+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst 1 11 20 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 381

Thread: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

  1. Link to Post #201
    United States Avalon Member Ba-ba-Ra's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th June 2010
    Location
    N. California foothills
    Age
    84
    Posts
    1,735
    Thanks
    25,407
    Thanked 13,315 times in 1,567 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Glyphosate: how to detox this “sleeper toxin” from your body


    https://www.real.video/5806345264001
    Blessed are the cracked, for they are the ones who let in the light!

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ba-ba-Ra For This Post:

    avid (18th September 2018), Foxie Loxie (18th September 2018), Houman (19th September 2018), onawah (18th September 2018), RunningDeer (18th September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  3. Link to Post #202
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    RFK Jr. Demands the Office of the Inspector General and Congress Investigate Department of Justice for Fraud and Obstruction of Justice
    9/20/18
    https://mailchi.mp/childrenshealthde...e?e=9334837ada

    "WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of Children's Health Defense (CHD), and Rolf Hazlehurst, parent of a vaccine-injured child, petitioned the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees today to investigate actions taken by federal personnel during the “Vaccine Court” Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP).

    Recently discovered evidence provided by Kennedy and Hazlehurst details obstruction of justice and appallingly consequential fraud by two DOJ lawyers who represented the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2007. These actions led to a denial of justice and compensation for over 5,000 families who filed claims of vaccine injury leading to autism in their children.

    Vaccine manufacturers have enjoyed blanket liability immunity from vaccine injuries since Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. To expedite the more than 5,000 petitions filed in the program between 2001 and 2007, the “vaccine court” consolidated the petitions into the OAP. Rather than each petition being determined on its own merits, the court determined the outcomes for all 5,000 cases based on six representative test cases.

    Kennedy and Hazlehurst provide newly discovered evidence that the leading HHS expert, whose written report was used to deny compensation to over 5,000 petitioners in the OAP, provided clarification to the DOJ lawyers that vaccines could, in fact, cause autism in children with underlying and otherwise benign mitochondrial disorders. The witness informed the DOJ attorneys that they were taking his entire written statement out of context and the statement should not be used as a blanket statement for all children in the OAP, which is exactly what they did. “The DOJ intentionally and fraudulently misrepresented its own expert’s written opinion. In order to prevent the expert from revealing the truth to other petitioners or the special master these DOJ lawyers canceled the expert’s oral testimony to keep him from stating his true opinion in public. In the process, the DOJ and HHS concealed critical material evidence of how vaccines can cause autism in some children” stated Hazlehurst, who obtained depositions and sworn affidavits documenting these facts.

    “Congress created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program to compensate the injured, not to create a federal program where dirty legal maneuvers are utilized to deny compensation. It is unethical for attorneys to consciously exclude evidence in any legal proceeding; it is grounds for disbarment and, potentially, criminal action,” Mr. Kennedy said. “DOJ attorneys have committed fraud to deny Congress’ promise to these families for rightful compensation and lifelong care for their injured children.”

    The fraud by the two DOJ attorneys directly influenced the 2011 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Supreme Court decision which all but shut the door forever for families seeking redress for vaccine injury in the civil court system.

    Since this miscarriage of justice, roughly one million children have been diagnosed with autism. An unknown percentage of these cases are the result of vaccine injury. As of 2015, the projected annual cost for autism was $268 billion and is expected to reach $1 trillion by 2025. These growing costs now fall on families and on taxpayers through the costs borne by local school districts, states and Medicaid.

    Congress has a moral and legal duty to investigate these highly unethical actions of the Department of Justice in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding.

    A crowdfunding campaign has been set up to help CHD pay for legal initiatives at igg.me/at/childrenshealth "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (20th September 2018), JRS (21st September 2018), ThePythonicCow (21st September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  5. Link to Post #203
    UK Avalon Member avid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2010
    Location
    NW UK
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,886
    Thanks
    58,477
    Thanked 15,653 times in 2,656 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    http://www.cumbriaacademyforautism.co.uk
    This should never have happened, we live near a nuclear reprocessing site, our water is fluoridated, this area has high obesity issues, our water is now being compromised by borehole infiltration, despite clean water upstream (but Utilites are banning us locals from access) we feel like beings in an experiment...
    The love you withhold is the pain that you carry
    and er..
    "Chariots of the Globs" (apols to Fat Freddy's Cat)

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to avid For This Post:

    onawah (20th September 2018), RunningDeer (20th September 2018), ThePythonicCow (21st September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  7. Link to Post #204
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Monsanto, linchpin of industrial factory farm system.
    Organic Consumers Assoc.
    9/20/18
    https://us.e-activist.com/page/messa...dd857441ee001e

    "

    ‘Yes, that’s as nasty as it sounds.’

    Factory farm barns and lagoon after flooding of Hurricane Florence

    I’ve been following the news about Hurricane Florence, and its tragic consequences for the people of North Carolina—the destruction of their lives, homes and land.

    If you’ve been tracking the situation, too, you’ve seen the gruesome photos and headlines about the millions of chickens, turkeys and hogs left to drown on North Carolina’s factory farms.
    You’ve also read reports of what it means when huge lagoons full of pig manure—disgusting enough when intact—overflow.

    The word “Monsanto” probably wasn’t the first word to pop into your head as you read these grim headlines.

    But let’s not forget: Monsanto’s GMO crops and toxic weedkillers are the linchpin of our horrendous industrial factory farm system.

    And that won’t change, unless we all work to make it change.

    Yesterday, North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality issued an update on the condition of the state’s flooded factory farms: Five hog-manure lagoons were already structurally damaged, 21 were leaking into floodwaters, 17 were completely inundated by floodwater and 36 were filled to capacity and likely to start leaking “soon.”

    That was as of noon, September 19. Reports are that the floodwaters haven’t yet peaked.

    Hog farm lagoons are huge open pits, filled with water, pig excrement and anaerobic bacteria. As the New York Times said, “Yes, that’s as nasty as it sounds.”

    The Times reported this week:

    North Carolina has 9.7 million pigs that produce 10 billion gallons of manure annually, mostly on large-scale farms and primarily in low-lying Sampson and Duplin counties. Both counties were affected by Florence.

    We often think of Monsanto and its GMOs and pesticides as one problem, and factory farms as another.

    But these are two inextricably linked problems. Monsanto literally “feeds” the industrial factory farm industry.

    Bring down Monsanto, and we’re on our way to bringing down the factory farm system.

    Fortunately, we are riding a wave of victories against Monsanto right now. Lawsuits are being won, and more are being filed everyday. City councils and entire countries are either banning, or calling for a ban, on Roundup.

    Bayer, which just bought Monsanto, is taking a financial hit as shareholders bail.

    Things are going our way in what is just the latest chapter in a story that began decades ago, when Monsanto corrupted the EPA in order to push its GMO and Roundup products on an unsuspecting public.

    But how this story ends, whether consumers and common sense prevail over the powerful, corruptive ways of Monsanto, depends on all of us.

    That’s why I’m asking for your help today, to meet our fall fundraising goal by midnight, September 22. Please make a generous donation online, by phone or by mail—details here.
    https://donate.organicconsumers.org/...forwarded=true

    Factory farms like those described this week in North Carolina, and the companies like Monsanto that make them possible, are part of a global industrial food system that is arguably the most destructive industry in the world.

    This industry that has stolen and corrupted our food supply, stolen our health, stolen our clean water and fertile soils, stolen our democracy with profits made off the backs of hardworking small farmers, and consumers like you.

    This industry is also one of the biggest contributors to the climate instability that spawns ravaging hurricanes like Florence.

    Don’t let this industry steal our future.

    Thank you

    In solidarity,

    Ronnie Cummins
    International Director
    Organic Consumes Assoc."
    Last edited by onawah; 20th September 2018 at 16:58.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    ichingcarpenter (20th September 2018), pueblo (27th October 2018), RunningDeer (20th September 2018), ThePythonicCow (21st September 2018), Tintin (18th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  9. Link to Post #205
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Feds revive plan to infect people with zika just to test vaccine
    From Autism Action Network
    US Take Action:
    http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/ale...55626&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]

    " Feds revive plan to infect people with zika just to test vaccine
    $110 million should be diverted to autism research
    You can’t make this stuff up. Science, the most prestigious science periodical in the US, is reporting that the federal National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease is attempting to revive a $110 million previously cancelled plan to deliberately infect people in Brazil with the zika virus just to test the efficacy of an experimental vaccine because the natural rate of zika infection is too low to test the vaccine. For comparison, $110 million is about half the entire federal autism research budget. We have wholly inadequate resources devoted to the causes, treatment, and potential cures and prevention for autism. This zika boondoggle should be cancelled and the funds redirected toward autism research.

    Please click on the Take Action Link
    http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/ale...55626&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]
    to send a message to your Representatives in Washington, D.C. and the White House calling for the cancellation of this boondoggle and the reallocation of the $110 million to autism research.

    Pre-natal exposure to Zika was targeted as the cause of a surge in the number of children born with microcephaly in an area of northeastern Brazil in 2015. Zika infection is endemic in tropical areas of Latin America and microcephaly was not reported anywhere outside of Brazil or before 2015, nor since. Nonetheless, zika hysteria was manufactured and more than $2 billion US tax dollars were slated for a crash program in zika research. That’s twice the federal Autism research budget spent during the past ten years. But then in 2016 the rate of zika infection collapsed to an extent that researchers claim the deliberate infection of healthy people with zika is necessary because they can’t find enough natural cases of zika to test the vaccine. The $110 million vaccine project reportedly cannot move forward without the deliberate infection of human test subjects.

    Zika is communicable and can be spread through semen so the researchers want to only infect women for the experiment. How they plan to deal with the possibility of the microcephaly they claim zika causes is not clear. Health authorities are not pursuing alternate explanations for the surge in microcephaly in one area of Brazil in 2015.

    Scarce federal research dollars should not be wasted on infecting Brazilian women with zika when the ostensible reason for the research, microcephaly, is obviously not caused by zika, except by those with a financial interest to say it is. In 2017 there were 15 confirmed cases of zika in the US according to the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/zika/reporting/2...se-counts.html.... Yet about 3% of American children now have autism. Who makes these ridiculous research priorities?

    Please share this message with friends and family, and please share on social networks."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Valerie Villars (23rd September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  11. Link to Post #206
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Be Prepared for This Onslaught in 2019, It's a Major Scandal
    September 23, 2018
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=427220151

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    No vaccine exemptions in any state were lost this year — the third year in a row that we’ve been able to protect personal belief exemptions — but NVIC predicts an onslaught of bills aimed at removing vaccine exemptions in 2019, so get ready to stand up for your rights
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data shows seasonal influenza vaccine has been less than 50 percent effective against circulating strains more than half the time for the past 14 years and, last year, flu shots were only 36 percent effective at best
    About 80 percent of suspected influenza case specimens sent for lab confirmation turn out to be other viruses and bacteria — not type A or B influenza — and the CDC’s estimates for annual influenza deaths are inaccurate
    Like influenza vaccines, pertussis (whooping cough) vaccines are also failing and people can have pertussis (or influenza) without showing any symptoms whether or not they are vaccinated
    By Dr. Mercola

    Barbara Loe Fisher is the cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). In this interview, we talk about influenza and pertussis vaccine failures, the business of vaccination and how you can stay healthy this flu season. On the upside, no vaccine exemptions in any state were lost this year, which makes it the third year in a row that we've been able to protect exemptions that allow you to follow your conscience or religious beliefs when it comes to vaccination.

    Without doubt, the reason for this success is because so many of you have gotten involved, telling your legislators they must protect personal belief exemptions and the legal right to exercise vaccine freedom of choice. However, NVIC is predicting an onslaught of bills aimed at removing vaccine exemptions in 2019, so get ready to stand up for your rights!1

    Annual Flu Vaccine Campaign Is Upon Us
    This year, we timed Vaccine Awareness Week to coincide with the annual push for everyone to get a flu shot to make sure the subject is fresh in your mind. If you haven't seen it already, you'll soon be inundated with advertising and "friendly reminders" to get your annual flu shot.2

    "What a lot of people don't stop to think about in the midst of all this advertising is that vaccinologists developed vaccines. Vaccinology is the science of vaccines. Vaccinologists do not understand how vaccines cause immunity in the body. They don't understand how an infection causes immunity in the body.

    They've always had a problem with making vaccines that are effective and also safe, because they don't understand the biological mechanisms for vaccine injury and death. This is especially true for influenza vaccine, because influenza virus mutates rapidly. It's constantly changing.

    There are different strains circulating every year. They have to guess which strains are going to be prevalent in any given year. The vaccine manufacturers then race to develop these annual seasonal flu vaccines.

    But before we even talk about influenza vaccines, what a lot of people don't know is that the majority of respiratory illness out there every year is not due to type A or type B influenza. It's due to other types of respiratory viruses and bacterial infections that cause respiratory influenza-like illness," Fisher says.

    Eighty Percent of Suspected Flu Cases Are Not Caused by Flu Virus
    The most common respiratory illness would be the common cold, which is a rhinovirus and is not caused by influenza virus. As noted by Fisher, about 80 percent of suspected influenza case specimens sent for lab confirmation during the flu season turn out to be other viruses and bacteria — not type A or B influenza.3

    "That's really important, because a lot of people think that when they get sick during the flu season, that they've got influenza," she says, "but most of the time they don't."

    So, if most respiratory illnesses that occur during flu season are not caused by influenza A or B, just how important is the influenza vaccine, which protects only against these two types, and only three to four selected strains at that?

    In the last 14 flu seasons, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has produced evidence showing the seasonal flu vaccine is less than 50 percent effective against circulating strains, more than half of the time.4

    In the 2017 season, the vaccine was only 36 percent effective at best.5 More specifically, the CDC estimated last year's flu vaccine was 25 percent effective against the A(H3N2) virus; 67 percent effective against A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses and 42 percent effective against influenza B viruses. The majority of influenza last year was caused by the A(H3N2) virus, which was the least effective vaccine strain virus in the flu shot.

    Quantifying Vaccine Effectiveness
    Just how is influenza vaccine effectiveness quantified?6 As explained by Fisher, vaccine "efficacy" is determined through a clinical trial, in which two groups are compared. One group receives the vaccine and the other doesn't. The two groups are then compared to see how often lab confirmed influenza actually occurred.

    "Effectiveness," on the other hand, is determined through real-world administration of the vaccine. After the fact, they assess how many vaccinated individuals ended up getting influenza anyway.

    A third term to be aware of is "immunogenicity," which is a measurement of antibody titers, the numbers of antibodies in the blood produced after an inflammatory response to vaccination. However, immunity is not just about antibody titers. It's also about T cell-mediated immunity.

    Historically, vaccinologists have relied upon antibody titers as a lab correlate for vaccine protection, even though the number of antibodies in the blood only measure one part of immunity — humoral immunity.7 Longer lasting natural immunity produced after recovery from infections involves both a cell-mediated and humoral immune response.

