulate your brain's immune system and, via the mechanism of "bystander injury," destroy brain cells.
He wrote an excellent, in-depth paper on this issue.
If you have not already read it, I highly recommend you give it a moment of your time as it is incredibly informative. In it he presents compelling evidence of the link between excessive vaccinations and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Your immune system is very complex. Naturally, the immune system of a baby is not the same as that of an adult, as it is not yet fully formed. Both animal and human studies have confirmed that immune reactions to vaccinations differ at different ages.
The rate of maturation of the immune system also differs considerably among babies and children, and when combined with variables such as other toxic exposures and diet, there’s no way of foretelling what effect a toxin like thimerosal will cause in ALL children.
For example, fluoroaluminum formed in fluoridated drinking water also interferes with immune function and can significantly compound the damage incurred from mercury, as can many insecticides and herbicides used around your home.
As for diet, there’s substantial evidence that omega-6 oils are powerful pro-inflammatories and cause immune suppression when consumed in large amounts. These oils include corn, safflower, sunflower, canola, peanut and soybean oils.
If you or your child eat a standard American diet, you’re consuming about 50 times more omega-6 fats than you need for health.
So it stands to reason that the average child is exposed to a number of substances both in their food and environment that can alter their immunity, hence making them more susceptible to vaccine complications.
Unfortunately, the standard childhood vaccination schedule ignores all these variables.
How Many Vaccinations are Too Many?There seems to be no maximum number of vaccines that a child can be exposed to in sight. Think about it: in 1983, before the autism epidemic began, children received 10 vaccinations before attending school. Today they receive 24 vaccines before the age of 1, and 36 by the time they attend school. And that’s not including the recommended seasonal flu shot each year. Like smoking and lung cancer, there’s enough proof today to call a complete halt to the present excessive vaccine program and ban any level of mercury in vaccines.
But just like the case of Big Tobacco, Big Pharma refuses to do what’s right and protect you and your children from unnecessary harm.
More Recent EvidenceThere’s yet another recent study confirming the link between low-level mercury poisoning in children and diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Published in the Journal of Neurological Sciences in September 2008, the study was the first prospective, blinded cohort study to examine children diagnosed with an ASD using urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA) to assess the physiological effects of mercury toxicity. They also used glutathione analysis to assess the children’s susceptibility to mercury poisoning.
Children with severe ASDs had significantly higher levels of mercury intoxication in comparison to participants with mild ASDs.
It was also established that glutathione, a key biochemical in your body’s mercury detoxification pathway, was significantly lower in patients diagnosed with an ASD in comparison with the control group.
I’d like to point out, though, that although this study shows a relationship between lower glutathione levels and greater severity of autism, mercury is not the only toxin that can affect glutathione levels. There’s a plethora of toxins in your daily environment that contribute to your toxic load, so any number of toxins may be contributing to the problem.
Lack of Vitamin D in Children ‘Shocking’LiveScience Staff, Mon Aug 3, 9:26 am ET
About 70 percent of U.S. children have low levels of vitamin D, which puts them at higher risk for bone and heart disease, researchers said today.
"We expected the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency would be high, but the magnitude of the problem nationwide was shocking," said Dr. Juhi Kumar of Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center.
Cases of rickets, a bone disease in infants caused by low vitamin D levels, have also been increasing, other research shows.
The new finding, from a nationwide study, adds to growing evidence that children as well as many adults also lack the vitamin.
"Several small studies had found a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in specific populations of children, but no one had examined this issue nationwide," said study leader Dr. Michal L. Melamed of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.
The cause? Poor diet and lack of sunshine, the researchers conclude today in the online version of the journal Pediatrics.
Millions of children
The researchers analyzed data on more than 6,000 children, ages 1 to 21, collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004.
The researchers found that 9 percent, or 7.6 million children across the country, were vitamin D deficient and another 61 percent, or 50.8 million, were vitamin D insufficient.
Low levels were especially common in girls, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, the obese, those who drank milk less than once a week, and those who spent more than four hours a day watching TV, playing videogames, or using computers. The deficiency was more common among the older children in the data set, too.
Lighter skin is more efficient at producing vitamin D. So darker-skinned people produce less when exposed to sunlight.
The decline in vitamin D levels in the United States was reported widely a year ago and has been underway for 20 years, Melamed said.
"Kids have more sedentary lifestyles today and are not spending as much time outdoors," Melamed said. "The widespread use of sunscreens, which block UV-B rays, has only compounded the problem."
The body uses UV-B sunlight to convert a form of cholesterol in the skin into vitamin D.
What to do
Melamed recommends that children should consume more foods rich in vitamin D, such as milk and fish. "But it's very hard to get enough vitamin D from dietary sources alone," she said.
Vitamin D supplementation can help. In the study, children who took vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) were less likely to be deficient in the vitamin. However, only 4 percent of the study population actually used supplements.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, which recently updated its vitamin D guidelines, now recommends that infants, children, and teens should take 400 IU per day in supplement form.
Supplements are especially important for children living in northerly regions where the sun may be too weak to maintain healthy vitamin D levels. Supplements are also critical for infants who are breast-fed, the researchers said in a statement today. Breast milk contains relatively little vitamin D, while formula is fortified with the vitamin.
What else can parents do?
"It would good for them to turn off the TV and send their kids outside," Melamed said. "Just 15 to 20 minutes a day should be enough. And unless they burn easily, don't put sunscreen on them until they've been out in the sun for 10 minutes, so they get the good stuff but not sun damage."
Other experts caution that extended exposure to the sun - tanning and burning - increases the risk of deadly skin cancer.
Pfizer to Pay Tens of Millions for Deaths of Nigerian Children in Drug Trial ExperimentFriday, July 24, 2009 by: David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has agreed to pay $75 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed against it by Nigerian parents who claim the company caused harm to their children by using them as guinea pigs in a nonconsensual, unlicensed drug trial.
The case began in 1996, when Pfizer needed a human trial to gain approval for its new antibiotic Trovan. When an epidemic of meningitis, cholera and measles broke out in Kano, Nigeria, the company quickly put together a research team and flew them to that country. Pfizer set up a tent right near the medical station where Doctors Without Borders were giving free treatments and recruited 200 children to participate in an unlicensed drug trial.
Parents say they were not told that proven medications were being distributed only yards away, that their children were being enrolled in a drug trial, or that animal studies had suggested that Trovan could cause liver and joint damage. Eleven of the 200 children in the study died, and parents claim that others suffered from brain damage, organ failure and other severe side effects. The case broke when Pfizer researcher Juan Walterspiel, who had been schedule to take part in the trial but was left behind, wrote a letter to Pfizer's then chief executive William Steere, saying that the Kano study was "in violation of ethical rules."
"Some of the children were in critical condition and most of them malnourished, which made oral absorption even more unpredictable," he wrote. "At least one died after a single oral dose." Class action lawsuits were filed against the company in a variety of jurisdictions in Kenya and the United States, while various levels of the Nigerian government also filed their own lawsuits against the company. The current settlement comes in a class action suit filed in Nigeria. In addition to a pending class action suit in the United States, Pfizer may still face criminal prosecution in Nigeria. In January 2008, a Nigerian judge issued arrest warrants for several top company officials after they failed to appear in court.