    What You Need to Know About Your Immune System
    Your immune system consists of two different branches — cell-mediated immunity (innate) and humoral immunity (adaptive). An infectious disease process involves a cell-mediated immune response to a pathogenic virus or bacteria, which activates your natural killer (NK) cells that send inflammatory mediators to the site of infection, where the white blood cells basically chew up and spit out the infected cells.

    This process clears the virus and during recovery, your humoral immune system kicks in and starts generating antibodies to help prevent the same kind of disease process and symptoms from occurring again, should you be re-exposed to the same pathogenic virus or bacteria later on.

    As long as your cell-mediated immune system is activated first and the humoral immune system is activated second, usually you will have long-lasting immunity against that pathogen.

    Naturally acquired herd immunity comes into play when a very high percentage of individuals in a population have gone through this sequence of cell-mediated and humoral immune response to a viral or bacterial disease.

    Vaccine-acquired "herd immunity" is a misnomer, however, because most vaccines provide an artificial immunity that leans heavily on stimulating an antibody response (humoral immunity), which is incomplete and more temporary than the longer lasting cell-mediated plus humoral immunity acquired after recovery from an infection.

    Vaccine Science Is Still in Its Infancy
    In fact, one of the major problems with vaccines is the fact that they disrupt the balance between your T-cells and the B-cells, which some researchers and clinicians believe radically increases your risk of cancer. Vaccinologists do not understand exactly how vaccines cause injury and death and also don't have correlates for immunity to accurately evaluate how well they work.8

    "The bottom line here is — going way back to smallpox vaccine — they haven't really stopped to do the science. The science is still in its infancy. It's like they're guessing when they make these vaccines, because they don't have correlates to immunity," Fisher says.

    "They do not understand how the vaccines act in the body, at the cellular, molecular level," Fisher says. "Now, some of this science is starting to be done. But these vaccines are being used by millions of people around the world without basic science knowledge.

    People think [the vaccines] have been thoroughly tested. But they have not … They're simply producing more and more vaccines without really understanding what they're doing. This has been my take after 36 years of looking at the issue."

    With Enough NK Cells, You Are Far Less Susceptible to Influenza
    On a side note, albeit an important one considering our topic, researchers recently made a very interesting discovery: With enough NK cells in your system, you will not contract influenza.9,10 As reported by Live Science,11 a specific gene called KLRD1 "could serve as a proxy for a person's levels of natural killer cells."

    KLRD1 is a receptor gene found on the surface of NK cells, and the level of KLRD1 found in a person's blood prior to exposure to the influenza virus was able to predict whether that individual would contract the flu with 86 percent accuracy.

    According to senior study author Purvesh Khatri, associate professor of medicine and biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine,12 KLRD1 is "the first biomarker that shows susceptibility to influenza, across multiple strains." As reported by Eurekalert:13

    "[O]n the whole, those whose immune cells consisted of 10 to 13 percent natural killers [NK cells] did not succumb to the flu, whereas those whose natural killer cells fell short of 10 percent wound up ill.

    It's a fine line, Khatri said, but the distinction between the groups is quite clear: Everyone who had 10 percent or more natural killer cells stood strong against the infection and showed no symptoms. Khatri said his findings could help health professionals understand who's at the highest risk for flu infection."

    There are a number of ways to boost your NK cells, but vaccines are not on that list. Exercise,14 is one example. Foods and supplements known to increase NK cells include colostrum, medicinal mushrooms, probiotics, Panax ginseng and melatonin. To learn more, see "How to Improve Your Immune Function by Boosting NK Cells."

    What Do We Know?
    Getting back to influenza vaccines specifically, what we know is that:

    You can have influenza and show few or no symptoms15

    You can be vaccinated or unvaccinated and have asymptomatic influenza and shed the virus and transmit the disease16

    About 80 percent of suspected influenza cases test negative for influenza in lab tests because most illness during the flu season is caused by microorganisms other than influenza A and B virus17

    CDC estimates for annual influenza deaths are not accurate because reported deaths for other types of influenza-like illness (ILI), such as pneumonia, are included in statistics18

    Between 2005 and 2015, the flu vaccine was less than 50 percent effective more than half of the time19

    During the 2017 flu season, the overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness against influenza A and influenza B virus infection associated with medically attended acute respiratory illness was just 36 percent,20 meaning 64 percent of the time it offered no protection

    Importantly, research has highlighted the link between influenza and severe sepsis — a progressive disease process initiated by an aggressive, dysfunctional immune response to an infection in the bloodstream (which is why it's sometimes referred to as blood poisoning).

    There Are No Reliable Data on Influenza Mortality — It's All Guesswork
    Taken together, what does this say for really getting a handle on how effective the vaccine is? Or how serious influenza is? The CDC still does not know how many people actually die from influenza each year. They know how many pediatric influenza-associated deaths occur because those are reportable by states, but no one is tracking deaths in adults over age 18.

    Pediatric (age birth to 18 years) deaths associated with influenza have averaged about 130 per year for the last five or six years.21 In order to estimate adult flu mortality, public health officials have to guess, and they do that by combining pneumonia, influenza, circulatory and respiratory mortality statistics, from which they come up with an estimate of 12,000 to over 54,000 influenza-associated deaths every year.22

    However, as noted above, there's no actual mortality data collected on influenza deaths in adults so influenza mortality statistics are "guestimates" and more than likely grossly inflated.23 Plus, the picture is further muddied by the fact that most suspected influenza cases test negative because most influenza-like illness is actually caused by organisms other than influenza A and B virus.

    So, there's really no accuracy involved when you read or hear media reports that tens of thousands of Americans die from influenza each year. This number is based on an awful lot of assumptions backed by little to no real evidence. It's been a really effective fear tactic, however.

    The Marketing of Fear
    Up until the year 2000, the influenza vaccine was routinely recommended for people over 65 and/or anyone with lung-related disease. The market was less than 5 percent of the population in total. Then, the age at which you were advised to get an annual flu shot was lowered to 50.

    By 2008, annual flu shots were recommended for all healthy children between 6 months and 18 years of age and, then, the CDC told all Americans to get an annual flu shot every single year throughout life.24

    "Every single American over the age of 6 months through the year of death should now get an annual flu shot — with absolutely no scientific basis for that recommendation, other than fear," Fisher says.

    "We have, in 2017, a nearly $4 billion-a-year influenza vaccine market globally, predicted to reach over $11 billion by 2025. Certainly, if every single person in this country gets a flu shot every year, this is an unimaginable profit-making business for vaccine manufacturers.25

    But there are risks associated with influenza vaccine. It is the most compensated vaccine in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) … About one-third of the total awards [are for flu vaccine injuries]. It now has surpassed pertussis-containing vaccines, which was the leading vaccine. Now, influenza vaccine is No. 1 …26

    And you're going to see that number go up. We have over 152,000 reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that are associated with influenza vaccine, including several thousand deaths. And the government admits only 1 percent of all vaccine adverse events are ever reported."27

    While fear is used to promote the use of influenza vaccine, no one is talking about the fact that the vaccine can cause injury and death.28 The most common serious adverse events are brain inflammation, demyelination, Guillain-Barre syndrome and Bell's palsy. The 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine was associated with narcolepsy, which is a very rare form of brain dysfunction.

    The CDC recommends that pregnant women get a flu shot during every pregnancy in any trimester, but the vaccine was not tested or licensed for use in pregnant women.29 In 2017, there was a report published in the medical literature raising the question of an increased risk of miscarriage within 28 days of influenza vaccination.30

    Part of the problem is that no studies have been done to determine who might be at high-risk for a vaccine reaction, just as there are few studies to determine immune correlates for influenza virus infections.31 As noted by Fisher, "people are being vaccinated in a vacuum of scientific knowledge."

    Flu Vaccine Ingredients Associated With Adverse Reactions
    Aside from the actual vaccine proteins in the vaccine, which are supposed to stimulate an antibody response, the influenza vaccine also contains hazardous ingredients like the mercury preservative, thimerosal.32 Mercury is known to be neurotoxic to humans even at low levels.33

    Thimerosal is not in single-dose vials of the injectable inactivated flu vaccine, but is still in multi-dose vials (the live nasal spray flu vaccine does not contain thimerosal). If you don't want a mercury-containing flu vaccine, you need to look at the list of ingredients, which you can find on the manufacturer product information package insert.

    "The [vaccine] is supposed to be [mercury-free] for infants and pregnant women," Fisher says, estimating there are about 3 to 4 million single doses of mercury-free flu vaccines produced annually in the U.S.

    "There's also a live virus vaccine that is sprayed up the nose. That vaccine was discontinued for a time. The CDC did not recommend it in 2016 and 2017 because it was so ineffective. Well, guess what? They've now reapproved it and said, 'Okay. You can use it this year.'"

    There are now many different kinds of influenza vaccines, such as those containing three or four influenza virus strains, which are inactivated and injected, as well as the "live" virus vaccine sprayed up the nose that Fisher mentions; vaccines using chicken eggs or genetically engineered dog kidney or army worm cells; vaccines that contain squalene-type adjuvants, which have been associated with autoimmune disorders, and vaccines that are "high dose" and contain four times the amount of antigen as the standard vaccine.34

    Again, if you make the choice to get a flu shot, be sure to ask the person administering the vaccine to let you see the manufacturer product information insert that comes with each vial of vaccine before you get vaccinated, so you know which type of flu vaccine you're getting.

    Natural Strategies Offer Powerful Health Benefits
    Rather than using an historically ineffective strategy associated with significant complications and even deaths, why not use what has been shown to work, and costs next to nothing? Four effective strategies to support immune function and provide powerful health benefits — which are ideally done together — are:

    Optimizing your vitamin D. Measure your vitamin D level twice a year, in summer and winter, and make sure you're within the ideal range of 60 to 80 ng/mL — especially as flu season approaches.
    Eliminate added sugars and processed foods from your diet. This is a major component, as these impair your immune function. Also avoid eating within three hours of bedtime, as late-night eating results in metabolic complications, one of which is the impairment of your immune system.
    Exercise regularly and move more on a daily basis.
    Get plenty of restorative sleep. Some of the healthiest people I know, when they travel, get stressed, or for whatever reason cannot sleep well for a few days, that's when they get sick. It's really one of the most profoundly important variables for your health.
    Pertussis Vaccine Update
    Another vaccine Fisher discusses in this update is the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine. It too has an extraordinary failure rate, and that includes both the old whole-cell pertussis vaccine, aka diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) vaccine used in the U.S. until the late 1990s, and the acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) that was licensed for babies in 1996 to replace it.

    You may have heard reports stating that acellular pertussis vaccine is not as effective as whole-cell vaccine. But this is extremely deceptive because the whole-cell pertussis vaccine has been known to be ineffective for over three decades,35 and the CDC admitted in 2012 that "the US B. pertussis population has evolved in the time since vaccinations were introduced in the 1940s."36

    "The Bordetella pertussis bacteria started mutating after widespread use of whole-cell DPT vaccine in the late 1940s. That's when the B. pertussis bacteria started to mutate.37 It accelerated with acellular vaccine because of the components they had in that vaccine, which was two-thirds less reactive than the whole-cell vaccine," Fisher explains.

    "Whole-cell DPT vaccine was the reason Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), because it was causing so many cases of brain inflammation that there were lawsuits all over the place. The manufacturers blackmailed Congress into giving them partial liability protection [in 1986].38

    The Supreme Court gave them full liability protection [in 2011], but it was on the back of whole-cell DPT vaccine, which has hurt so many children. (And is still being used in countries around the world.)

    Now there are calls by Dr. Paul Offit and others to bring back the whole-cell pertussis vaccine into the U.S. for infants, at least one or two doses;39 they say they should never have made the switch from whole-cell to acellular vaccine.40

    I think it is absolutely unconscionable that they would even be discussing bringing whole-cell pertussis vaccine back, when that was the vaccine that caused so many problems and was the reason Congress gave [manufacturers] liability protection.

    I am finishing a book on this subject, on the 'Promise and Reality of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.' I'll be discussing whole-cell pertussis vaccine and pertussis [in that book] and how they are both failed vaccines."

    Recent research suggests the old whole-cell pertussis vaccine in DPT may provide longer lasting protection than the acellular vaccine in DTaP. While there was evidence published in 2014 that neither whole cell pertussis vaccines nor acellular pertussis vaccines block infection and transmission of the disease,41 it appears that those who have gotten whole cell DPT vaccine may clear the infection more rapidly than those who have gotten acellular DTaP vaccine.42

    However, neither vaccine protects against current circulating B. pertussis strains that have evolved over the years to evade the vaccines.43 The highly reactive whole cell DPT vaccine is still a failed vaccine, both in terms of safety and ineffectiveness, and to bring it back would be an absolute travesty.

    Risk-Benefit Analysis
    When it comes to vaccines, there's a risk-benefit analysis that needs to be made, but rarely is it taken into account. Clearly, children die from complications of diseases such as whooping cough and measles each year, mostly in developing countries where many families live with poverty, poor sanitation, poor nutrition and little access to health care.

    However, vaccines also have serious side effects and it is unknown how many children are having vaccine reactions that are ignored and lead to chronic poor health or even end in death.

    The vaccine intervention program is not free of risk, yet sound benefit-risk analyses based on credible scientific evidence are largely nonexistent. As noted by Fisher, the risk-benefit analysis she and Harris Coulter, PhD, coauthors of the ground-breaking 1985 book "DPT: A Shot in the Dark," conducted for whole cell pertussis vaccine argued against routine use of the reactive whole cell pertussis vaccine.

    "When we did the analysis [on whole-cell pertussis vaccine] using the methods scientists use, we came to the conclusion that you actually had more cases of brain injury and death WITH the whole-cell pertussis vaccine than you did if pertussis was endemic in the society. I haven't done it for acellular vaccine, because it is two-thirds less reactive.

    But the point is that when you don't have the science to define and develop pathological profiles to separate out what is vaccine-induced and what is not — when you don't understand who is vulnerable to brain inflammation and immune system dysfunction after vaccination — you are really going forward in a vacuum of knowledge, especially when it's shown that the vaccines aren't effective at blocking infection and transmission …

    It's very hard to do these analyses when you have a vacuum of scientific knowledge. However, we've gone from one dose or two doses of smallpox vaccine in the early 20th century to 69 doses of 16 vaccines given between the day of birth and age 18.

    And we now have more chronically ill and disabled children in this country than we have ever had. I'm not saying it's all due to vaccines. But what manipulates atypically the immune system more frequently than any other medical intervention? Vaccination.

    Granted we have processed foods … GMOs … pesticide exposures … environmental pollution … toxic exposures that are in addition to these vaccines, but vaccines atypically manipulate the immune system.

    They don't understand everything that the vaccines do. They have not tested the ingredients separately and they do not test them well enough in combinations. Some children are getting nine to 10 vaccines on one day. How does the body sort all that out?"

    Vaccine Manufacturers Have No Incentive to Make Safer Vaccines
    As mentioned earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court has given manufacturers of CDC recommended vaccines for children full liability protection, so when you or your child suffers a serious injury after vaccination, the manufacturer is not held responsible.

    The CDC recommends that pregnant women get a flu shot during every pregnancy, but the influenza vaccine was not tested or licensed for use in pregnant women before the CDC recommended all pregnant women get vaccinated during any trimester.44 In 2017, there was a report about the risk of miscarriage within 28 days of vaccination.45

    The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 expanded vaccine liability protection, giving liability protection to manufacturers making and selling vaccines for pregnant women. This protection shields the companies from liability should anything happen to either the mother as a result of vaccination during pregnancy or when her developing infant dies in the womb or is born alive damaged.46

    In addition to vaccines recommended by the CDC for children, vaccines designated by federal health officials as "bioterrorism" vaccines also have liability protection under the Bioshield legislation passed by Congress post-9/11.47 This liability protection extends to all pandemic influenza vaccines as well.48

    What this means is that vaccine manufacturers have absolutely no reason to address the safety or the effectiveness of vaccines, because they have no economic incentive to make safer, more effective vaccines.

    Fisher's new book will delve into this at much greater depth, and this book and documents related to the history of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 will be offered free of charge posted on NVIC's website — something made possible in part by your donations, which I, each year during Vaccine Awareness Week, match dollar for dollar.

    Informed Consent Is a Crucial Human Rights Principle
    Even though I wouldn't personally vaccinate myself or my family, my position, which NVIC shares, is that you need to evaluate the circumstances for yourself and really focus on safety and, then, based on your individual situation, choose the best option.

    This is because, ultimately, you are responsible for the health of yourself and your family, especially your children. But, it has to be an informed, responsible decision. You can't just blindly trust a vaccine industry that is motivated by profit and protected from liability to provide you with the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As noted by Fisher:

    "With the informed consent principle, you have the right as a consumer to have full information about the benefits and risks of any pharmaceutical product and be able to make a free and voluntary decision.

    It's a principle that has been defined as a human right with regard to medical interventions that can cause injury and death. Vaccination is one of those interventions. The informed consent principle is worth standing up for. I'm proud to be associated with Mercola.com, because you have stood firm on that concept."

    I urge you to help us spread these important messages by making a donation to NVIC. As in previous years, I will match all donations made this week. The NVIC has been very successful so far, in its educational approach. As Fisher noted earlier, there hasn't been a successful attempt at removing vaccine exemptions in the U.S. in any state since 2015. We need to stand strong and keep that going.

    "This fight is going to go on for a long time," Fisher says. "But part of the problem is the censorship and trying to silence, marginalize and shun people who ask questions about the vaccine science, which really has huge gaps in it.

    It's important for people to be brave and to talk about when they have a reaction to a vaccine — to get on social media and talk about it. That connects everybody and the whole world.

    I call it 'witnessing in the public square.' It's part of what we do at NVIC. I think it's important for people to not be afraid to stand up and talk about this, no matter how much pressure they get. Only through shining a light on the truth will we be able to stay free." "


    + Sources and References
    1 NVIC Advocacy Portal.
    2 MassLive. August 18, 2018. Flu shot ads announce vaccine’s arrival for coming flu season
    3 MMWR Feb. 19, 2016. Update: Influenza Activity – United States, October 4, 2015 – February 6, 2016.
    4 CDC, February 15, 2018. Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, 2005-2018
    5, 20 CDC.gov MMWR Interim estimates of 2017-2018 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness – United States, February 16, 2018.
    6 CDC 2018 Immunogenicity, Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines
    7 Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 2010. Correlates of Protection Induced by Vaccination.
    8 Vaccine July 13, 2012. Immune markers and correlates of protection for vaccine induced immune responses.
    9 Genome Medicine 2018; 10:45
    10, 12, 13 Eurekalert June 13, 2018
    11 Live Science June 14, 2018
    14 Very Well December 4, 2017
    15 Viral Shedding and Transmission Potential of Asymptomatic and Paucisymptomatic Influenza Virus Infections in the Community
    16 Comparison of Shedding Characteristics of Seasonal Influenza Virus (Sub) Types and Influenza A (H1N1)pdm09; Germany, 2007-2011.
    17 Influenza Viruses Isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2015-2016 Season
    18 CDC. Overview of Influenza Surveillance in the United States. October 13, 2017.
    19 CDC, December 21, 2015 Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness: How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?
    21 Number of Influenza-Associated Pediatric Deaths by Week of Death: 2014-2015 Season to Present.
    22 CDC. January 29, 2018. Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States.
    23 British Medical Journal 2005. Are US flu death figures more PR than science?
    24 NVIC. October 3, 2012. Influenza Deaths: The Hype vs. the Evidence.
    25 Converged Markets August 7, 2018. Influenza Vaccine Market to Reach USD 11.4 Billion by 2025.
    26 HRSA. August 8, 2018. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Data & Statistics: Petitions Field, Compensated and Dismissed by Alleged Vaccine.
    27 MedAlerts.org
    28 Institute of Medicine 2012. Influenza Vaccine. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality.
    29, 44 NVIC. November 9, 2013. Vaccination During Pregnancy: Is It Safe?
    30, 45 CDC. September 13, 2017. Flu Vaccination & Possible Safety Signal.
    31 Frontiers in Immunology July 2, 2018. The Hurdles From Bench to Bedside in the Realization and Implementation of a Universal Influenza Vaccine.
    32 National Center for Biotechnology Information, PubChem Compound Database. Thimerosal.
    33 Environmental Protection Agency. How People Are Exposed to Mercury.
    34 NVIC. What Is Influenza (Flu) Vaccine?
    35 Journal of Pediatrics September 1983. Intrafamilial spread of pertussis.
    36 Emerging Infectious Diseases August 2012. Population Diversity among Bordetella pertussis isolates, United States 1935-2009.
    37 NVIC. March 27, 2016. Pertussis Microbe Outsmarts the Vaccines as Experts Argue About Why.
    38 NVIC Cites ‘Betrayal’ of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma Feb., 23, 2011.
    39 Medscape. April 29, 2016. Should We Bring Back the Whole Cell Pertussis Vaccine?
    40 Expert Review of Anti Infective Therapy 2015. Whither Pertussis?
    41 Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model.
    42 Th1/Th17 polarization persists following whole-cell pertussis vaccination despite repeated acellular boosters.
    43 MSphere May 11, 2016. Genome Structural Diversity among 31 Bordetella pertussis isolates from Two Recent US Whooping Cough Statewide Epidemics.
    46 NVIC Calls 21st Century Cures Act ‘A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’ and Urges Presidential Veto to Protect Public Health. Dec. 8, 2016
    47 NVIC letter to Congress on Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine & Drug Development Act of 2005. Nov. 15, 2005
    48 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-417). Dec. 19, 2006
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Houman (24th September 2018), Pam (30th September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  13. Link to Post #207
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Drug Companies Pay FDA and NIH Pays Universities to Fast Track and Market Vaccines
    9/24/18
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=428232381
    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    In 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) to accelerate FDA licensing approvals of new drugs and vaccines. More than half of the FDA’s budget is now funded by the pharmaceutical industry through PDUFA fees
    The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 allows companies developing treatment for neglected or rare pediatric diseases to pay the FDA for a priority review voucher (PRV) to fast-track approval of the drug or vaccine
    The PRV has proved to be a windfall for companies producing vaccines. A PRV typically secures fast-track approval in six rather than 10 months
    Under the law, drug companies developing treatments for neglected and rare pediatric diseases can sell their PRVs to other companies, including vaccine manufacturers, for millions of dollars to fast-track licensure of completely different, profitable drugs and vaccines, including the HPV vaccine
    The federal government helps the drug industry to market more vaccines. A grant to Emory University for $767,107 for fiscal year 2017 targets pregnant women and their children for vaccination using sophisticated sales and marketing techniques
    By The Vaccine Reaction Staff

    When it comes to cozy business relationships between government and industry, there is nothing like the lucrative one that Congress has encouraged federal health agencies to create with the drug and vaccine industry. One hand washes the other.

    Have you ever wondered how some new drugs and vaccines vault to the front of the line of the FDA's licensing process using fast-track approvals? One way is through a federal law, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act passed by Congress in 2007, which allows a company developing a treatment for a neglected or rare pediatric disease to pay the FDA for a priority review voucher (PRV).

    Although FDA approval is not guaranteed, most of the time a PRV secures fast-track approval in six rather than 10 months.1,2 According to the FDA, to earn a priority review designation, a pharmaceutical product must pose "significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of serious conditions when compared to standard applications."

    The company seeking approval must also provide "evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation."3 The PRV was created and included in the 2007 law to provide an incentive to companies developing nonprofitable drugs for rare pediatric diseases, but has proved to be a windfall for companies producing vaccines.

    Selling PRVs to Get Jump on Securing Market Share
    Under the law, drug companies developing treatments for neglected and rare pediatric diseases may sell the PRVs they have purchased from the FDA to other companies, including vaccine manufacturers, for millions of dollars to fast-track the licensure of completely different, profitable drugs and vaccines.

    When sold, the PRVs designed to help small companies fund their development of nonprofitable disease treatments can give extreme advantages to multinational corporations developing and selling other high-priced drugs and vaccines.

    "If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol-lowering drug could go on the market a year earlier,” said Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2008.

    Describing the 2007 law creating PRVs, Gates pointed out that, "This priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars."4 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the vaccine industry.5

    Early PRV approval from the FDA gives drug companies several months of additional sales because the first licensed drug or vaccine in a category to reach the market often becomes the front-runner, leaving competitors in the dust.

    For example, Regeneron and Sanofi bought a PRV in the hopes that its cholesterol drug Praluent would beat Amgen’s Repatha to market.6 Gilead paid $125 million for a PRV and AbbVie paid $350 million, in addition to the $2.7 million paid to the FDA for the shortened review.7

    As Gates pointed out, companies that purchase PRVs stand to make millions on pharmaceutical products that the FDA fast-tracks to market. PRVs, then, appear to be primarily making money for drug companies rather than truly helping patients suffering with rare and neglected diseases.

    Congress Gives Pharma Edge Over FDA Regulators
    The FDA is charged with the legal duty to regulate the food and pharmaceutical industries to ensure that prescription drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices and certain types of foods are safe, labeled properly and effective before being released for use by the public.8

    Reportedly, FDA officials objected to the priority review program, which was included in the 2007 law passed by Congress without soliciting input from FDA staff.9 According to an unnamed FDA source, “FDA does not get a true seat at the table” during the legislative process so “well-meaning academics, advocates and legislators ‘sold’ FDA to the highest bidder in setting up this program.”10

    Critics of the PRV program point out that it does not really encourage drug development for rare diseases. Since medical reviewers in FDA cannot be easily moved from one review division to another in order to handle PRVs, it creates added workload strain to an overtaxed regulatory agency that is understaffed.

    The program also makes it easier for pharmaceutical products, for which there are existing treatments, such as for diabetes or cholesterol, to move to the front of the approval line at the expense of other, more important ones for which there are no treatments.

    For example, Janssen used a PRV to accelerate the approval of Tremfya (guselkumab) to treat plaque psoriasis, a lucrative drug category competing with the best-selling psoriasis drug, Humira.11 Drug giants Gilead Sciences and Jazz Therapeutics have also bought PRVs.

    Prescription Drug User Fee Act Paves Way for PRVs
    Of course, not all of the accelerated FDA reviews that big drug companies are enjoying involve priority review vouchers created under the 2007 law. In 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) to accelerate FDA licensing approvals of new drugs and vaccines.12

    It was the first law to allow pharmaceutical companies to pay the FDA to let them bypass normal licensing procedures so they could fast-track new products to market. The act was reauthorized by Congress as PDUFA VI in the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017 (PL 115-52).13

    More than half of the FDA’s budget is now funded by the pharmaceutical industry through PDUFA fees.14 This raises serious questions about the integrity of the FDA licensing process when Congress has allowed drug companies to, in effect, bribe the FDA to lower licensing standards in order to grease the skids for certain drugs and vaccines to be fast-tracked to licensure.15

    Gardasil Vaccine’s Fast-Track Licensing Under PDUFA
    Recently, the FDA granted priority review to Merck’s new Supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for Gardasil 9 vaccine under PDUFA.

    In a June 13, 2018, press release, Merck stated that the FDA has set a PDUFA, or target action, date of October 6, 2018, for a decision about whether Merck will be granted “an expanded age indication for Gardasil 9 for use in women and men ages 27 to 45 to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by the nine human papillomavirus (HPV) types covered by the vaccine.”16 Dr. Alain Luxembourg, a Merck official, said:

    “Women and men ages 27 to 45 continue to be at risk for acquiring HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer and certain other HPV-related cancers and diseases. We look forward to working with the FDA on the review of this application for GARDASIL 9, which, if approved, would enable more people to have access to the vaccine.”

    Serious reactions to Gardasil (and Cervarix, another HPV vaccine), including autoimmunity, brain dysfunction and infertility, have been reported in the U.S. and countries around the world and are documented in the medical literature.17,18,19,20,21

    As of July 2018, there have been more than 57,000 HPV vaccine adverse events reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since 2006, including more than 15,000 emergency room visits, 5,600 hospitalizations and 358 deaths.

    Reported reactions include syncope (sudden loss of consciousness), Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), seizures, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, thyroid disorders, deep vein thrombosis and blood clots, pancreatitis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), disabling fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory loss and speech problems.22

    In June 2006, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) publicly criticized the FDA for fast-tracking Gardasil to licensure before it had been fully evaluated for serious side effects and recommended for all 11- to 12-year-old girls by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).23,24

    Merck’s prelicensure clinical trials used an aluminum-containing “placebo,” even though aluminum is an ingredient in Gardasil and can cause inflammation and nerve cell death.25 The next year, Congress passed the PRV legislation reinforcing and expanding the fast-track licensing process.

    Expanding Gardasil’s Market With Taxpayer Money
    Merck is now the sole source manufacturer of HPV vaccine in the U.S.,26 although the well-known reactivity of HPV vaccine, together with its questionable effectiveness, has resulted in low vaccine uptake because of a reluctance by parents to give the vaccine to their children.27,28

    There have been Gardasil vaccine injury lawsuits in Japan and France.29,30 In 2016, judges in India’s Supreme Court demanded answers after children died during a trial of Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines.31

    In July 2018, the British Medical Journal published an indictment of a May 2018 Cochrane Collaboration clinical trial review of HPV vaccines that came to the conclusion that HPV vaccines “do not increase the risk of serious adverse events, miscarriage or pregnancy termination.”32

    A trio of well-credentialed epidemiologists wrote the BMJ critique, detailing how the Cochrane group in charge of the review cherry picked 26 randomized clinical trials — all funded by vaccine manufacturers — to include in the review.33

    Charging that the Cochrane review could not be considered “trusted evidence” because it was influenced by reporting bias and biased trial designs, they pointed out that Cochrane used the biased review to publicly pronounce that HPV vaccine “causes no serious side effects,” even though the published review incompletely assessed serious and systemic HPV vaccine adverse events and failed to assess vaccine-related safety signals.34

    The muddy record of HPV vaccine safety and parental resistance is clear and federal health officials are planning to use taxpayer money to launch a stepped-up nationwide HPV vaccine promotion campaign in the U.S.35 At the same time, Merck is still determined to get its money's worth by selling Gardasil in other countries, like Australia and China.36,37

    The recent request to FDA to fast-track an expanded use license for Gardasil is not Merck's first attempt to enlarge the patient pool and market for its lucrative HPV vaccine. After a priority review in 2008, the FDA rejected the company’s application for Gardasil approval in females aged 27 to 45 years. But Merck is nothing if not persistent.38

    A dose of Gardasil costs between $168 and $205 in the U.S.39 Like many drugs that enrich the drug industry due to high prices, much of Gardasil's development was funded by the U.S. government and taxpayers, and the vaccine continues to receive taxpayer funding.40,41

    In 2013, the NIH gave half a million dollars to the University of Texas SW Medical Center Dallas to try to "identify an optimal and feasible self-persuasion intervention strategy to promote adolescent HPV vaccination in safety-net clinics" also known as “sell more vaccines.”42 Nor was that the only marketing grant.