Drug-Induced Dementia Common in SeniorsThursday, July 23, 2009 by: David Gutierrez,
(NaturalNews) Many cases of senior dementia are actually caused by drug side effects and could be reversed with a change in prescription, reports the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen on its Web site"
Sadly, doctors don't always recognize cognitive impairment as a side effect, so many patients needlessly suffer from this debilitating but reversible condition," said Sidney Wolfe, the organization's acting president. "After beginning new drugs, doctors, patients and their families should watch for subtle changes in cognition and assume changes may be caused by drug therapy. People already suffering from some cognitive impairment are most susceptible."
While most people are more familiar with irreversible forms of dementia such as Alzheimer's disease, Public Citizen has catalogued 136 commonly prescribed drugs that can produce symptoms of dementia or delirium. The assessments are based on reviews of published data from prestigious medical journals and unpublished data from the FDA.
Dementia is a chronic, progressive disruption of normal thinking processes. Delirium consists of abrupt changes to vision, hearing and thinking. In many cases, doctors falsely assume that drug-induced delirium and dementia are caused by an underlying health condition.
Among the drugs most likely to cause delirium or dementia are antidepressants or certain painkillers. Other culprits are the common antihistamine diphenhydramine (marketed as Benadryl, among other names); the sleeping pills zolpidem (Ambien) and eszopiclone (Lunesta); the urinary incontinence drug tolteridine (Detrol); and the nausea drug metoclopramide (Reglan).
Public Citizen warned that the elderly are particularly susceptible to drug-induced delirium or dementia. Not only are drugs more likely to build up in higher doses in their bodies due to lessened kidney or liver function, they are also more likely to be taking multiple drugs that could interact to produce unique side effects. In addition, those already suffering cognitive impairment are more likely to have it exacerbated by pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, the elderly are also most likely to have their symptoms written off as merely the normal effects of aging.
Swine flu shots at school: Bracing for fall return
Thursday, July 9, 2009
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — U.S. swine flu vaccinations could begin in October with children among the first in line — at their local schools — the Obama administration said Thursday as the president and his Cabinet urged states to figure out now how they'll tackle the virus' all-but-certain resurgence.
"We may end up averting a crisis. That's our hope," said President Barack Obama, who took time away from the G-8 summit in Italy to telephone another summit back home — the 500 state and local health officials meeting to prepare for swine flu's fall threat.
No final decision has been made on whether to vaccinate Americans, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stressed. That depends largely on studies with experimental batches that are set to start the first week of August — to see if they're safe and seem to work and to learn whether they require one or two doses.
But if all goes well, the federal government will buy vaccine from manufacturers and share it for free among the states, which must then "try and get this in the arms of the targeted population as soon as possible," Sebelius said.
First in line probably will be school-age children, young adults with risky conditions such as asthma, pregnant women and health workers, she said. Unlike regular winter flu, the swine flu seems more dangerous to these groups than to older people.
"Schools are natural places" to offer those vaccines, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said.
Go home and get schools, mayors and other community leaders to spread that message, Sebelius said.
"The last thing we want is millions of parents to be surprised" the day the get-your-kid-vaccinated-at-school note comes home, she said.
Schools do occasionally team up with local health officials for special flu vaccination clinics, but it's not common. More than 140 schools around the country scheduled flu vaccination days last fall, some providing free vaccine. Some vaccinated only students bearing parent consent forms; others opened their doors to entire families.
It will be a confusing fall, Sebelius acknowledged. Doctors' offices, clinics and even grocery stores will be in the midst of dispensing 100 million-plus doses of regular winter flu vaccine — and the swine flu vaccine, which will roll out slowly, will require at least one completely separate inoculation.
"We know a mass vaccination program of even modest scale will involve extraordinary effort on your part," Sebelius told state health workers.
She also announced $350 million in grants to help states prepare, money to be used partly to brace hospitals for a surge of demand from the truly sick and the well-but-worried.
"We want to make sure we are not promoting panic but we are promoting vigilance and preparation," Obama told the gathering.
State officials welcomed the funds but had more practical questions for the feds, starting with what they learned from the chaos when swine flu first burst on the scene last spring and schools around the country closed because of sick students.
Since then, the virus has infected an estimated 1 million Americans and still is spreading, remarkable considering influenza usually can't tolerate summer's heat and humidity.
"What I need from all of you is an idea of when it is best to close, when it is necessary to close and when it's not," said Belinda Pustka, superintendent of Texas' Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District.
"Closing school is a last resort not a first resort," Duncan stressed, but he said schools need to plan how they'll keep students learning if they do have to close for extended periods.
Pustka's schools posted assignments online. But Sue Todey of Wisconsin's Department of Public Education said that between rural geography and poverty, many students don't have the necessary Internet access and she's exploring using public television or old-fashioned sending home of paper assignments.
An even bigger problem: When schools close and working parents need to stay home — or any worker gets sick — too often, they don't get paid, said Paul Jarris of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. So they come to work, spreading infection.
"How are we going to assist people who don't have benefits?" he asked.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was working with the Labor Department to address that question, and she urged employers to allow telecommuting and make other provisions should swine flu hit their workplaces this fall.
Swine flu outbreaks in the fall are all but certain given its continued spread here — 50 outbreaks in children's summer camps so far — and abroad, with major problems in parts of the Southern Hemisphere.
What doctors can't predict is how bad it will be during the U.S. flu season, but Obama's team of heavy-hitters spent Thursday warning against complacency.
Even if swine flu proves no more deadly than regular winter flu, that kills 36,000 Americans a year — and with swine flu, teenagers and young adults are being disproportionately hit, said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And both types could very well spread at the same time this fall.
"If it doesn't happen, we'll be fortunate," Sebelius added.
Homeless people die after bird flu vaccine trial in Poland
Three Polish doctors and six nurses are facing criminal prosecution after a number of homeless people died following medical trials for a vaccine to the H5N1 bird-flu virus.By Matthew Day in Warsaw
Published: 02 Jul 2008
The medical staff, from the northern town of Grudziadz, are being investigated over medical trials on as many as 350 homeless and poor people last year, which prosecutors say involved an untried vaccine to the highly-contagious virus.
Authorities claim that the alleged victims received £1-2 to be tested with what they thought was a conventional flu vaccine but, according to investigators, was actually an anti bird-flu drug.
The director of a Grudziadz homeless centre, Mieczyslaw Waclawski, told a Polish newspaper that last year, 21 people from his centre died, a figure well above the average of about eight.
Although authorities have yet to prove a direct link between the deaths and the activities of the medical staff, Poland's health minister, Ewa Kopacz, has said that the doctors and nurses involved should not return to their profession.
"It is in the interests of all doctors that those who are responsible for this are punished," the minister added.
Investigators are also probing the possibility that the medical staff may have also have deceived the pharmaceutical companies that commissioned the trials.
The suspects said that the all those involved knew that the trial involved an anti-H5N1 drug and willingly participated.
The news of the investigation will come as another blow to the reputation of Poland's beleaguered and poverty-stricken national health service. In 2002, a number of ambulance medics were found guilty of killing their patients for commissions from funeral companies.