    The University of Texas El Paso received $422,716 from the NIH to do similar free marketing and "pilot test a future intervention to promote adoption of the HPV vaccine in the Latino community" while "considering cultural factors."43

    In fiscal years 2013/2014, Yale University received $390,389 from the NIH to "identify and describe barriers to HPV vaccination completion among lower income racial and ethnic minorities" and "generate ideas for future interventions that will be culturally relevant and have the greatest potential for impact."44

    In 2017 and 2018, NIH (National Cancer Institute) awarded Vanderbilt University Medical Center $1,173,628 to fund a study project entitled “Increasing HPV Vaccine Uptake in Community-Based Pediatric Practices” for the purpose of identifying “the optimal approach to implementing an evidence-based intervention for the uptake and completion of HPV vaccine among adolescents receiving care in the community, guided by implementation science theory."

    In plain language, it means that the NIH grant is being given to a Vanderbilt researcher to develop strategies to sell more Gardasil vaccine. The problem, according to the grant is, "despite clear and indisputable value in cancer prevention, uptake and completion of the HPV vaccine series has lagged far behind the goal of 80 percent."45

    NIH Grants to Universities to Create Ways to Sell More Vaccines
    The federal government helping the drug industry to market more vaccines is not limited to Gardasil and HPV vaccines. Another grant, this one to Emory University for $767,107 for fiscal year 2017, targets pregnant women and their children for vaccination using sophisticated sales and marketing techniques.

    The Emory grant reads, "Overall, the proportion of children not receiving all recommended vaccines or whose parents are consistently limiting visit-level vaccine administration is increasing ... Additionally, despite evidence showing the effect of vaccinating pregnant women in reducing disease among infants too young to be fully vaccinated, maternal immunization rates remain low."46

    Grantees at Emory will explore how to sell more vaccines by using "vaccine champions, expanded reminder-recall systems," "standardized talking points" and "interactive tablet computer (iPad) education application for pregnant women to view while waiting for care."

    Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are being addressed with a five-year NIH grant for $1.7 million to Georgetown University researchers working with researchers from University of Georgia, Pennsylvania State and Emory University “to identify areas of the country where vaccine refusal is on the rise.”

    A Georgetown University press release announcing the NIH grant in November 2017 stated, “With anti-vaccine activists growing in number and influence in recent years, public health professionals have become increasingly interested in identifying where and why people refuse vaccines and how this behavior drives the spread of vaccine-preventable disease.”47

    Although the CDC tracks rates of vaccine refusal at the state level, the grant will be used to utilize datasets that can track vaccine refusal at the ZIP code level.

    Georgetown’s lead researcher on the grant commented, “While there is previous work on what motivates individuals to engage in vaccine hesitancy, we don’t know much about the populations that tend to have higher rates of this behavior. But public health policy is made at the population level. And our work will help us understand how to design and target effective population-level policies.”

    NIH Grant to Study Safety of Childhood Vaccine Schedule
    Finally, at least one NIH grant suggests that the federal agency is going to take a look at vaccine safety knowledge gaps associated with the childhood vaccine schedule, which vaccine safety advocates have spoken about for years.

    Those big gaps in vaccine safety research were highlighted by the Institute of Medicine in a 2013 report, “Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies.”48

    Acknowledging that “a few of the existing studies show that there are cases in which the risk of adverse events depends on the vaccine schedule used,” NIH has awarded a grant of $392,999 to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. to evaluate the safety of the federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule and alternative schedules.

    Researchers will evaluate "the timing of individual vaccines; the timing between doses of the same vaccine; the interaction effect between vaccines and concurrent health conditions or pharmaceutical medications; the interaction effects of different vaccines given on the same day; the ordering of different vaccines; and the effect of cumulative summary metrics such as the total number of vaccines or the total amount of some vaccine ingredient."49

    The NIH-funded project will also cover "study designs for the comparative evaluation of the CDC recommended schedule, popular alternative schedules and completely unvaccinated children. Methods will be developed for both adverse events with an early onset, which are the easiest to study, and for adverse events with a late onset, including serious chronic conditions."

    So, while giving the green light to speedy vaccine approvals and aggressively marketing vaccines that yield big profits for drug companies, public health officials know there are outstanding questions about just how safe government recommended vaccines really are for infants and children being required by law to use them.

    It will be interesting to see if the design of the NIH-funded study designed and conducted by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc., a corporate partner with CDC,50 will truly qualify as good science the public can trust, or if it will turn out to be just another transparent sales pitch that wastes the taxpayers’ money."

    Sources and References
    1 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, March 29, 2018
    2 Health Affairs 2016 35:5, 776-783
    3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, January 4, 2018
    4 Polity, January 25, 2008
    5 National Vaccine Information Center, October 16, 2017
    6 Locust Walk, March 2, 2017
    7 Biopharmadive, February 21, 2017
    8 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, September 17, 2018
    9 Pharmalot/STAT, March 3, 2016
    11 Regulatory Focus (RAPS), August 23, 2018
    12 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, August 15, 2018
    13 Congressional Research Service, March 16, 2018
    14 Business Insider, August 17, 2016
    15 Drug Watch, July 9, 2018
    16 Businesswire, June 13, 2018
    17 National Vaccine Information Center MedAlerts Home, July 14, 2018
    18 Immunol Res 2017; 65(1): 106-116. Published online 2016 Aug 9
    19 Drug Saf. 2017; 40(1): 81–90. Published online 2016 Sep 16
    20 Clin Pediatr 2018; 57(5): 603-606, September 4, 2017
    21 Am J Reprod Immunol 2013; 70: 309-316
    22 National Vaccine Information Center, July 14, 2018
    23 National Vaccine Information Center, June 27, 2006
    24 National Vaccine Information Center, August 14, 2007
    25 Scientific Reports, Volume 6, Article number: 31578 (2016)
    26 Fierce Pharma, October 21, 2016
    27 The Pharma Letter, February 13, 2018
    28 BMJ Open 2018;8:e019206
    29 Reuters, November 24, 2013
    30 The Japan Times, February 13, 2017
    31 The Epoch Times, January 27, 2017
    32 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD009069
    33 BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, Published Online First: 27 July 2018
    34 Cochrane, May 9, 2018
    35 Public Health Reports Vol 133, Issue 5, pp. 543 - 550
    36 ChangingTimes, October 12, 2017
    37 Fierce Pharma, May 8, 2018
    38 FiercePharma, June 19, 2018
    39 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 4, 2018
    40 Nature Biotechnology 2010; 28 (7): 671–678
    41 NIH Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), July 2014
    42 National Institutes of Health, “Developing a Self-Persuasion Intervention Promoting Adolescent HPV Vaccination”
    43 National Institutes of Health, “Mother-Daughter Joint Decision Making to Obtain the HPV Vaccine”
    44 National Institutes of Health, “Disparities in HPV Vaccine Completion: Identifying and Quantifying the Barriers”
    45 National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, “Project Information 5R01CA207401-02”
    46 National Institutes of Health, “A Comprehensive Pre-Natal Intervention to Increase Vaccine Coverage”
    47 Georgetown University, November 9, 2017
    48 The National Academies Press, “Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies”
    49 National Institutes of Health, “Methods for Safety Evaluation of Vaccination Schedules”
    50 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 2, 2018
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (24th September 2018), Houman (24th September 2018), Pam (30th September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  15. Link to Post #208
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    WHAT A RACKET!! And our lives and health and the lives and health of our children to pay!
    Drug Companies Pay FDA and NIH Pays Universities to Fast Track and Market Vaccines
    September 28, 2018

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=431390408

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    In 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) to accelerate FDA licensing approvals of new drugs and vaccines. More than half of the FDA’s budget is now funded by the pharmaceutical industry through PDUFA fees
    The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 allows companies developing treatment for neglected or rare pediatric diseases to pay the FDA for a priority review voucher (PRV) to fast-track approval of the drug or vaccine
    The PRV has proved to be a windfall for companies producing vaccines. A PRV typically secures fast-track approval in six rather than 10 months
    Under the law, drug companies developing treatments for neglected and rare pediatric diseases can sell their PRVs to other companies, including vaccine manufacturers, for millions of dollars to fast-track licensure of completely different, profitable drugs and vaccines, including the HPV vaccine
    The federal government helps the drug industry to market more vaccines. A grant to Emory University for $767,107 for fiscal year 2017 targets pregnant women and their children for vaccination using sophisticated sales and marketing techniques
    By The Vaccine Reaction Staff

    When it comes to cozy business relationships between government and industry, there is nothing like the lucrative one that Congress has encouraged federal health agencies to create with the drug and vaccine industry. One hand washes the other.

    Have you ever wondered how some new drugs and vaccines vault to the front of the line of the FDA's licensing process using fast-track approvals? One way is through a federal law, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act passed by Congress in 2007, which allows a company developing a treatment for a neglected or rare pediatric disease to pay the FDA for a priority review voucher (PRV).

    Although FDA approval is not guaranteed, most of the time a PRV secures fast-track approval in six rather than 10 months.1,2 According to the FDA, to earn a priority review designation, a pharmaceutical product must pose "significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of serious conditions when compared to standard applications."

    The company seeking approval must also provide "evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation."3 The PRV was created and included in the 2007 law to provide an incentive to companies developing nonprofitable drugs for rare pediatric diseases, but has proved to be a windfall for companies producing vaccines.

    Selling PRVs to Get Jump on Securing Market Share
    Under the law, drug companies developing treatments for neglected and rare pediatric diseases may sell the PRVs they have purchased from the FDA to other companies, including vaccine manufacturers, for millions of dollars to fast-track the licensure of completely different, profitable drugs and vaccines.

    When sold, the PRVs designed to help small companies fund their development of nonprofitable disease treatments can give extreme advantages to multinational corporations developing and selling other high-priced drugs and vaccines.

    "If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol-lowering drug could go on the market a year earlier,” said Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2008.

    Describing the 2007 law creating PRVs, Gates pointed out that, "This priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars."4 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the vaccine industry.5

    Early PRV approval from the FDA gives drug companies several months of additional sales because the first licensed drug or vaccine in a category to reach the market often becomes the front-runner, leaving competitors in the dust.

    For example, Regeneron and Sanofi bought a PRV in the hopes that its cholesterol drug Praluent would beat Amgen’s Repatha to market.6 Gilead paid $125 million for a PRV and AbbVie paid $350 million, in addition to the $2.7 million paid to the FDA for the shortened review.7

    As Gates pointed out, companies that purchase PRVs stand to make millions on pharmaceutical products that the FDA fast-tracks to market. PRVs, then, appear to be primarily making money for drug companies rather than truly helping patients suffering with rare and neglected diseases.

    Congress Gives Pharma Edge Over FDA Regulators
    The FDA is charged with the legal duty to regulate the food and pharmaceutical industries to ensure that prescription drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices and certain types of foods are safe, labeled properly and effective before being released for use by the public.8

    Reportedly, FDA officials objected to the priority review program, which was included in the 2007 law passed by Congress without soliciting input from FDA staff.9 According to an unnamed FDA source, “FDA does not get a true seat at the table” during the legislative process so “well-meaning academics, advocates and legislators ‘sold’ FDA to the highest bidder in setting up this program.”10

    Critics of the PRV program point out that it does not really encourage drug development for rare diseases. Since medical reviewers in FDA cannot be easily moved from one review division to another in order to handle PRVs, it creates added workload strain to an overtaxed regulatory agency that is understaffed.

    The program also makes it easier for pharmaceutical products, for which there are existing treatments, such as for diabetes or cholesterol, to move to the front of the approval line at the expense of other, more important ones for which there are no treatments.

    For example, Janssen used a PRV to accelerate the approval of Tremfya (guselkumab) to treat plaque psoriasis, a lucrative drug category competing with the best-selling psoriasis drug, Humira.11 Drug giants Gilead Sciences and Jazz Therapeutics have also bought PRVs.

    Prescription Drug User Fee Act Paves Way for PRVs
    Of course, not all of the accelerated FDA reviews that big drug companies are enjoying involve priority review vouchers created under the 2007 law. In 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) to accelerate FDA licensing approvals of new drugs and vaccines.12

    It was the first law to allow pharmaceutical companies to pay the FDA to let them bypass normal licensing procedures so they could fast-track new products to market. The act was reauthorized by Congress as PDUFA VI in the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017 (PL 115-52).13

    More than half of the FDA’s budget is now funded by the pharmaceutical industry through PDUFA fees.14 This raises serious questions about the integrity of the FDA licensing process when Congress has allowed drug companies to, in effect, bribe the FDA to lower licensing standards in order to grease the skids for certain drugs and vaccines to be fast-tracked to licensure.15

    Gardasil Vaccine’s Fast-Track Licensing Under PDUFA
    Recently, the FDA granted priority review to Merck’s new Supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for Gardasil 9 vaccine under PDUFA.

    In a June 13, 2018, press release, Merck stated that the FDA has set a PDUFA, or target action, date of October 6, 2018, for a decision about whether Merck will be granted “an expanded age indication for Gardasil 9 for use in women and men ages 27 to 45 to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by the nine human papillomavirus (HPV) types covered by the vaccine.”16 Dr. Alain Luxembourg, a Merck official, said:

    “Women and men ages 27 to 45 continue to be at risk for acquiring HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer and certain other HPV-related cancers and diseases. We look forward to working with the FDA on the review of this application for GARDASIL 9, which, if approved, would enable more people to have access to the vaccine.”

    Serious reactions to Gardasil (and Cervarix, another HPV vaccine), including autoimmunity, brain dysfunction and infertility, have been reported in the U.S. and countries around the world and are documented in the medical literature.17,18,19,20,21

    As of July 2018, there have been more than 57,000 HPV vaccine adverse events reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since 2006, including more than 15,000 emergency room visits, 5,600 hospitalizations and 358 deaths.

    Reported reactions include syncope (sudden loss of consciousness), Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), seizures, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, thyroid disorders, deep vein thrombosis and blood clots, pancreatitis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), disabling fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory loss and speech problems.22

    In June 2006, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) publicly criticized the FDA for fast-tracking Gardasil to licensure before it had been fully evaluated for serious side effects and recommended for all 11- to 12-year-old girls by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).23,24

    Merck’s prelicensure clinical trials used an aluminum-containing “placebo,” even though aluminum is an ingredient in Gardasil and can cause inflammation and nerve cell death.25 The next year, Congress passed the PRV legislation reinforcing and expanding the fast-track licensing process.