Vaccine Doctor Given at Least $30 Million Dollars to Push Vaccines
Dr. Mercola
June 25 2009
Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned at least $29 million as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine.The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine -- effectively, to vote himself rich.Offit’s claim to a share of the profits from Rotateq revenues is based on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck’s vaccine. Paul Offit had a great personal interest in Rotateq’s commercial success, and more than any other individual in the world he found himself in a position to directly influence that success. Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created by the recommendation of an appointed body, ACIP. From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP.
Age of Autism February 16, 2009
Dr. Mercola's Comments:If you want to read a fascinating expose of this doctor read the recent Philadelphia Magazine expose on him. Dr. Paul Offit, or as he is also known Paul “For Profit” Offit, is a fairly well-known and frequent commentator in favor of vaccinations who dismisses many vaccine risks and promotes vaccine mandates. But he is not just a doctor who believes that vaccinations save lives. Far from it.Dr. Offit is also a listed inventor on a cluster of patents that protect Merck’s Rotateq vaccine and share the title “Rotavirus Reassortant Vaccine.” They include four granted U.S. patents -- US5626851, US5750109, US6113910 and US6290968 -- and two granted European patents -- EP323708 and EP493575. He is also the recipient of a $350,000 grant from Merck for the vaccine’s development, a consultant to Merck Pharmaceuticals and, the icing on the cake, previously served as a member of The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ACIP is a 15-member panel of immunization experts, selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They provide advice and guidelines to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine-preventable diseases. As a member of the ACIP from 1998 to 2003, Dr. Offit was involved in CDC recommendations about giving rotavirus vaccine to babies. He voted “yes” three times out of four on issues pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus use recommendation (including, voting for his own vaccine to be included in the immunization schedule). To clarify, Dr. Offit voted for the FIRST Rotashield vaccine manufactured by Wyeth (monkey-human hybrid virus) approved by ACIP in 1998 to be given to all babies. He abstained from the vote in 1999 to recommend that Rotashield be removed from the market. He did not vote for the Merck Rotateq vaccine (cow-human hybrid virus) to be recommended for use in all babies -- he was prevented under ACIP/government rules from voting to recommend a product he had a personal financial stake in. Now, as a result of Merck’s rotavirus vaccine being added to the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule, the value of Dr. Offit’s stake in the vaccine has skyrocketed.
Why Isn’t This ILLEGAL?????Though he has declined to say exactly how much he has gained personally, Age of Autism reports that Dr. Offit earned at least $29 million, and perhaps as much as $55 million, as part of a $182-million sale by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine.Of course, all of this begs the question, can someone’s vote on an “independent” safety board be trusted when there is $30 million at stake? Would Dr. Offit, or anyone for that matter, truly be an unbiased voice of safety? Or would they be swayed by this hidden motivation?It’s a rhetorical question but I think the answer speaks for itself. Especially when you consider that Dr. Offit is also the doctor who made the infamous and incomprehensible statement, “an infant can safely receive up to 10,000 vaccines at once.”
Always Look for Hidden Motivations
It is understandable that most people would like to believe the words of respected leaders in the health field. Unfortunately, doing so is often very naïve.It’s not enough to look at the obvious credentials of your spokespeople, whether they’re pro- or anti- an issue or hold a prestigious degree. Today, you also have to consider the hidden motivations behind their recommendations. Where is their loyalty? Who pays for their lifestyle? Where is their money coming from?It’s very sad to say, but some of the most trusted voices in defense of vaccine safety are nothing more than paid shills for the industry. As CBS News reported last year, these include:
The American Academy of Pediatrics, to whom the vaccine industry gives millions for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even to help build their headquarters.
Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children and admits they receive money from the vaccine industry -- but won’t say how much.
Dr. Paul Offit, who in addition to the monies described above holds in a $1.5-million research chair at Children's Hospital, funded by Merck.
Why You Should Stay Educated About Vaccine IssuesClearly the above listed “trusted” health care groups cannot really be trusted for an unbiased opinion. Not while they are busy accepting untold amounts of money from the vaccine makers.So, then, what other choice do you have but to seek out the truth for yourself? The good news is that there are still trustworthy sources of information out there, and one of the best is The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the American vaccine safety watchdog. Exploring the information on this site, as well as on the many pages of, will help you to get educated.The site was founded by vaccine-educated parents and is run by longtime vaccine safety and informed consent advocate Barbara Loe Fisher. To the best of my knowledge Dr. Offit has repeatedly refused to debate her in public. Likely he knows she would win that debate because he doesn’t have half a leg to stand on.More parents are clearly opposed to the "mandatory" vaccine laws and understand that vaccinations are not the heavily promoted miracle cure-all that will keep their children from getting sick. Instead, they are seeing the truth: that vaccines carry the risk of serious side effects such as crippling neurological damage like autism and even death.Let me be clear that I’m not anti-vaccine, but rather pro-vaccine safety. I believe it is extremely important to have the right to choose -- to be allowed to make informed consent decisions about what you want to inject into your child, and yourself, and when.The current U.S. immunization schedule calls for children to get 48 doses of 14 vaccines by the time they’re just 6 years old. By age 18, federal public health officials say they should have gotten a total of 69 doses of 16 vaccines from day of birth to age 18.Public health officials have NEVER proven that it is indeed safe to inject this number and volume of vaccines into infants, children, pre-adolescents and teenagers. What's more, they cannot explain why, concurrent with an increasing number of vaccinations, there has been an explosion of neurological and immune system disorders in American children. But perhaps more disclosures like the article above, where we learn that a key proponent of vaccine safety is being made rich off of his recommendations, will shed some light on why the U.S. vaccine schedule just keeps growing ever larger.So please do the health of your children a favor. Seek out a knowledgeable health care practitioner who is aware of the conflict of interest surrounding public health policy, and chooses to make educated decisions based on solid information, and your child’s health and safety, rather than on the promise of a future payoff.
Related Links:
Vaccine-Autism Question Divides Parents, Scientists
Vaccine Studies: Under the Influence of Pharma
Big Pharma Ties Want to Shut Down Vaccine 'Conspiracy Theories
Alternative Medicine Could by Finn-ishedWilliam Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The government of Finland is about to do something that Big Pharma has been dreaming of (and pushing their willing assistants at the FDA to do) for years: place severe restrictions on the practice of alternative medicine. The goal of the restrictions is, apparently, to "guarantee patient safety."
Sound familiar? How many times have I told you that whenever a government starts banning things in the name of the "public good," it means trouble.
The new law in Finland would only allow alternative therapies for diabetes and cancer patients to be administered by medical doctors. What's more, pregnant women and mental health patients could only undergo alternative therapies provided by medical doctors. The fact that few medical doctors actually practice alternative therapies makes this nothing less than a de facto ban on alternative medicine.
This ban is especially threatening because it fails to define what's considered "alternative." Is an organic diet alternative? How about massage therapy? Or even herbal tea? No one knows for sure. But I have a sneaking suspicion that anything Big Pharma can't turn a buck on would qualify.
Don't shrug this off as something that doesn't apply to you. If we're not careful, it won't be long before a similar model could spread not only through Europe, but across the Atlantic to the U.S. as well.
Showing you the errors of the health care system's ways.