    Expanding Gardasil’s Market With Taxpayer Money
    Merck is now the sole source manufacturer of HPV vaccine in the U.S.,26 although the well-known reactivity of HPV vaccine, together with its questionable effectiveness, has resulted in low vaccine uptake because of a reluctance by parents to give the vaccine to their children.27,28

    There have been Gardasil vaccine injury lawsuits in Japan and France.29,30 In 2016, judges in India’s Supreme Court demanded answers after children died during a trial of Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines.31

    In July 2018, the British Medical Journal published an indictment of a May 2018 Cochrane Collaboration clinical trial review of HPV vaccines that came to the conclusion that HPV vaccines “do not increase the risk of serious adverse events, miscarriage or pregnancy termination.”32

    A trio of well-credentialed epidemiologists wrote the BMJ critique, detailing how the Cochrane group in charge of the review cherry picked 26 randomized clinical trials — all funded by vaccine manufacturers — to include in the review.33

    Charging that the Cochrane review could not be considered “trusted evidence” because it was influenced by reporting bias and biased trial designs, they pointed out that Cochrane used the biased review to publicly pronounce that HPV vaccine “causes no serious side effects,” even though the published review incompletely assessed serious and systemic HPV vaccine adverse events and failed to assess vaccine-related safety signals.34

    The muddy record of HPV vaccine safety and parental resistance is clear and federal health officials are planning to use taxpayer money to launch a stepped-up nationwide HPV vaccine promotion campaign in the U.S.35 At the same time, Merck is still determined to get its money's worth by selling Gardasil in other countries, like Australia and China.36,37

    The recent request to FDA to fast-track an expanded use license for Gardasil is not Merck's first attempt to enlarge the patient pool and market for its lucrative HPV vaccine. After a priority review in 2008, the FDA rejected the company’s application for Gardasil approval in females aged 27 to 45 years. But Merck is nothing if not persistent.38

    A dose of Gardasil costs between $168 and $205 in the U.S.39 Like many drugs that enrich the drug industry due to high prices, much of Gardasil's development was funded by the U.S. government and taxpayers, and the vaccine continues to receive taxpayer funding.40,41

    In 2013, the NIH gave half a million dollars to the University of Texas SW Medical Center Dallas to try to "identify an optimal and feasible self-persuasion intervention strategy to promote adolescent HPV vaccination in safety-net clinics" also known as “sell more vaccines.”42 Nor was that the only marketing grant.

    The University of Texas El Paso received $422,716 from the NIH to do similar free marketing and "pilot test a future intervention to promote adoption of the HPV vaccine in the Latino community" while "considering cultural factors."43

    In fiscal years 2013/2014, Yale University received $390,389 from the NIH to "identify and describe barriers to HPV vaccination completion among lower income racial and ethnic minorities" and "generate ideas for future interventions that will be culturally relevant and have the greatest potential for impact."44

    In 2017 and 2018, NIH (National Cancer Institute) awarded Vanderbilt University Medical Center $1,173,628 to fund a study project entitled “Increasing HPV Vaccine Uptake in Community-Based Pediatric Practices” for the purpose of identifying “the optimal approach to implementing an evidence-based intervention for the uptake and completion of HPV vaccine among adolescents receiving care in the community, guided by implementation science theory."

    In plain language, it means that the NIH grant is being given to a Vanderbilt researcher to develop strategies to sell more Gardasil vaccine. The problem, according to the grant is, "despite clear and indisputable value in cancer prevention, uptake and completion of the HPV vaccine series has lagged far behind the goal of 80 percent."45

    NIH Grants to Universities to Create Ways to Sell More Vaccines
    The federal government helping the drug industry to market more vaccines is not limited to Gardasil and HPV vaccines. Another grant, this one to Emory University for $767,107 for fiscal year 2017, targets pregnant women and their children for vaccination using sophisticated sales and marketing techniques.

    The Emory grant reads, "Overall, the proportion of children not receiving all recommended vaccines or whose parents are consistently limiting visit-level vaccine administration is increasing ... Additionally, despite evidence showing the effect of vaccinating pregnant women in reducing disease among infants too young to be fully vaccinated, maternal immunization rates remain low."46

    Grantees at Emory will explore how to sell more vaccines by using "vaccine champions, expanded reminder-recall systems," "standardized talking points" and "interactive tablet computer (iPad) education application for pregnant women to view while waiting for care."

    Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are being addressed with a five-year NIH grant for $1.7 million to Georgetown University researchers working with researchers from University of Georgia, Pennsylvania State and Emory University “to identify areas of the country where vaccine refusal is on the rise.”

    A Georgetown University press release announcing the NIH grant in November 2017 stated, “With anti-vaccine activists growing in number and influence in recent years, public health professionals have become increasingly interested in identifying where and why people refuse vaccines and how this behavior drives the spread of vaccine-preventable disease.”47

    Although the CDC tracks rates of vaccine refusal at the state level, the grant will be used to utilize datasets that can track vaccine refusal at the ZIP code level.

    Georgetown’s lead researcher on the grant commented, “While there is previous work on what motivates individuals to engage in vaccine hesitancy, we don’t know much about the populations that tend to have higher rates of this behavior. But public health policy is made at the population level. And our work will help us understand how to design and target effective population-level policies.”

    NIH Grant to Study Safety of Childhood Vaccine Schedule
    Finally, at least one NIH grant suggests that the federal agency is going to take a look at vaccine safety knowledge gaps associated with the childhood vaccine schedule, which vaccine safety advocates have spoken about for years.

    Those big gaps in vaccine safety research were highlighted by the Institute of Medicine in a 2013 report, “Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence and Future Studies.”48

    Acknowledging that “a few of the existing studies show that there are cases in which the risk of adverse events depends on the vaccine schedule used,” NIH has awarded a grant of $392,999 to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. to evaluate the safety of the federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule and alternative schedules.

    Researchers will evaluate "the timing of individual vaccines; the timing between doses of the same vaccine; the interaction effect between vaccines and concurrent health conditions or pharmaceutical medications; the interaction effects of different vaccines given on the same day; the ordering of different vaccines; and the effect of cumulative summary metrics such as the total number of vaccines or the total amount of some vaccine ingredient."49

    The NIH-funded project will also cover "study designs for the comparative evaluation of the CDC recommended schedule, popular alternative schedules and completely unvaccinated children. Methods will be developed for both adverse events with an early onset, which are the easiest to study, and for adverse events with a late onset, including serious chronic conditions."

    So, while giving the green light to speedy vaccine approvals and aggressively marketing vaccines that yield big profits for drug companies, public health officials know there are outstanding questions about just how safe government recommended vaccines really are for infants and children being required by law to use them.

    It will be interesting to see if the design of the NIH-funded study designed and conducted by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc., a corporate partner with CDC,50 will truly qualify as good science the public can trust, or if it will turn out to be just another transparent sales pitch that wastes the taxpayers’ money."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Pam (30th September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  17. Link to Post #209
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Can Immune Dysregulation Cause Neurodevelopmental Disorders?
    By the Children’s Health Defense Team
    SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...tal-disorders/

    "A common criticism of the Western medical model is that it tends to look at body systems in isolation from one another. Here and there, however, scientific disciplines arise that explicitly acknowledge interactions across systems. Neuroimmunology is one such field, having established that the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system engage in bidirectional communication and that proper brain function depends on a well-regulated immune system.

    As neuroimmunologists have come to accept that “components of the immune system play previously unrecognized roles in the nervous system,” the field has contributed substantially to the understanding of neurodevelopmental disorders and particularly autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Neuroimmunology’s insights about ASD have been sorely needed because, on the surface, autism remains a subjectively defined “mental health” diagnosis (at least according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), characterized by “dysfunction in social behavior and language, abnormal response to sensory input, and…repetitive behavior and cognitive disabilities.” As autism research has grown in sophistication—increasingly highlighting ASD’s underlying biological basis—it has become apparent that immune dysregulation is just as much of a hallmark of autism as brain inflammation is. What is more, the wrong kind of immune influences during pivotal stages of early brain development can have profound effects on both neural and immune function later in life.

    ASD and other neurodevelopmental disorders perfectly illustrate the situation of immune-inflammatory mechanisms gone awry.
    Skewed immune response
    Under ordinary circumstances, the immune system mobilizes inflammatory molecules in response to infection or tissue damage; once the job is done, the inflammatory response subsides. However, a delicate balance exists between the appropriate activation needed for “beneficial immune maintenance” and the “deleterious over-activation of immune cells” that can lead to systemic dysfunction. ASD and other neurodevelopmental disorders perfectly illustrate the situation of immune-inflammatory mechanisms gone awry.

    A 2015 review outlined this “pro-inflammatory skew” in ASD, noting that autism is characterized, in part, by “hyperexcitable” and “exaggerated” responses from T cells—the all-important immune cells that attack foreign substances, augment the action of antibody-producing B cells and produce molecular messengers called cytokines. Autism researchers have noted the complex roles played by cytokines in neurodevelopment and have repeatedly observed elevated levels of some cytokines in individuals with ASD—including interleukin-4 (IL-4), interleukin-6 (IL-6), some types of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and others. Elevated IL-4 in neonates has been associated with increased odds of severe ASD later in childhood. These “excessive and skewed cytokine responses” typify the ASD immune profile to such an extent that researchers have proposed using cytokine evaluation as a biological marker for ASD. According to the authors of the 2015 review, skewed immune-inflammatory mechanisms are not just associated with ASD but likely play a fundamental role in autism causation.

    “the immune system has a critical role in brain development and associated behavioral outcomes for the life of the individual”
    Immune Dysregulation Mechanisms and Influences
    Blood Brain Barrier. How do immunological challenges contribute to ASD? One hypothesis is that immune dysregulation compromises the integrity of the blood-brain barrier and thereby triggers a chain of neuroinflammatory events. With a permeable and “permissive” blood-brain barrier, pro-inflammatory cytokines are free to pass through and can continue perpetuating a systemic inflammatory response.

    Studies of vaccines have illustrated how this process may play out. Chinese researchers who explored the relationship between hepatitis B vaccination and neurobehavioral impairments in neonatal mice found that vaccination induced neuroinflammation through the action of the cytokine IL-4. In combination, the components of the vaccine (including both the hepatitis B antigen and an aluminum adjuvant) dramatically increased levels of IL-4 in the brain through penetration across the “immature” blood-brain barrier, both in the immediate aftermath of vaccination and over the longer term. The researchers explained that the neonatal overexposure to IL-4 triggered by the vaccine increased the blood-brain barrier’s permeability, allowing IL-4 to continue “infiltrating into the brain in the later life of mice.” Vaccine researchers have acknowledged that although vaccination is intended to “educate” the immune system, each new vaccine to which individuals are exposed “will potentially alter the dynamics of their immune system”—with sometimes “detrimental” effects.

    Gut Microbiota. Another increasingly studied topic is the influence of the gut microbiota on the immune and nervous systems “and vice versa”—and the recognition that a healthy gut plays a critical role in proper immune system and neural development. When circumstances prompt abnormal development of the gut microbiota, it “can contribute to diseases of the gut as well as the CNS”—including not only ASD but conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mood disorders, multiple sclerosis and even obesity. In a vicious cycle, imbalances in gut microbes “alter the whole-body and brain distributions of neurotoxins produced by [gastrointestinal] tract bacteria,” and the subsequent immune response increases systemic levels of inflammatory cytokines, once again significantly affecting the integrity of the blood-brain barrier.

    Maternal Immune Activation. As written about previously by Children’s Health Defense, the concept of maternal immune activation has allowed researchers to zero in on the vital relationship between the immune system of a mother-to-be and fetal neurodevelopment. In combination with factors such as genetic susceptibility, maternal stress and exposure to “additional aversive postnatal events,” maternal immune challenges (and the resulting alterations in inflammatory cytokines) have been shown to be capable of affecting fetal brain development and increasing the risk of ASD, schizophrenia and other neurodevelopmental disorders. In a study of over 1.2 million pregnancies, Finnish researchers showed that elevated maternal levels of C-reaction protein (CRP)—a biomarker of “low-grade inflammation”—were related to “a significant increase in risk of childhood autism in offspring.” Calling attention to the importance of respecting the “exquisitely sensitive” developing brain, one group of researchers has emphasized that “the immune system has a critical role in brain development and associated behavioral outcomes for the life of the individual” [emphasis added].

    Why the immune system matters
    Researchers have pointed out that the interrelationship of an infant’s immune system with natural infections, microbiome development and environmental influences has been evolving “over millions of years”—and vaccination represents a very recent intervention in this evolutionary “maturation process.” What this observation suggests is that the utmost caution is warranted when attempting to jumpstart the fine-tuned immune system through vaccination.

    Not everyone is accustomed to viewing neurodevelopmental disorders as conditions involving immune dysfunction, but adopting a neuroimmune-informed perspective is not just an abstract intellectual exercise. Understanding the immune system’s prominent role in the development of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism—and acknowledging that vaccination represents a powerful immune system intervention—will make it far more possible to develop effective strategies for diagnosis, therapeutic intervention and, above all, prevention."

    Help CHD build awareness of the epidemic of chronic diseases now plaguing over half of our nation’s children. We are planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of all children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to the success of CHD’s mission. Please visit our crowdfunding page.
    Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/about-us/sign-up/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Houman (29th September 2018), Pam (30th September 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  19. Link to Post #210
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Horrors of Vaccination Exposed
    Petition to the POTUS to Abolish Compulsory Vaccination in the Army and Navy
    by Charles M. Higgins
    https://vactruth.com/download/vaccination_exposed.pdf
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    RunningDeer (1st October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  21. Link to Post #211
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,593
    Thanks
    30,518
    Thanked 138,483 times in 21,502 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Horrors of Vaccination Exposed
    Petition to the POTUS to Abolish Compulsory Vaccination in the Army and Navy
    by Charles M. Higgins
    https://vactruth.com/download/vaccination_exposed.pdf
    Dang - we've been fighting this vaccination war for a long time. That book was written in 1919, and published in 1920, almost a century ago.

    The following two pages show the conclusions of this book. These words could have been written yesterday.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 1st October 2018 at 22:45.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    East Sun (3rd October 2018), Houman (3rd October 2018), onawah (2nd October 2018), RunningDeer (1st October 2018), Tintin (18th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  23. Link to Post #212
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Leading Institution for Science-Based Health Advice Implodes After Industry Bias Is Revealed
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=435479033
    10/3/18
    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    Cochrane publishes hundreds of scientific reviews each year, looking at what works and what doesn’t. For example, it has repeatedly found that flu vaccinations are ineffective
    A May 2018 Cochrane review looked at 26 studies, concluding HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and women and that the risk of side effects is comparable to other control vaccines
    In July 2018, Cochrane researchers Peter Gøtzsche, Lars Jørgensen and Tom Jefferson published a scathing critique of the HPV review, pointing out methodological flaws and conflicts of interest
    According to Gøtzsche and his coauthors, the HPV vaccine review was influenced by reporting bias and biased trial designs, and failed to meet Cochrane standards
    In September, the Cochrane governing board expelled Gøtzsche from the board. Four other board members resigned in protest
    By Dr. Mercola

    I've written many articles highlighting the bias created by funding and the dangers of basing health decisions on industry-funded science. Independent, unbiased research is absolutely crucial for getting to the truth; without it science becomes little more than an extension of marketing, and hence useless.