CDC Vaccine Advisor Pockets $29 Million Promoting Vaccines
Monday, June 01, 2009 by: David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) Dr. Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) received at least $29 million from his share of royalties for Merck's Rotateq vaccine after using his position with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that childhood vaccination with the vaccine became compulsory.According to a report on the Web site "Age of Autism," a review of CHOP's royalties schedules reveals that Offit likely received between $29 million and $55 million for his work developing the Rotateq vaccine for rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in infants. Because the vaccine is jointly owned by CHOP and by the Wistar Institute but Offit is the only inventor listed on the patent from CHOP, he received 100 percent of inventor's rights payments from CHOP."Clearly, based on the distribution of income rights outlined in [CHOP's policies], Paul Offit had a greater personal interest in Rotateq's commercial success than any other single individual in the world," article authors Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill write. "And more than other individual in the world, he found himself in a position to directly influence that success."Between 1998 and 2003, Offit sat on the U.S. government's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). His involvement with development of Rotateq began before and ended after these dates.While a member of the ACIP, Offit consistently voted in favor of making vaccination against rotavirus part of the compulsory U.S. childhood immunization schedule. He also voted to rescind recommendation of Wyeth's competing vaccine RotaShield, while aggressively advocating for the idea that other rotavirus vaccines would be less dangerous."Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of an appointed body called the ACIP," Olmsted and Blaxill write. "In a single vote, ACIP can create a commercial market for a new vaccine that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a matter of months."In the case of Rotateq, its addition to the vaccine schedule led to an increase in yearly revenue of $655 million over the course of two years.
Children Who Get Flu Vaccine Have Three Times Risk Of Hospitalization For Flu, Study SuggestsScienceDaily (May 20, 2009)
The inactivated flu vaccine does not appear to be effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma. In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than their peers who do not get the vaccine, according to new research that will be presented on May 19, at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego.
Flu vaccine (trivalent inactivated flu vaccine—TIV) has unknown effects on asthmatics.
"The concerns that vaccination maybe associated with asthma exacerbations have been disproved with multiple studies in the past, but the vaccine's effectiveness has not been well-established," said Avni Joshi, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. "This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the TIV in children overall, as well as the children with asthma, to prevent influenza-related hospitalization."
The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend annual influenza vaccination for all children aged six months to 18 years. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (3rd revision) also recommends annual flu vaccination of asthmatic children older than six months.
In order to determine whether the vaccine was effective in reducing the number of hospitalizations that all children, and especially the ones with asthma, faced over eight consecutive flu seasons, the researchers conducted a cohort study of 263 children who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from six months to 18 years of age, each of whom had had laboratory-confirmed influenza between 1996 to 2006. The investigators determined who had and had not received the flu vaccine, their asthma status and who did and did not require hospitalization. Records were reviewed for each subject with influenza-related illness for flu vaccination preceding the illness and hospitalization during that illness.
In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those who did not (p= 0.006). But no other measured factors—such as insurance plans or severity of asthma—appeared to affect risk of hospitalization. "While these findings do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not in fact implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations," said Dr. Joshi. "More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity, but also the efficacy of different influenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects."
They found that children who had received the flu vaccine had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine.
True Insanity -- Psychiatrists Promote Psychiatric Drugs as Weight Loss ToolsDr. Mercola
May 02 2009
Drugs used to treat hyperactive children, such as Ritalin, are being recommended as a means to help solve the obesity crisis.
Dr. Lance Levy of Toronto studied severely obese patients who had failed to lose weight in 10 years. Some were prescribed anti-hyperactivity drugs including Adderall, a type of amphetamine, and a Ritalin-style pill called Concerta. After a year of treatment, those given the drugs had lost an average of 12 percent of their total body weight.
Doctors behind these latest findings claim a chemical imbalance in the brain caused by undiagnosed ADHD prevents severely obese patients from having the willpower to lose weight, and treating the ADHD with drugs can help with weight loss.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:Last September new British health guidelines urged physicians to curb the use of Ritalin and other ADHD drugs in children. Could it be that drugmakers are now afraid this trend will spread to other parts of the world … and they’re looking for a new way to market their toxic and dangerous products?
That drugs like Adderall, Ritalin and Concerta would lead to weight loss is no surprise. One of their most well known side effects is loss of appetite and weight loss.
In fact, Adderall was originally marketed as a diet pill during the 1960s -- and using the drug to slim down quickly is a well-known trick among celebrities. Other studies, too, have tried to paint these potent prescription drugs as weight loss “miracle” pills. In 2007, for instance, researchers found that adults ate 11 percent fewer calories and 17 percent less fat when they took Ritalin before a buffet lunch.
With obesity rates now at record levels in the United States and other developed countries, drug makers stand to make a fortune if their pills could suddenly be marketed as a weight loss tool. But there are some hefty downsides you should know.
What are You Willing to Risk to Lose Weight?Psychiatric drugs were never meant to be passed around like candy, yet more and more this is what is happening -- often with devastating consequences.
By definition, Ritalin and similar drugs stimulate your central nervous system, leading to side effects such as:
• Increased blood pressure• Increased heart rate• Increased body temperature• Increased alertness• Suppressed appetite
When taken over a period of years, the drugs may cause even more severe health problems such as cancer. A small University of Texas study conducted in 2005 showed damage to the chromosomes of 12 children who had taken Ritalin for just three months. The potential of Ritalin to cause cancer has been known for much longer though, as back in 1993 The National Toxicology Program released results that showed feeding mice Ritalin at levels close to those routinely prescribed induced liver tumors, including rare and highly malignant cancers.
Meanwhile, while researchers used to believe that Ritalin was a short-acting drug, studies have shown it has the potential for causing long-lasting changes in brain cell structure and function and may lead to stunted growth.
ADHD drugs other than Ritalin have been linked to hallucinations, heart attack, stroke, increased aggressive behavior, suicide, and even sudden death! Further, it’s known that long-term use of Adderall can lead to liver problems, while some may become allergic or addicted to the drug. Serious heart problems, and even death, have also been reported.
So for doctors to claim that ADHD is the reason why some obese people cannot lose weight -- and then recommend psychiatric drugs to solve the problem -- is an extraordinary imprudent choice that in no way, shape, or form addresses the root causes of obesity, or ADHD for that matter.
It’s true that if you take amphetamines like Adderall you might end up slimmer -- but you certainly won’t end up healthier.
How to Address Obesity at Its Source
Obesity carries with it serious health risks of its own, including cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, and with rates increasing steadily it is a condition that needs to be taken seriously and addressed properly.
Weight gain is obviously influenced by many factors, but the two that everyone keeps coming back to -- diet and exercise -- are still the primary ones in my mind. Combine a healthy diet with exercise -- and be sure you are addressing the emotional component of food, eating and weight gain -- and most people WILL lose weight. Specifically, this includes:
1. Tailoring your diet to your nutritional type. 2. Viewing exercise as a drug. 3. Letting go of your emotional blocks to overcome emotional eating and food cravings.
Even if you are inclined to agree with the doctors who say the effects of ADHD, such as impulsive behavior and lack of willpower, are making it difficult for some obese people to lose weight, a pill is still not a wise choice.