    So, what's happening at Cochrane right now is nothing short of tragic.1,2,3 Cochrane (an international network of scientists that promotes evidence-based medicine), formerly known as the Cochrane Collaboration, has been the gold standard for independent scientific meta-reviews, and the organization's reputation has managed to stay remarkably unblemished — until now.

    Cochrane Implodes Amid Accusations of Bias
    Cochrane publishes hundreds of scientific reviews each year, looking at what works and what doesn't. For example, Cochrane has repeatedly found that flu vaccinations are ineffective and have no appreciable effect on hospitalizations and mortality.4,5,6,7,8

    Considering the flimsy evidence underpinning recommendations for the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, it was therefore surprising when Cochrane published such a strongly favorable review of the vaccine.

    The review,9 published May 9, 2018, looked at 26 studies, concluding "There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and women who are vaccinated between 15 and 26 years of age," and that "The risk of serious adverse events is similar in HPV and control vaccines."

    Two months later, Peter Gøtzsche along with Cochrane-affiliated researchers Lars Jørgensen and Tom Jefferson, published a scathing critique of the HPV review in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine,10 pointing out methodological flaws and conflicts of interest.

    Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher and outspoken critic of the drug industry (as his book, "Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare,"11 suggests) helped found the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

    According to Gøtzsche and his coauthors, the HPV vaccine review "missed nearly half of the eligible trials," and "was influenced by reporting bias and biased trial designs." Overall, the review failed to meet Cochrane standards, Gøtzsche says.

    Favorable Cochrane HPV Vaccine Review Is Riddled With Problems
    Importantly, all 26 trials included in the HPV vaccine review used active comparators, meaning aluminum-containing vaccines, which can significantly skew results by hiding adverse effects. Making matters worse, the reviewers incorrectly described these active comparators as "placebos."

    Results may also have been skewed by the exclusion of women who had a history of immunological or nervous system disorders. "These exclusion criteria lowered the external validity of the trials and suggest that the vaccine manufacturers were worried about harms caused by the adjuvants," Gøtzsche and his team writes.

    According to Gøtzsche, the review also "incompletely assessed serious and systemic adverse events" and ignored "HPV vaccine-related safety signals." These are exactly the kinds of tactics I discussed in "Questionable Tactics Used in Vaccine 'Safety' Testing." See: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...y-testing.aspx

    Gøtzsche also notes the HPV vaccine reviewers incorrectly concluded the impact of industry funding on the included studies was insignificant. In reality, all 26 studies were funded by industry, and therefore assessment of funding impact could not even be done in a meaningful way. What's more, the reviewers brought their own conflicts of interest to the table.

    "The Cochrane Collaboration aims to be free from conflicts of interest related to the manufacturers of the reviewed products … The Cochrane review only has four authors; three of whom had such conflicts of interest a decade ago.

    The review's first author currently leads EMA's 'post-marketing surveillance of HPV vaccination effects in non-Nordic member states of the European Union,' which is funded by Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD that was the co-manufacturer of Gardasil," Gøtzsche and his teammates state.

    Ousted Board Member Warns Cochrane Has Strayed From Its Mission
    To Gøtzsche's and many others' surprise, the Cochrane governing board decided to simply expel Gøtzsche from the board. Four other board members (Gerald Gartlehner, David Hammerstein Mintz, Joerg Meerpohl and Nancy Santesso) immediately resigned in protest,12 leaving just eight of the 13-member board. In a joint statement, Gartlehner, Hammerstein Mintz, Meerpohl and Santesso said:13

    "We believe that the expulsion of inconvenient members from the Collaboration goes against Cochrane ethos and neither reflects its founding spirit nor promotes the Collaboration's best interests."

    In a three-page letter14 to the Nordic Cochrane Centre — which is well worth reading in its entirety — Gøtzsche not only addresses his expulsion but also questions the path Cochrane's leadership has chosen in more recent years. Given its revelatory nature, I've included this longer-than-normal quote:

    "No clear reasoned justification has been given for my expulsion aside from accusing me of causing 'disrepute' for the organization. This is the first time in 25 years that a member has been excluded from membership of Cochrane …

    [T]he Cochrane Collaboration has entered an unchartered territory of crisis and lack of strategic direction … Recently the central executive team of Cochrane has failed to activate adequate safeguards … to assure sufficient policies in the fields of epistemology, ethics and morality.

    Transparency, open debate, criticism and expanded participation are tools that guarantee the reduction of uncertainty of reviews and improve the public perception of the democratic scientific process.

    These are conditions and tools that cannot be eliminated, as has happened recently, without placing into serious doubt the rigorous scientific undertaking of Cochrane and eroding public confidence in Cochrane's work. My expulsion should be seen in this context.

    There has also been a serious democratic deficit. The role of the Governing Board has been radically diminished under the intense guidance of the current central executive team and the Board has increasingly become a testimonial body that rubber-stamps highly finalized proposals with practically no ongoing input and exchange of views to formulate new policies …

    This growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model that have been manifested within the Cochrane leadership over the past few years threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization …

    There has also been criticism in Cochrane concerning the overpromotion of favorable reviews and conflicts of interest and the biased nature of some scientific expert commentary … There is stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests. The excuse of lack of time and staff (around 50) is not credible.

    There has also been great resistance and stalling on the part of the central executive team to improving Cochrane's conflict of interest policy. A year ago, I proposed that there should be no authors of Cochrane reviews to have financial conflicts of interests with companies related to the products considered in the reviews. This proposal was supported by other members of the Board, but the proposal has not progressed at all."

    Clear Conflicts of Interest
    Cochrane announced it was launching an investigation into the HPV vaccine review August 9.15 September 3, Cochrane's editor-in-chief issued a rebuttal16 to Gøtzsche's critique, saying the organization stands by the findings of the review. Considering the clear conflicts of interest, this seems rather ill advised.

    One of the authors of the HPV vaccine review protocol17 — meaning the individuals who designed and determined the scope of the review — was Dr. Lauri Markowitz, who just so happens to be the HPV team lead for the division of viral diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).18,19

    Markowitz was also part of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' (ACIP) HPV working group in 2006, and is the designated correspondent on ACIP's HPV vaccination recommendation issued in March 2007.20

    This is about as clear a conflict of interest as you can get — especially when you consider the U.S. government has a financial interest in the sale of HPV vaccine.

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) receives royalties from the sale of this vaccine. Remarkably, NIH royalties from vaccines are protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),21 so there's no telling just how much it stands to gain. The fact that these royalties are kept secret may be telling in and of itself, however. But there's more.

    Merck, which manufactures and distributes the HPV vaccine Gardasil, has worked with a global health group called PATH22 to get the vaccine approved for use across the world. PATH, in turn, has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — $84.3 million in 2005 alone, for the expansion of low-cost tools that promote newborn health,23 and $10 million in 2013 to reduce cervical cancer deaths caused by HPV.24

    Aside from that, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been an ardent supporter and promoter of HPV vaccination25 — and donated $1.15 million to Cochrane in September 2016.26,27

    In a June 5, 2018, article,28 the World Mercury Project, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., analyzed the financial ties between Cochrane, Gates and other vested players, noting that with Cochrane's HPV review, it appears several of them are "getting plenty of bang for their charitable buck."

    It's worth noting that while Markowitz is not listed as an author of the final report,29 she is still listed in the acknowledgements section as having provided "invaluable advice and contributions by reviewing the results and discussion sections."

    Ghosts in the Machine
    The failure to disclose conflicts of interest has become so incredibly widespread, it seems more the norm than the exception these days. As just one among countless examples, last year I wrote about how STAT News, an otherwise reputable science and health news source, published an op-ed piece praising the benefits of pharma sales reps.

    The article, "How Pharma Sales Reps Help Me Be a More Up-to-Date Doctor," was written by Dr. Robert Yapundich, an experienced neurologist. The problem? Yapundich has received more than $300,000 from drug companies in recent years, and this fact was not disclosed anywhere, either by Yapundich himself or the editor.

    Astute sleuths then pointed out other discrepancies, such as the fact that while Yapundich claimed he'd not heard of the drug Nuplazid until he had lunch with a drug rep, he'd actually been a paid consultant for that very drug. STAT News eventually retracted the article after multiple complaints.

    The problem goes deeper than medical professionals and academics repaying the hand that feeds them with positive press, however. Sometimes, op-ed pieces such as these are actually written by the drug company itself, while it's being passed off as expert opinion. This practice is known as ghostwriting, and is one of the most insidious and deceptive tactics around.

    The Industry's War on Science
    While the drug industry is quick to claim that anyone questioning its integrity is part of a "war against science," the evidence of malfeasance is simply too great and too disturbing to ignore. From my perspective, the industry itself is to blame for the public's dwindling confidence in scientific findings.

    Loss of confidence is a natural result when lie after lie is unearthed, and there's been no shortage of scientific scandals to shake public confidence in recent years.

    Still, the industry just keeps plugging away using the same propaganda tactics perfected by the tobacco industry, a key strategy of which is simply to keep uncertainty alive. Sometimes this may require the manufacture of biased research, but oftentimes it's as easy as repeating a lie enough times that it starts to sound like an established fact.

    In a recent New York Times op-ed,32 health and science journalist Melinda Wenner Moyer33 blames those who question vaccine safety for stifling vaccine research.

    Whether intentional or not, she follows a well-worn industry talking point groove, dishing out such classic statements as: "The goal is to protect the public — to ensure that more people embrace vaccines …" "The internet has made it easy for anti-vaccine activists to mislead," and "[C]oncerns over what these groups might do are starting to take precedence over scientific progress." What she — like everyone else before her — fails to address is the motive.

    The vaccine industry has a significant vested interest in producing favorable results in their research. Ditto for the drug industry and chemical industry and most other industries that fund, conduct and publish their own research. When they publish flawed studies, they have a strong motive for doing so, which is why the public needs to be aware that the bias is real.

    However, when independent researchers, journalists or indeed regular laypeople point out those flaws and refuse to buy the industry's nonsensical conclusions, what is the motive behind the rejection? According to industry, the motive is a "war on science." Basically, we all hate science, we cannot tolerate progress and want to go back to the Dark Ages of bloodletting and humours.

    A more pathetic and unconvincing motive simply cannot be manufactured. It's so illogical it can be ignored without comment or defense. If there's a war on science, it's fought by industry, because they're the ones benefiting.

    In closing, I would direct you to read through Dr. Marcia Angell's article "Transparency Hasn't Stopped Drug Companies From Corrupting Medical Research."34
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/o...sure-bias.html
    A former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for over 20 years, she has profound insight into these issues and has written extensively about how industry funding affects and distorts scientific research."
    Sources and References
    1 Children’s Health Defense September 18, 2018
    2 Science Magazine September 16, 2018
    3 STAT News September 16, 2018
    4 Cochrane.org
    5 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269
    6 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD004879
    7 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012; Issue 8
    8 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2010 Feb 17;(2):CD004876
    9, 29 Cochrane May 9, 2018
    10 BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine July 27, 2018; 11102
    11 Richard Smith Non-Medical Blogs
    12 Cochrane.org September 15, 2018
    13 Statement by Gartlehner, David Hammerstein Mintz, Joerg Meerpohl and Nancy Santesso, September 15, 2018
    14 Nordic Cochrane Center September 14, 2018
    15 BMJ 2018;362:k3472
    16 Cochrane.org September 3, 2018
    17 Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(4)
    18 CDC.gov You Are the Key To HPV Cancer Prevention
    19 Jameslyonsweiler.com May 18, 2018
    20 CDC.gov, HPV Recommendations of the ACIP
    21 National Archives and Records Administration, November 24, 2010
    22 Path.org
    23 Path.org December 1, 2005
    24 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation PATH Grant November 2013
    25 Summary of Gates Foundation-Supported HPV Vaccine Partner Activities
    26 Cochrane.org September 22, 2016, Support of New Donor
    27 AHRP May 10, 2018
    28 Children’s Health Defense June 5, 2018
    30, 31 Arstechnica.com September 20, 2018
    32 New York Times August 4, 2018
    33 Melinda Wenner Moyer
    34 New York Times September 14, 2018
    Last edited by onawah; 3rd October 2018 at 16:28.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (3rd October 2018), Flash (3rd October 2018), Houman (4th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  25. Link to Post #213
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
    A universal flu vaccine: the mad science solution
    by Jon Rappoport
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...ence-solution/
    October 15, 2018

    "The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has launched efforts to create a vaccine that would protect people from most flu strains, all at once, with a single shot.

    Over the years, I’ve written many articles refuting claims that vaccines are safe and effective, but we’ll put all that aside for the moment and follow the bouncing ball.

    Massachusetts Senator and big spender, Ed Markey, has introduced a bill that would shovel no less than a billion dollars toward the universal flu-vaccine project. You like something, it sounds good, you know nothing about the details, throw money at it.

    Here is a paragraph from an NIAID press release that mentions one of several research approaches:

    “NIAID Vaccine Research Center scientists have initiated Phase 1/2 studies of a universal flu vaccine strategy that includes an investigational DNA-based vaccine (called a DNA ‘prime’)…”

    This is quite troubling, if you know what the phrase “DNA vaccine” means. It refers to what the experts are touting as the next generation of immunizations.

    Instead of injecting a piece of a virus into a person, in order to stimulate the immune system, synthesized genes would be shot into the body. This isn’t traditional vaccination anymore. It’s “protective gene therapy”.

    In any such method, where genes are edited, deleted, added, no matter what the pros say, there are always “unintended consequences,” to use their polite phrase. The ripple effects scramble the genetic structure in numerous unknown ways.

    Here is the inconvenient truth about DNA vaccines—

    They will permanently alter your DNA

    The reference is the New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research—the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

    “By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

    “’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

    “The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was three years ago.]

    “I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

    Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

    Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

    Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

    Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, he will live with that change—and all the ripple effects in his genetic makeup—for the rest of his life.

    The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

    “Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

    Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

    This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun. Anyone and everyone on Earth injected with a DNA vaccine will undergo permanent and unknown genetic changes…

    And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans in far-reaching ways.

    If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.

    The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.

    The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.

    It means the right to preserve your inherent DNA."
    Last edited by onawah; 16th October 2018 at 01:57.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (16th October 2018), JRS (16th October 2018), Tintin (18th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  27. Link to Post #214
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    OCTOBER 16, 2018
    The Non-Polio Illness That “Looks Just Like Polio”
    (In other words, the polio vaccine is giving children polio, and the "experts" are calling it something else as they dare not utter the "p" word. )

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...urce=mailchimp

    "Over the past five years, a rare and serious “polio-like” illness—called acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) or acute flaccid paralysis (AFP)—has been cropping up in “unusual” clusters around the U.S., mostly in children. AFM/AFP cases have also been reported in Europe, India and other countries. AFM targets one area of the spinal cord (the gray matter) and can cause permanent disability and sometimes death.