In my medical practice at the Natural Health Center, here’s what I recommend for both kids and adults who suffer from ADHD:
• Increase your intake of omega-3 fat from krill oil. This is the single most important nutrient for ADHD children and adults. • Drink only water for a beverage, taking care to avoid fruit juices, soda, and pasteurized milk.• Restrict or eliminate all processed foods, sugars and most grains from your diet.• Avoid processed foods, especially those containing artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives, which may aggravate or cause ADHD symptoms.• Spend more time in nature, especially sunshine on your skin to optimize your vitamin D levels.
As you can see, none of these suggestions include taking a dangerous psychiatric drug. Instead, all of them are tips that can only benefit, not harm, your health -- and can help push your life in a healthy direction whether you’re struggling with obesity or not.
Warning! Drug Company Buries Unfavorable Antidepressant Drug Studies
Dr. Mercola
March 21 2009
Drugmaker AstraZeneca “buried” unfavorable studies on its antipsychotic drug Seroquel, according to an internal e-mail. The e-mail was made public due to litigation over the medicine.
The drugmaker did not publicize results of at least three clinical trials of Seroquel and engaged in “cherry picking” of data from one of those studies for use in a presentation, an AstraZeneca official said in the December 1999 e-mail. The company faces about 9,000 lawsuits claiming it failed to properly warn users that Seroquel can cause diabetes and other health problems.
Seroquel, which generated sales of $4.45 billion in 2008, is the company’s second-biggest seller after the ulcer treatment Nexium. AstraZeneca has denied wrongdoing, and is vowing to fight the lawsuits in court.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
The link between Seroquel and diabetes has been on the FDA’s radar for nearly a decade. It was the year 2000 when they first asked AstraZeneca to share data on new-onset diabetes and related illnesses in people taking the drug. At that time, AstraZeneca reported 12 new cases of diabetes and 5 cases of related illnesses, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer, but internal company documents revealed there were actually 27 cases of diabetes and 2 of hyperglycemia.
Now more than 15,000 people have sued AstraZeneca on the count they withheld information on the connection between Seroquel and diabetes, along with also promoting the drug, which is approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, for unapproved uses.
Only as a result of these lawsuits was a 1999 internal e-mail unsealed, in which an AstraZeneca official said the company failed to publicize results of at least three clinical trials of Seroquel and also engaged in “cherry picking” of data from one of those studies for use in a presentation.
This is all part of an ongoing battle. Back in 2006 similar lawsuits were already underway against AstraZeneca, again claiming they downplayed the diabetes risks and hid important safety information from the FDA. While untold numbers of patients may have suffered serious side effects from taking Seroquel, the drug remained AstraZeneca’s second-biggest seller in 2008 (after Nexium), and they enjoyed sales of $4.45 billion last year as a result.
“Cherry Picking” is Common in Drug Company Data
Make no mistake about it; AstraZeneca is far from the only drug company that has downplayed the risks of its prized products. The practice is also very common among many other drug categories, including antidepressants.
If there’s one thing drugmakers excel at, it’s doing an excellent job of publicizing the things they want you to know, while keeping very quiet about the rest. Dr. James Gordon, a world-renowned expert in using mind-body medicine to heal depression, anxiety and psychological trauma, expands in reference to antidepressants:
“The problem is that the drug companies did not publish the unfavorable studies about antidepressants, especially the newest class, the SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) like Prozac or Paxil.
And so what you have is drug companies only publishing positive studies, doctors only reading about positive studies, patients believing the drug companies and, of course, their doctors -- and it’s kind of like the Emperor’s New Clothes. Everybody’s been kind of wrapped up in an illusion when in fact over the last couple of years people have been taking a new look at all the unpublished studies.”
More Psychiatric Drug Risks You Might Not Have Heard Of
An increased risk of diabetes is far from the only side effect of taking these mind-altering drugs. People taking antipsychotic drugs are nearly twice as likely to have a stroke as those not on the treatment. The risk is even higher -- about 3.5 times -- for men and women with dementia. The drugs also increase your risk of potentially fatal blood clots. Sadly, children are among the most innocent victims in all of this, as they’re being prescribed these dangerous and sometimes deadly antipsychotic drugs at alarming rates. So please think long and hard before opting to take any prescription drug, even if the drug maker claims it’s safe. As appears to be the case with Seroquel, often the real dangers have been quietly swept under the carpet leaving those who took the drug to fend for themselves.
And the fact of the matter is, nearly everything that drugs are supposed to do can be achieved using safe, natural means, such as eating healthy and addressing your emotional traumas, with no side effects other than good health in return.
Practical Options to Dangerous Drugs
Instead of subjecting yourself to the serious side effects of mind-altering drugs, you can try the following natural treatments. These options are safe, inexpensive and best of all remarkably effective.
1. Optimize your diet, including taking an animal-based source of omega-3 fat, such as krill oil, daily. I have seen large numbers of patients spontaneously take themselves off antidepressants once they optimized their diet and omega-3 levels.
2. Address the underlying emotional challenges. To do this, I suggest using the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). For serious problems such as depression, it would be prudent to contact a health care professional who is trained in the technique. You can use Gary Craig's list of EFT Practitioner Referrals to do this.
3. Get plenty of sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency is very common and has been implicated in both psychiatric and neurological disorders.
4. Exercise. It is one of the best remedies for depression, and studies have found it can cut your depressive symptoms nearly in half.
Get kids vaccinated or go to jail?
UPPER MARLBORO, Md. (AP) — Scores of grumbling parents facing a threat of jail lined up at a courthouse Saturday to either prove that their school-age kids already had their required vaccinations or see that the youngsters submitted to the needle.
The get-tough policy in the Washington suburbs of Prince George's County was one of the strongest efforts made by any U.S. school system to ensure its youngsters receive their required immunizations.
Two months into the school year, school officials realized that more than 2,000 students in the county still didn't have the vaccinations they were supposed to have before attending class.
So Circuit Court Judge C. Philip Nichols ordered parents in a letter to appear at the courthouse Saturday and either get their children vaccinated on the spot or risk up to 10 days in jail. They could also provide proof of vaccination or an explanation why their kids didn't have them.
By about 8:30 a.m., the line of parents stretched outside the courthouse in the county on the east side of Washington.
Many of them complained that their children already were properly immunized but the school system had misplaced the records. They said efforts to get the paperwork straightened out had been futile.
"It was very intimidating," Territa Wooden of Largo said of the letter. She said she presented the paperwork at the courthouse Saturday and resolved the matter.
"I could be home asleep. My son had his shots," said Veinell Dickens of Upper Marlboro, who also blamed errant paperwork.
Aloma Martin of Fort Washington brought her children, Delontay and Taron, in 10th and 6th grade, for their hepatitis shots. She said she had been trying to get the vaccinations for more than a month, since the school system sent a warning letter. She had an appointment for Monday, but came to the courthouse to be safe.
"It was very heavy handed," she said of the county's action. "From that letter, it sounded like they were going to start putting us in jail."
School officials deemed the court action a success. School system spokesman John White said the number of children lacking vaccinations dropped from 2,300 at the time the judge sent the letter to about 1,100 Friday.
After Saturday's session, 172 more students were brought into compliance, including 101 students who received vaccinations at the courthouse and 71 whose records were updated.
That still left more than 900 students out of compliance with vaccination requirements, White said.
"Obviously, we still have some more work to do," he said.