    A Stanford neurologist admits that acute flaccid paralysis looks just like polio, but that term really freaks out the public-health people.
    Public health experts view acute flaccid paralysis as “the most common clinical manifestation of paralytic poliomyelitis”—and when laboratory analysis points to poliovirus as the cause of those symptoms, that person is diagnosed with “polio.” However, when there is no confirmed poliovirus involvement, health providers instead diagnose the condition as “AFM” or “AFP,” even though the clinical picture is identical to polio. A Stanford neurologist admits that AFM “looks just like polio, but that term really freaks out the public-health people.”

    The current uptick in AFM cases in the U.S. seems to have begun around August 2014, with 362 cases confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) since that time. Sixteen states have reported dozens of cases in 2018 in infants and children, including Pennsylvania (3 cases), Minnesota and Washington (6 cases each), Illinois (9 cases) and Colorado (14 cases). Epidemiologists believe that the number of identified cases likely underestimates the number of actual cases. In 2014, a speaker asked several hundred pediatric neurologists attending a conference how many had seen a recent case of AFM: “About one-third raised their hands [and] dozens kept their hands up when asked if they had seen two, three, five or more [cases].” Given that the chances of AFM are ordinarily pegged to be “about one in a million,” a CDC neuroepidemiologist pronounced this show of hands “remarkable”—but what is “remarkable” is that public health officials are studiously ignoring possible environmental triggers that include vaccination.

    In a study describing a 1958 polio outbreak in Michigan published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the authors reported that in a large number of paralytic as well as nonparalytic patients poliovirus was not the cause.
    The checkered history of “polio”
    Poliovirus is an enterovirus—a virus that inhabits the gastrointestinal tract but is capable of traveling to the nervous system. From the CDC’s blinkered perspective, only poliovirus is capable of causing the paralytic condition labeled “polio.” However, early polio researchers (publishing not long after the introduction of the first polio vaccine) painted a different picture. In a study describing a 1958 polio outbreak in Michigan (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association or JAMA), the authors reported that “in a large number of paralytic as well as nonparalytic patients poliovirus was not the cause” [emphasis added]. The JAMA researchers also noted that their laboratory analyses had not only identified two different “immunological types of the poliovirus” but also other types of enteroviruses and “there were no obvious clinical differences” among them [emphasis added].

    Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who cites the JAMA study, has observed that poliovirus existed as a “common” and “trivial” bowel inhabitant for millennia—not causing paralysis until the 20th century. Humphries suggests that dietary and environmental factors (including exposure to toxins such as arsenic, lead and DDT) as well as the advent of “invasive medical procedures” (such as “intramuscular injections of many types, including…vaccines”) weakened 20th-century individuals’ innate immunity and were capable of fostering the paralysis “uniformly attributed to poliovirus infections.”

    Preferential focus on viral explanations
    Unlike the one-cause-one-outcome view of paralytic polio, the CDC and other contemporary researchers agree that AFP has a “broad array of potential etiologies.” Some news reports have touched on the likely role of environmental toxins, but virtually all of the published research on AFM has stayed away from that possibility. Instead, researchers have been busy making the case that two non-polio enteroviruses—enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) and enterovirus A71 (EV-A71)—are primarily to blame, even though neither one has shown itself to be a consistent pathogen. Studies out of Colorado published in Lancet Infectious Diseases (2018) and the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2016) not only posit a link between the two enteroviruses and AFM but also describe other mysterious neurologic outcomes “of unknown etiology” that have appeared of late in Colorado children.

    A perplexing aspect of EV-D68 (an enterovirus first identified in the 1960s) is that, like the millennia-old poliovirus, the genetically older strains of EV-D68 “had never been known to cause paralysis” before 2014, being primarily associated in otherwise healthy individuals with mild cold-like symptoms. Post-2014, researchers who isolated never-previously-encountered strains of EV-D68 from pediatric AFM cases speculated that “recent genetic virus evolution” might be responsible for EV-D68’s sudden “neurovirulence.”

    Studies in countries such as Ghana and China have identified vaccine-derived poliovirus in children with paralysis in regions with high live oral poliovirus coverage—while labeling the children’s illness AFP rather than polio.
    The case of the oral polio vaccine
    “Neurovirulence” is a term very familiar to those who have studied the occurrence of vaccine-associated poliomyelitis in countries that use the live oral poliovirus (OPV) vaccine. The OPV vaccine is acknowledged to be “genetically unstable” and capable of evolving “in the human intestine to regain the neurovirulence and replication characteristics of its parental wild-type strains.” Studies in countries such as Ghana and China have identified vaccine-derived poliovirus in children with paralysis in regions with high OPV coverage—while labeling the children’s illness AFP rather than polio.

    Indian researchers recently described the relationship between rates of “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” (NPAFP) and the country’s practice of “pulse polio immunisation” (periodic OPV vaccination of all children under age five). The number of polio rounds “had a high correlation with the NPAFP rate,” and the mortality rate in NPAFP patients was “twice the mortality rate for wild polio.” When the researchers calculated “the number of paralyzed children each year which exceeded the expected numbers” for the period from 2000–2017, they found that there were “an additional 491,000 paralyzed children” above the expected number of 149,000. Given the strong association of non-polio paralysis “with the number of OPV doses delivered,” the researchers intriguingly speculated that:

    “…repeated doses of the live vaccine virus delivered to the intestine may colonize the gut and alter the viral microbiome of the intestine, and this can result in strain shifts of enteropathogens. It is possible that new neurotropic [i.e., preferentially attacking the nervous system] enteroviruses colonizing the gut may induce paralysis.”

    Avoiding the “P” word and the “V” word
    The United States uses the inactivated poliovirus (IPV) vaccine, which does not colonize in the gut. IPV, therefore, cannot cause viral strains to shift in the manner hypothesized by the Indian researchers in connection with the OPV vaccine. However, there are many other reasons to suspect vaccine-related mechanisms of causation for AFM in the U.S., a primary one being that the scientific literature has documented paralysis as an adverse reaction to vaccination for decades! A 1950 report in The Lancet describing a poliomyelitis outbreak in Australia observed a relationship between paralytic polio and prior pertussis vaccination, and a “considerable increase in the severity of the paralysis in the last inoculated limbs of those children under three who received an injection…within thirty-five days of the onset of poliomyelitis.” A survivor of the outbreak who learned of the Lancet paper discovered that the report had been buried due to “fears of a backlash against immunisation.”

    In a recent eNewsletter, retired family physician Dr. Gary Kohls painstakingly outlines studies describing post-vaccination paralysis, several published quite recently (1998, 2003, 2013, 2014, 2016). He also quotes retired pediatrician Allan Cunningham, who discussed the well-known phenomenon of paralytic polio following intramuscular vaccination in a letter to The BMJ in 2015—and, apropos of AFM, stated, “If a polio-like virus is circulating in the U.S., the possibility of its provocation by one or more vaccines has to be considered.” Cunningham explained: “It is taboo to suggest a role for vaccines, but some old-timers remember ‘provocation poliomyelitis’ [PP] or ‘provocation paralysis’…following intramuscular injections, typically with vaccines. PP was most convincingly documented…during the 1949 British polio epidemic when the risk of paralytic polio was increased 20-fold among children who had received the DPT injection…. Similar observations were made…in New York City; their literature review cited suspected cases as far back as 1921.”

    A 2018 case report of a five-year-old AFP patient in Taiwan noted that the child “experienced sudden onset of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) involving left arm after fever and respiratory symptoms for 3 days” [emphasis added]. However, the case report—and the many news stories about AFM—have all omitted any mention of the sick and deceased children’s recent vaccinations.

    A decade ago, Chinese virologists described the brain stem as a major target of infection with EV71 (one of the two enteroviruses suspected of causing polio-like paralysis), but they noted that prior research had not defined the enterovirus’s “neurotransmission route.” In their research with mice, these investigators found that intramuscular injection of EV71 “resulted in brain infection, flaccid paralysis, pulmonary dysfunction, and death of 7-day-old mice.” The study, which compared intramuscular injection to oral administration of EV71, also observed that the mice were “remarkably more susceptible” to intramuscular versus oral inoculation. Building support for a “retrograde axonal transport theory,” the researchers hypothesized that EV71 spreads “from muscle to [central nervous system] through neuronal pathways as well as the bloodstream at certain times during infection.” Retrograde axonal transport could also explain how injections given at the time of an infection can create an opportunity for bacteria or viruses to enter into the brain.

    Most IPV vaccines in the U.S. are aluminum-containing combination vaccines. French researchers have shown that aluminum particles in vaccines play a key role in another mysterious on-the-rise condition called macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF). The MMF researchers have stated that when “poorly biodegradable aluminum-coated particles [are] injected into muscle,” they can subsequently “disseminate…throughout the body and slowly accumulate in [the] brain.” Studies in animals have shown that aluminum-containing vaccines contribute to “a neurodegenerative process…of the gray matter of the spinal cord” and to “hindlimb paralysis” and other neuropathological changes.

    …instead of asking hard questions about post-vaccination paralysis, the pharmaceutical industry is developing more vaccines.
    Disturbingly, AFM seems to display a unique pattern of weakness and a stubborn lack of response to standard treatments as compared with more “traditional” forms of spinal cord inflammation. In a 12-country study by European researchers of 29 cases of AFM, two of the 29 patients died and full recovery was “rare” in those who survived. Yet instead of asking hard questions about post-vaccination paralysis, the pharmaceutical industry is developing more vaccines. Buttressed by a rushed consensus that EV-D68 and EV-A71 are the dangerous viruses du jour and “the principal causes of AFP,” the industry has already developed an “effective” EV-A71 vaccine, while “an EV-D68 vaccine could be on the horizon.” If the vaccines that children are already receiving are found to be playing a causal role in helping these enteroviruses to get into the brain or causing paralysis via other mechanisms, the pharmaceutical industry and public health officials might find themselves in a public relations quandary. Instead, therefore, we get linguistic games that go so far as to describe AFM as “polio-like” but dare not utter the word “polio” or “vaccine.”

    Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.https://childrenshealthdefense.org/about-us/sign-up/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    ThePythonicCow (16th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  29. Link to Post #215
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    The HPV Vaccine on Trial: Seeking Justice for a Generation Betrayed
    by Mary Holland, Kim Mack Rosenberg and Eileen Iorio
    Published October 18, 2018
    https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/...tion-betrayed/

    "Following is an excerpt from a well referenced book on HPV vaccine reprinted in TVR with the permission of the book’s co-authors. Learn more about this recently published book here and here.

    Cancer strikes fear in people around the globe. So a vaccine to prevent cancer – as the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is touted to do – seemed like a game-changer. Since 2006 when the US approved the first HPV vaccine, over 125 countries have introduced it to prevent cervical and other HPV-related cancers. The three HPV vaccines bring in over $2.5 billion in annual sales for Merck (Gardasil, Gardasil 9) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix). They have been a pharmaceutical juggernaut, yet scandal has followed worldwide. The HPV vaccine is on trial – literally and figuratively – around the world in courts of law and public opinion.

    No one disputes that cancer is a ravaging disease that leads to death, if uncontrolled. But the fact that cancer is a grave disease does not necessarily mean that a vaccine purporting to prevent it is safe and effective for everyone. The US Food and Drug Administration, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the European Medicines Agency, the World Health Organization, and many other public health agencies have embraced the HPV vaccine as a safe and effective way to prevent HPV-related cancers. Here are a few representative statements:

    FDA: Based on the review of available information by FDA and CDC, Gardasil continues to be safe and effective, and its benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

    CDC: The HPV vaccine is very safe, and it is effective at preventing HPV. Vaccines, like any medicine, can have side effects. Many people who get the HPV vaccine have no side effects at all. Some people report having very mild side effects, like a sore arm from the shot. The most common side effects are usually mild.

    WHO: The WHO’s Vaccine Safety Committee considers HPV vaccines to be extremely safe.

    EMA: The benefits of HPV vaccines continue to outweigh the known side effects.

    These official statements contrast starkly with the reports of devastating injuries and death that we recount in this book. You’ll get to know these and other children and young adults.

    Christina Tarsell, 21 years old.
    Chris was an undergrad at Bard College, New York. A talented athlete, artist, and honor student, she received three Gardasil doses when she was twenty-one. Shortly after the third dose, she died in her sleep. After eight years of hard-fought litigation in the only judicial forum available, Chris’s mom “won” – the Court of Federal Claims finally acknowledged that Gardasil more likely than not caused the heart attack that led to Chris’s untimely death. You can see Chris, and a memorial to her, in the photo insert.

    Alexis Wolf, 13 years old.
    In 2007, when Alexis was in 7th grade, she began the Gardasil series. After the second dose, her health deteriorated. After the third, she could no longer focus, sleep, eat, or behave normally. She started to have many seizures every day. She was put in psychiatric hospitals. A year and a half after her symptoms began, Alexis tested at a 4th grade level. Today, at 25, Alexis still suffers from severe neurological injury, including daily seizures. You can see pictures of Alexis both before and after receiving the vaccine in the photo insert.

    Joel Gomez, 14 years old.

    Joel was an athletic, healthy teenager when he got two Gardasil doses in 2013. Without warning, Joel died in his sleep after the second dose. Joel’s family sued for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims. The family’s expert witness, Dr. Sin Hang Lee, testified that Gardasil likely caused his heart attack. The Department of Justice settled the case, awarding the family almost the full statutory death benefit.

    Abbey Colohan, 12 years old.
    In a small town in western Ireland, Abbey received the first dose of Gardasil at school. Abbey fainted immediately and then had seizures for more than an hour. Two days later, she passed out again. Abbey started to have chronic pain, fatigue, and frequent fainting spells. Abbey’s teen years have been consumed with illness and hardship. Ireland’s health service denies that Abbey had an adverse vaccine reaction at school.

    Colton Berrett, 13 years old.
    Colton was an athletic, kind, helpful teenage boy. He loved all outdoor sports. Colton started the three-dose Gardasil series when he was thirteen. Shortly after the third dose, he became paralyzed from the neck down and had to use a ventilator. Through intensive physical therapy, Colton eventually recovered some mobility but remained on a round-the-clock ventilator. He committed suicide two months before his eighteenth birthday. In the photo insert you can see pictures of Colton that convey far more than words ever can.

    Lucy Hinks, 13 years old.
    Lucy was a healthy English teenager when she began the Cervarix series in her school. Shortly after the third shot, Lucy’s health plummeted. She could barely walk, slept 23 hours a day, and could not think straight. She could not attend school and had to be spoon-fed. Her parents described her as being in a “walking coma.” Through many therapies and treatments, Lucy has substantially recovered but still suffers from chronic fatigue.