Any children who still lack immunizations could be expelled. Their parents could then be brought up on truancy charges, which can result in a 10-day jail sentence for a first offense and 30 days for a second.
Prince George's State's Attorney Glenn Ivey couldn't say Saturday whether he would prosecute parents who fail to comply.
"We have to sit down with school and health services," he said. "We haven't ruled anything out. We need to figure out where we stand."
White said the school system, with about 132,000 students, has been trying for two years to get parents to comply with state law. That law allows children to skip vaccines if they have a medical or religious exemption. It was unclear how many medical or religious exemptions were involved.
Maryland, like all states, requires children to be immunized against several childhood illnesses including polio, mumps and measles. In recent years, it also has required that students up to high school age be vaccinated against hepatitis B and chicken pox.
Nichols said nobody actually came before him Saturday, but he was there if any parent asked to see him.
The judge noted the unhappy looks of some of the kids in line waiting for vaccinations.
"It's cute. It looks like their parents are dragging them to church," Nichols said.
Several organizations opposed to mass vaccinations demonstrated outside the courthouse. While the medical consensus is that vaccines are safe and effective, some people blame immunizations for a rise in autism and other medical problems.
"People should have a choice" in getting their children immunized, said Charles Frohman, representing a physicians' group opposed to vaccines.
Drug firms try to bribe doctors with carsDeveloping world 'easy target' for multinationals · Gifts and pampering now norm, says reportSarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian, Wednesday 31 October 2007
Multinational drug companies are targeting doctors in developing countries with dinners and lavish gifts, such as air conditioners, washing machines and down-payments on cars, as incentives to prescribe their drugs, a report reveals today.
The report from Consumers International (CI) says that self-regulation by the multinational drug giants has failed, citing drug adverts by companies such as Glaxo-SmithKline, Wyeth, Novartis and Pfizer that would be considered misleading in Europe, as well as the heavy promotion by all companies of products to doctors.
The impact on patients is serious, the report says. "Up to 50% of medicines in developing countries are inappropriately prescribed, dispensed or sold," it says.
Drug company gifts to doctors include air conditioners, laptops, club membership, domestic cattle, foreign conferences at five-star hotels, brand new cars and school tuition fees, the report says. In the UK only gifts of minimal value, such as pens and mouse mats, are allowed.
But Murad M Khan, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Aga Khan University, told researchers that in Pakistan "for writing 200 prescriptions of the company's high priced drug, a doctor is rewarded with the down payment of a brand new car".
CI's member organisation in Pakistan, TheNetwork, surveyed doctors, sales reps and medical store personnel.
An unnamed Indian doctor told researchers: "'Gifting' of air conditioners, washing machines, microwaves, cameras, televisions, and expensive crystals is an accepted norm nowadays. So are frequent pampering in the form of CMEs [continuing medical education meetings] and lectures in star hotels followed by lavish dinners and cocktails." Similar reports came from Venezuela, Indonesia and Malaysia.
Richard Lloyd, director general of CI, a London-based federation of consumer groups from 113 countries, called for a ban on all gifts to doctors. "The pharma industry sees the developing world as a trillion-dollar opportunity to secure profits over the next 40 years. Weak regulation makes these markets an easy target for the marketing techniques of multinational drug companies, but consumer health expenditure in these countries can ill afford to be squandered on irrational drug use."
The report is also critical of drug advertisements in developing countries which, it claims, sometimes promote a drug without mentioning the side effects or the restrictions on its use - for instance that it works in women but not men.
Regulatory authorities in developing countries are slow to protect people from drugs that have been banned or withdrawn in other countries. Vioxx for arthritis was officially banned in India in October 2004, the month after manufacturers Merck withdrew it in the US, but it was still on sale in India the following year.
The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), the global trade body, said it would take time to get its code of conduct adopted everywhere. "I think it is not something that is achievable overnight," said spokesman Guy Willis. "The issue is how do we get there."
But he called on CI to lodge complaints where it had evidence of any breach of the IFPMA's code of practice.
FDA rejects new limits on mercury in vaccines
Group petitioned government to restrict use of controversial preservative
Tues., Oct . 24, 2006
WASHINGTON - Federal health officials won’t put new restrictions on the use of a mercury-based preservative in vaccines and other medicines, denying a petition that sought the limits because of health concerns.
A group called the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs petitioned the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 seeking the restrictions on thimerosal, citing concerns that the preservative is linked to autism. In a reply dated Sept. 26 but made public only Tuesday, the FDA rejected the petition.
“Only a small number of licensed and approved products still contain thimerosal, and the available evidence supports FDA’s conclusion that all currently licensed vaccines and other pharmaceutical drug products containing thimerosal are safe,” Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the FDA’s assistant commissioner for policy, wrote in denying the petition.
“We’re not accepting that answer,” said Dr. Mark Geier, one of the petitioners. The group now plans to seek a court order that would force the FDA to withdraw thimerosal from all vaccines and medicines unless the agency can show the preservative is safe, Geier said.
Thimerosal, about 50 percent mercury by weight, has been used since the 1930s to kill microbes in vaccines. There have been suspicions that thimerosal causes autism. However, studies that tracked thousands of children consistently have found no association between the brain disorder and the mercury-based preservative. Critics contend the studies are flawed.
Since 2001, all vaccines given to children 6 and younger have been either thimerosal-free or contained only trace amounts of the preservative. Thimerosal has been phased out of some, but not all, adult vaccines as well.
Most doses of the flu vaccine still contain thimerosal, though manufacturers produce versions free of the preservative for use in children. The FDA said it was in discussions with those manufacturers to increase the supply of thimerosal-free flu vaccine.
There also are minute amounts of mercury, as thimerosal or phenylmercuric acetate, in roughly 45 eye ointments, nasal sprays and nasal solutions, the FDA said. Various antivenoms for black widow and snake bites also contain thimerosal.
Why You Should Avoid Taking VaccinesBy Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
December 7, 2003
Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."
Cowpox vaccine was believed able to immunize people against smallpox. At the time this vaccine was introduced, there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox. Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. A stringent compulsory smallpox vaccine program, which prosecuted those refusing the vaccine, was instituted in England in 1867. Within 4 years 97.5 % of persons between 2 and 50 had been vaccinated. The following year England experienced the worst smallpox epidemic in its history with 44,840 deaths. Between 1871 and 1880 the incidence of smallpox escalated from 28 to 46 per 100,000. The smallpox vaccine does not work.
Much of the success attributed to vaccination programs may actually have been due to improvement in public health related to water quality and sanitation, less crowded living conditions, better nutrition, and higher standards of living. Typically the incidence of a disease was clearly declining before the vaccine for that disease was introduced. In England the incidence of polio had decreased by 82 % before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1956.
In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."
There is a widely held belief that vaccines should not be criticized because the public might refuse to take them. This is valid only if the benefits exceed the known risks of the vaccines.
Do Vaccines Actually Prevent Disease?
This important question does not appear to have ever been adequately studied. Vaccines are enormously profitable for drug companies and recent legislation in the U.S. has exempted lawsuits against pharmaceutical firms in the event of adverse reactions to vaccines which are very common. In 1975 Germany stopped requiring pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Today less than 10 % of German children are vaccinated against pertussis. The number of cases of pertussis has steadily decreased even though far fewer children are receiving pertussis vaccine.
Measles outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination rates over 98 % in all parts of the U.S. including areas that had reported no cases of measles for years. As measles immunization rates rise to high levels measles becomes a disease seen only in vaccinated persons. An outbreak of measles occurred in a school where 100 % of the children had been vaccinated. Measles mortality rates had declined by 97 % in England before measles vaccination was instituted.
In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months.
After institution of diptheria vaccination in England and Wales in 1894 the number of deaths from diptheria rose by 20 % in the subsequent 15 years. Germany had compulsory vaccination in 1939. The rate of diptheria spiraled to 150,000 cases that year whereas, Norway which did not have compulsory vaccination, had only 50 cases of diptheria the same year.
The continued presence of these infectious diseases in children who have received vaccines proves that life long immunity which follows natural infection does not occur in persons receiving vaccines. The injection process places the viral particles into the blood without providing any clear way to eliminate these foreign substances.
Why Do Vaccines Fail To Protect Against Diseases?Walene James, author of Immunization: the Reality Behind The Myth, states that the full inflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity. Prior to the introduction of measles and mumps vaccines children got measles and mumps and in the great majority of cases these diseases were benign. Vaccines "trick" the body so it does not mount a complete inflammatory response to the injected virus.
Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIDS
The incidence of Sudden Infant Death syndrome SIDS has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is age 2 to 4 months the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given a child was steadily rising to 36 per child.
Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 3½ and 19 hours of a DPT immunization. He later reported 11 new cases of SIDS death and one near miss which had occurred within 24 hours of a DPT injection. When he studied 70 cases of SIDS two thirds of these victims had been vaccinated from one half day to 3 weeks prior to their deaths. None of these deaths was attributed to vaccines. Vaccines are a sacred cow and nothing against them appears in the mass media because they are so profitable to pharmaceutical firms.
There is valid reason to think that not only are vaccines worthless in preventing disease they are counterproductive because they injure the immune system permitting cancer, auto-immune diseases and SIDS to cause much disability and death.
Are Vaccines Sterile?
Dr. Robert Strecker claimed that the department of defense DOD was given $10,000,000 in 1969 to create the AIDS virus to be used as a population-reducing weapon against blacks. By use of the Freedom of Information Act Dr. Strecker was able to learn that the DOD secured funds from Congress to perform studies on immune destroying agents for germ warfare.
Once produced, the vaccine was given in two locations. Smallpox vaccine containing HIV was given to 100,000,000 Africans in 1977. Over 2000 young white homosexual males in New York City were given Hepatitis B vaccine that contained HIV virus in 1978. This vaccine was given at New York City Blood Center. The Hepatitis B vaccine containing the HIV virus was also administered to homosexual males in San Francisco, Los Angeles, St.Louis, Houston and Chicago in 1978 and 1979. U.S. Public Health epidemiology studies have disclosed that these same 6 cities had the highest incidence of AIDS, Aids related Complex (ARC) and deaths rates from HIV, when compared to other U.S. cities.
When a new virus is introduced into a community. It takes 20 years for the number of cases to double. If the fabricated story that green monkey bites of pygmies led to the HIV epidemic, the alleged monkey bites in the 1940s should have produced a peak in the incidence of HIV in the 1960s at which time HIV was non existent in Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) began a African smallpox vaccination campaign in 1977 that targeted urban population centers and avoided pygmies. If the green monkey bites of pygmies truly caused the HIV epidemic the incidence of HIV in pygmies should have been higher than in urban citizens. However, the opposite was true.
In 1954 Dr. Bernice Eddy (bacteriologist) discovered live monkey viruses in supposedly sterile inactivated polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk. This discovery was not well received at the NIH and Dr. Eddy was demoted. Later Dr. Eddy, working with Sarah Stewart, discovered SE polyoma virus. This virus was quite important because it caused cancer in every animal receiving it. Yellow fever vaccine had previously been found to contain avian (bird) leukemia virus. Later Dr. Hilleman isolated SV 40 virus from both the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines. There were 40 different viruses in these polio vaccines they were trying to eradicate. They were never able to get rid of these viruses ontaminating the polio vaccines. The SV 40 virus causes malignancies. It has now been identified in 43 % of cases of non-Hodgekin lymphoma, 36 % of brain tumors, 18 % of healthy blood samples, and 22 % of healthy semen samples, mesothiolomas and other malignancies. By the time of this discovery SV 40 had already been injected into 10,000,000 people in Salk vaccine. Gastric digestion inactivtes some of SV 40 in Sabin vaccine. However, the isolation of strains of Sabin polio vaccine from all 38 cases of Guillan Barre Syndrome GBS in Brazil suggests that significant numbers of persons are able to be infected from this vaccine. All 38 of these patients had received Sabin polio vaccine months to years before the onset of GBS. The incidence of non-Hodgekin lymphoma has"mysteriouly" doubled since the 1970s.
Dr. John Martin, Professor of Pathology at the Univ. of Southern California, was employed by the Viral Oncology Branch of the Bureau of Biologics (FDA) from 1976 to 1980. While employed there he identified foreign DNA in the live polio vaccine Orimune Lederle that suggested serious vaccine contamination. He warned his supervisors about this problem and was told to discontinue his work as it was outside the scope of testing required for polio vaccine.
Later Dr. Martin learned that all eleven of the African green monkeys used to grow the Lederle polio virus Orimune had grown simian cytomegalovirus from kidney cell cultures. Lederle was aware of this viral contamination as their Cytomegaloviral Contamination Plan clearly showed in 1972. The Bureau of Biologics decided not to pursue the matter so production of infected polio vaccine continued.
In 1955 Dr. Martin identified unique cell destroying viruses termed stealth viruses in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. These viruses lacked genes that would enable the immune system to recognize them. Thus they were protected by the body's failure to develop antiviral antibodies. In March of 1995, Dr. Martin learned that some of these stealth viruses had originated from African green monkey simian cytomegalovirus of a type known to infect man.
The Lederle vaccine experience suggests that the higher-ups are not concerned about sloppy and dangerous preparation of vaccines. Animal cross infection is a huge unsolved current problem for all vaccine manufacturing. If this vaccine production sounds like an unbelievable mess to you, you are right.
The influential Club of Rome has a position paper in which they state that the world population is too large and needs to be reduced by 90 %. This means that 6 billion people must be reduced to 500 to 600 million. Obviously, creating famines and genocidal wars such as wrecked havoc in Africa, and loosing new laboratory-created diseases (HIV, Ebola, Marburg, and probably West Nile virus and SARS) can help reduce the population. Other elitist groups (Trilaterals, Bildenbergers) have expressed similar concerns about excess people on planet Earth.
The company that was projected to produce the new smallpox vaccine in the U.S. was in serious trouble in England because of unsatisfactory quality of operations before setting up their facility in the U.S. Why would their performance here be any better than it was in England?
If there are important powerful groups of people that are determined to reduce the world population, what could be a more diabolically clever way to eliminate people than to inject them with a cancer-causing vaccine? The person receiving the injection would never suspect that the vaccine taken 10 to 15 years earlier had caused the cancer to appear.
Other Dangers From Vaccines
In the March 4, 1977 issue of Science Jonas and Darrell Salk warn, "Live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis may in each instance produce the disease it intended to prevent. The live virus against measles and mumps may produce such side effects as encephalitis (brain damage).
The swine flu vaccine was administered to the American public even though there had never been a case of swine flu identified in a human. Farmers refused to use the vaccine because it killed too many animals. Within a few months of use in humans this vaccine caused many cases of serious nerve injury (Guillan Barre syndrome).
An article in the Washington Post on Jan. 26, 1988 mentioned that all cases of polio since 1979 had been caused by the polio vaccine with no known cases of polio from a wild strain since 1979. This might have created a perfect situation to discontinue the vaccine, but the vaccine is still given. Vaccines are a wonderful source of profits with no risks to the drug companies since vaccine injuries are now recompensed by the government.
The steady escalation in the number of vaccines administered has been followed by an identical rise in the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, asthma) seen in children. While there is a genetic transmission of some of these diseases many are probably due to the injury from foreign protein particles, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and other toxic agents injected in vaccines.
In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was recommended by the Center for Disease Control for all infants. When this vaccine program was instituted several infants died and many had life endangering bowel obstructions. Prelicensure trials of the rotavirus vaccine had demonstrated an increased incidence of intussusception 30 times greater than normal but the vaccine was released anyway without special warnings to practitioners to be on the lookout for bowel problems. Children's vaccines are often not studied for toxicity possibly because such study might eliminate them from being used.
A large study from Australia showed that the risk of developing encephalitis from the pertussis vaccine was 5 times greater than the risk of developing encephalitis by contacting pertussis by natural methods.
Naturally acquired immunity by illness evolves by spread of a virus from the respiratory tract to the liver, thymus, spleen, and bone marrow. When symptoms begin, the entire immune response has been mobilized to repel the invading virus. This complex immune system response creates antibodies that confer life long immunity against that invading virus and prepares the child to respond promptly to an infection by the same virus in the future.
Vaccination, in contrast, results in the persisting of live virus or other foreign antigens within the cells of the body, a situation that may provoke auto-immune reactions as the body attempts to destroy its own infected cells. There is no surprise that the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, asthma, psoriasis) has risen sharply in this era of multiple vaccine immunization.
Vaccine Induced Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Dr. John Classen has published 29 articles on vaccine-induced diabetes. At least 8 of 10 children with Type 1 (insulin needing) diabetes have this disease as a result of vaccination. These children may have avoided measles, mumps, and whooping cough but they have received something far worse: an illness that shortens life expectancy by 10 to 15 years and results in a life requiring constant medical care.
Dr. Classen has shown in Finland, the introduction of hemophilus type b vaccine caused three times as many cases of type 1 diabetes as the number of deaths and brain damage from hemophilus influenza type b it might have prevented.
In New Zealand, the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children rose by 61 % after an aggressive vaccine program against hepatitis B.. This same program has been started in the U.S.A. so we can now look forward to many cases of Type 1 diabetes in children. Similar rises in Type 1 diabetes have been seen in England, Italy, Sweden, and Denmark after immunization programs against Hepatitis B.
Toxic Substances Are Needed To Make VaccinesVaccines contain many toxic substances that are needed to prevent the vaccines from becoming infected or to improve the performance of the vaccine. Among these substances are mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum.
In the past 10 years, the number of autistic children has risen from between 200 and 500 percent in every state in the U.S. This sharp rise in autism followed the introduction of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in 1975.
Representative Dan Burton's healthy grandson was given injections for 9 diseases in one day. These injections were instantly followed by autism. These injections contain a preservative of mercury called thimerosal. The boy received 41 times the amount of mercury which is capable of harm to the body. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can injure the brain and nervous system. And tragically, it did.
In the United States the number of compulsory vaccine injections has increased from 10 to 36 in the last 25 years. During this period, there has been a simultaneous increase in the number of children suffering learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder. Some of these childhood disabilities are related to intrauterine cerebral damage from maternal cocaine use, but probably vaccines cause many of the others.
Many vaccines contain aluminum. A new disease called macrophagic myofasciitis causes pain in muscles, bones and joints. All persons with this disease have received aluminum containing vaccines. Deposits of aluminum are able to remain as an irritant in tissues and disturb the immune and nervous system for a lifetime.
Nearly all vaccines contain aluminum and mercury. These metals appear to play an important role in the etiology of Alzheimer's Disease. An expert at the 1997 International Vaccine Conference related that a person who takes 5 or more annual flu vaccine shots has increased the likelihood of developing Alzheimer's Disease by a factor of 10 over the person who has had 2 or fewer flu shots.
When we take vaccines we are playing a modern version of Russian Roulette. We not only get exposed to aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde and foreign cell proteins but we may get simian virus 40 and other dangerous viruses which can cause cancer, leukemia and other severe health problems because the vaccine pool is contaminated due to careless animal isolation techniques. Congress has protected the manufacturers from lawsuits, so dangerous vaccines simply increase profits at no risk to the drug companies.
U.S. children aged 2 months began receiving hepatitis B vaccine in December 2000.No peer-reviewed studies of the safety of hepatitis B in this age bracket had been done. Over 36,000 adverse reactions with 440 deaths were soon reported but the true incidence is much higher as reporting is voluntary so only approximately 10 % of adverse reactions get reported. This means that about 5000 infants are dying annually from the hepatitis B vaccine. The CDC's Chief of Epidemiology admits that the frequency of serious reactions to hepatitis B vaccine is 10 times higher than other vaccines. Hepatitis B is transmitted sexually and by contaminated blood, so the incidence of this disease must be near zero in this age bracket. A vaccine expert, Dr. Philip Incao, states that "the conclusion is obvious that the risks of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh the benefits. Once a vaccine is mandated the vaccine manufacturer is no longer liable for adverse reactions.
Dr. W.B. Clarke's important observation that cancer was not found in unvaccinated individuals demands an explanation and one now appears forthcoming. All vaccines given over a short period of time to an immature immune system deplete the thymus gland (the primary gland involved in immune reactions) of irreplaceable immature immune cells. Each of these cells could have multiplied and developed into an army of valuable cells to combat infection and growth of abnormal cells. When these immune cells have been used up, permanent immunity may not appear. The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future?
Compelling evidence is available that the development of the immune system after contracting the usual childhood diseases matures and renders it capable to fight infection and malignant cells in the future.
The use of multiple vaccines, which prevents natural immunity, promotes the development of allergies and asthma. A New Zealand study disclosed that 23 % of vaccinated children develop asthma , as compared to zero in unvaccinated children.
Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason.
Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choice not a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states.
When governmental policies require vaccinations before children enter schools coercion has overruled the lack of evidence of vaccine efficacy and safety. There is no proof that vaccines work and they are never studied for safety before release. My opinion is that there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous and the only reason for their existence is to increase profits of pharmaceutical firms.
If you are forced to immunize your children so they can enter school, obtain a notarized statement from the director of the facility that they will accept full financial responsibility for any adverse reaction from the vaccine. Since there is at least a 2 percent risk of a serious adverse reaction they may be smart enough to permit your child to escape a dangerous procedure. Recent legislation passed by Congress gives the government the power to imprison persons refusing to take vaccines (smallpox, anthrax, etc). This would be troublesome to enforce if large numbers of citizens declined to be vaccinated at the same time.