    Maddie Moorman, 15 years old.
    Maddie began the Gardasil series at the gynecologist’s recommendation. After the second shot, Maddie became bedridden and ill. She had debilitating headaches every day and could no longer remember things. Her mom declined the third shot for her. Through conventional and holistic treatment, Maddie’s health began to recover slowly, and she was able to complete high school and go to college. But some of Maddie’s symptoms never abated, including a constant buzzing in her head and the inability to think the way she could before. She took her own life at twenty-one.

    We show that the HPV vaccine clinical trials paved the way for such tragic results. Here are some of the little-known facts we’ll explore:

    HPV vaccines have never been proven to prevent cervical or any other cancer. Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturers, did not have to prove that the vaccines prevent cancer. They were allowed to use precancerous lesions as “surrogate endpoints” in the clinical trials. Scientists do not know if the decline in cases of precancerous lesions will translate into fewer cases of cervical cancer in 20-30 years.

    Even if they were 100% effective, which they are not, HPV vaccines do not prevent all cases of cervical cancer. The vaccines do not prevent infections from all HPV types associated with cancer, and not all cervical cancer is associated with HPV. HPV vaccines are not a replacement for cervical screening, yet evidence strongly suggests that young women are skipping screening in the mistaken belief that they no longer need it. HPV vaccine marketing hype appears to have contributed to a sharp drop off in cervical screening among young women.

    None of the participants in the clinical trials received a true saline placebo. None of the clinical trials included a straightforward comparison of the effects of the vaccine against a true control. We use the term “fauxcebo” to describe the aluminum-containing adjuvants, other vaccines, and chemical mixtures that control subjects received instead of true saline placebos. These fauxcebos masked the adverse effects of the vaccines, making them appear safer than they would have if compared to true placebos.

    Merck told young female clinical trial subjects that the vaccine had already been proven safe and that the placebo was saline. Both claims were false. A key purpose of the clinical trials was to establish safety, and the placebo was not saline. Clinical trial subjects suffered because of these lies.

    The manufacturers never tested HPV vaccines on human fertility. Although this vaccine is given to adolescents throughout the world, the manufacturers acknowledge in their package inserts that they never tested the vaccine for fertility effects in humans – only rats. We look at the substantial evidence of severe adverse effects on fertility, including miscarriage and premature ovarian failure in girls and young women.

    Evidence shows that certain ingredients in HPV vaccines, including sodium borate (also known as borax, a cleaning agent), may have negative effects on fertility. The European Chemicals Agency requires sodium borate to carry the following warning: “DANGER! May damage fertility or the unborn child.” In the US, borax is banned in food but allowed in vaccines.

    The manufacturers never tested HPV vaccines to discover if they might cause cancer. The package inserts acknowledge that the vaccines have never been tested for “carcinogenicity.” But clinical trial data suggest that if women have HPV infections when they get the vaccines (and prescreening is not recommended), then they may be at higher risk for precancerous cervical lesions or worse. Some clinical trial participants later developed cancer, including cervical cancer.

    The Gardasil clinical trials used a new metric, “New Medical Conditions,” as a way to claim that serious health problems after vaccination were unrelated to the vaccine or aluminum-containing fauxcebo. More than 50% of all clinical trial participants reported “new medical conditions,” including infections, reproductive disorders, neurological syndromes, and autoimmune conditions. The FDA did not question this novel metric or whether the vaccine itself might be contributing to these conditions.

    Although 11-12 year olds are the target population for this vaccine (and it is approved for children as young as 9), the vast majority of clinical trial subjects were considerably older. Only a small percentage of participants were twelve or younger, and their age cohort lacked a true saline control placebo, as did the older age groups. Preteens, on the cusp of puberty, have significant biological differences from young adults, the primary age group in the clinical trials. Thus the target population was insufficiently studied before the vaccine received approval.

    Doctors and scientists have published peer-reviewed articles on the adverse effects that many young women reported after HPV vaccination. Here is a non-exhaustive list:

    Headache
    Orthostatic intolerance
    Syncope
    POTS
    Fatigue
    Cognitive dysfunction
    Disordered sleep
    Visual symptoms
    Blurring of vision
    Gastrointestinal symptoms
    Neuropathic pain
    Motor symptoms
    Skin disorders
    Voiding dysfunction
    Limb weakness
    Vascular abnormalities
    Irregular period

    Despite US government assertions that the vaccine is safe, the federal compensation program for vaccine injury has paid out millions of dollars in damages for HPV vaccine injuries. Families have received compensation for death, brain injury, multiple sclerosis, complex regional pain syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, ulcerative colitis, and other severe, debilitating conditions. We delve into reported HPV vaccine injuries and the pursuit of justice.

    All participants in the Gardasil clinical trials who received a “placebo” rather than the vaccine were encouraged to receive HPV vaccines at the end of the clinical trial period. By doing this, Merck destroyed any opportunity for large-scale, long-term safety and efficacy studies of vaccinated versus the original control subjects.

    Lawsuits have been filed against Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and government health agencies around world, including in the US, India, Colombia, Japan, Spain, and France. Families want treatment for their injured children and young adults. They also want to hold the manufacturers accountable and to prevent future injuries to other children.

    National and international health agencies are working hand-in-glove with the HPV vaccine manufacturers to promote, advertise, finance, recommend, and even compel children to get HPV vaccines. We have included examples of CDC and UK National Health Service ads for HPV vaccines in the photo insert.

    The US government earns royalties from Merck and GSK for licensing HPV vaccine technology. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health, with others, participated in the invention of HPV vaccines. While receiving millions of dollars in annual royalty income from these corporations, the US government ostensibly holds the upper hand in regulating them. The conflict of interest is obvious.

    The HPV vaccine saga began just as Merck was trying to turn the page on its criminal conduct with Vioxx, its failed painkiller drug. Just as Vioxx was raking in $2.5 billion in annual revenue — almost the same amount Gardasil and Gardasil 9 are now bringing in — Merck withdrew it from the market because it was causing heart attacks, strokes, and death. Merck had not disclosed known heart attack risk in its clinical trial data. In 2005, Merck paid multi-million dollar civil and criminal penalties and entered into a $4.85 billion settlement with injured plaintiffs. Congress, the Department of Justice, and the media investigated Merck for falsifying data, making false statements to regulators, making false marketing claims, failing to disclose material information to consumers, and more. In 2006, the FDA approved Gardasil, leading some to dub the HPV vaccine “Help Pay for Vioxx.” History repeats itself in the Merck Vioxx and Gardasil sagas.

    In researching and writing this book, we spoke with more than a hundred people who shared with us their time, expertise, and deeply personal stories. We also spoke with many injured young people and their parents, as well as with parents whose children died. We are humbled that they trusted us with their stories and have done our best to give them voice.

    We also reached out to doctors, scientists, and medical researchers. We met with advocates fighting for those who have been injured. We met personally with women who were subjects in the clinical trials and spoke with doctors who were principal trial investigators. We also contacted HPV vaccine proponents, including the FDA, and are grateful for their assistance. We reached out to Merck with a long list of questions on two occasions but received no replies.

    We bring legal and financial backgrounds to this task. While we are not doctors or scientists, we believe that our perspective is critical to this debate. For too long, those with real and potential conflicts of interest in industry and government have dominated public discourse about vaccine safety.

    Part I examines the clinical trials and the race to develop the vaccine. It analyzes surprising data that have received little attention to date. We also provide a primer on cervical cancer to explain its real risk factors. While we focus on the Gardasil clinical trials, we also look at Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline’s version, and at Gardasil 9, the only currently available HPV vaccine in the US. (GSK took Cervarix off the US market, likely because of low sales. Merck replaced Gardasil with Gardasil 9, the new HPV vaccine against a broader range of HPV viruses.) We use official documents and the accounts of two young women injured in the clinical trials to examine their many flaws. We close Part I with a look at India, where clinical trials led to national outrage and a legal battle against the pharmaceutical industry and its partners.

    Part II covers what happened after the vaccines hit the market. How do you sell a vaccine for an infection that clears almost all the time? We look at the marketing magic and “disease branding” that created a market out of thin air. We also share heartbreaking stories of injury and death. We follow several families’ fights for justice. We look closely at the US and Australia, powerhouses in HPV vaccine development, whose governments are leading the charge towards universal HPV vaccine uptake.

    Part III is a deeper dive into the latest research on aluminum-containing adjuvants and other ingredients of concern, including DNA fragments. We discuss HPV transmission, the potential threat of “type replacement,” cervical screening in both high and low resource countries, and more. If you don’t need the deep science dive, skip ahead.

    Finally, Part IV takes readers around the world to Japan, Denmark, Ireland, the UK, and Colombia. Each of these countries is a unique case study regarding the HPV vaccine, and the role that governments, media, and the law play. You’ll get a close look at the latest developments in each country yet also see the global threads in common.

    We strongly advocate for informed consent and hope that this book will help people to make truly informed decisions about this vaccine. Only you can be the ultimate judge for yourself or your loved one."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (18th October 2018), ThePythonicCow (18th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  31. Link to Post #216
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Vaccine Obstruction Case Forwarded To DOJ
    https://vaxxter.com/robert-f-kennedy...TRhFdbdMy7kO2c

    "Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a key advocate in the fight for vaccine safety, has been delivered a substantial victory by Deputy Inspector General, William Blier.

    The IG has sent Kennedy’s allegations of Fraud & Obstruction of Justice by Department of Health and Human Services attorneys to the Department of Justices Office of Professional Responsibility.

    Here’s an excerpt from the letter which was made public earlier today by childrenshealthdefense.org:
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/c...esponsibility/
    “Based on our review, we have determined that your letter contains allegations of misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys in the course of their representing the Department of Health and Human Services in connection with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Accordingly, we are required by law to refer your allegations to the OPR. We have provided your letter and accompanying materials to OPR for action it determines to be appropriate.'

    While this language may seem like a formality, it moves Kennedy’s case into a higher department in the DOJ’s chain. This means further exposure and deeper scrutiny."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (25th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  33. Link to Post #217
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Roundup for Breakfast, Part 2: In New Tests, Weed Killer Found in All Kids’ Cereals Sampled
    https://www.ewg.org/release/roundup-...m_medium=email
    "Findings Released as Major Scientific Study Shows Eating Organic Lowers Cancer Risk
    Contact:
    Alex Formuzis
    (202) 667-6982
    alex@ewg.org
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2018

    "WASHINGTON – A second round of tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group found the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer in every sample of popular oat-based cereal and other oat-based food marketed to children. These test results fly in the face of claims by two companies, Quaker and General Mills, which have said there is no reason for concern. This is because, they say, their products meet the legal standards.

    Yet almost all of the samples tested by EWG had residues of glyphosate at levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety. The EWG findings of a chemical identified as probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization come on the heels of a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that found a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who ate a lot of organic food.



    The tests detected glyphosate in all 28 samples of products made with conventionally grown oats. All but two of the 28 samples had levels of glyphosate above EWG’s health benchmark of 160 parts per billion, or ppb.

    Products tested by Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco included 10 samples of different types of General Mills’ Cheerios and 18 samples of different Quaker brand products from PepsiCo, including instant oatmeal, breakfast cereal and snack bars. The highest level of glyphosate found by the lab was 2,837 ppb in Quaker Oatmeal Squares breakfast cereal, nearly 18 times higher than EWG’s children’s health benchmark.

    New EWG Tests Find Glyphosate in All Cheerios and Quaker Oats Cereals Sampled
    Test information: EWG scientists purchased products in grocery stores in the San Francisco Bay area and Washington, DC, area. Either one or two different samples were purchased for testing, depending on the type of product. Approximately 300 grams of each product were packaged and shipped to Anresco Laboratories, in San Francisco. Glyphosate levels were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method, with the limit of quantification of 10 ppb. Testing methodology is described here. A PDF of the testing results is available here:
    https://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/f...206.1485979205

    Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic” to people. The IARC has steadfastly defended that decision despite ongoing attacks by Monsanto.

    In 2017, glyphosate was also listed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer.

    “How many bowls of cereal and oatmeal have American kids eaten that came with a dose of weed killer? That’s a question only General Mills, PepsiCo and other food companies can answer,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “But if those companies would just switch to oats that aren’t sprayed with glyphosate, parents wouldn’t have to wonder if their kids’ breakfasts contained a chemical linked to cancer. Glyphosate and other cancer-causing chemicals simply don’t belong in children’s food, period.”

    Results of the new tests come two months after EWG’s first series of tests found glyphosate in all but two of 45 samples of foods made with conventionally grown oats, and in about one-third of the 16 products made with organic oats. About two-thirds of the samples of conventional foods had levels of glyphosate above EWG’s health benchmark.

    Following release of the first batch of tests, General Mills and the Quaker Oats Company went on the defensive, noting that glyphosate levels found were within regulatory limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Test information: EWG scientists purchased products in grocery stores in the San Francisco Bay area and Washington, DC, area. Either one or two different samples were purchased for testing, depending on the type of product. Approximately 300 grams of each product were packaged and shipped to Anresco Laboratories, in San Francisco. Glyphosate levels were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method, with the limit of quantification of 10 ppb. Testing methodology is described here. A PDF of the testing results is available here.

    Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic” to people. The IARC has steadfastly defended that decision despite ongoing attacks by Monsanto.

    In 2017, glyphosate was also listed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer.

    “How many bowls of cereal and oatmeal have American kids eaten that came with a dose of weed killer? That’s a question only General Mills, PepsiCo and other food companies can answer,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “But if those companies would just switch to oats that aren’t sprayed with glyphosate, parents wouldn’t have to wonder if their kids’ breakfasts contained a chemical linked to cancer. Glyphosate and other cancer-causing chemicals simply don’t belong in children’s food, period.”

    Results of the new tests come two months after EWG’s first series of tests found glyphosate in all but two of 45 samples of foods made with conventionally grown oats, and in about one-third of the 16 products made with organic oats. About two-thirds of the samples of conventional foods had levels of glyphosate above EWG’s health benchmark.

    Following release of the first batch of tests, General Mills and the Quaker Oats Company went on the defensive, noting that glyphosate levels found were within regulatory limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency.



    But just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s safe. Federal government standards for pesticides in food are often outdated, not based on the best and most current science. The EPA’s standards for pesticides and other chemicals are also heavily influenced by lobbying from industry.

    Studies regularly find that the legal limits on contaminants in food, air, drinking water and consumer products fall short of fully protecting public health, particularly for children and other people more sensitive to the effects of toxic chemicals. The EPA’s legal limit for glyphosate on oats, 30 parts per million, was set in 2008, well before the cancer findings of the IARC and California state scientists.

    EWG does not believe chemicals linked to cancer belong in children’s food. Our recommended maximum daily intake of glyphosate in food is 0.01 milligrams. For a 60-gram portion of food, this daily intake limit translates to a safety standard of 160 ppb of glyphosate. This health benchmark is based on the risks of lifetime exposure, because small, repeated exposures can add up if someone eats food containing glyphosate every day.

    After sitting on data from its own glyphosate tests for more than a year, the Food and Drug Administration finally made the results public last month. The FDA found glyphosate on about two-thirds of corn and soybean samples. But it did not test any oats or wheat, the two main crops on which glyphosate is used as a pre-harvest drying agent.

    More than 156,000 people have signed a petition from EWG and Just Label It calling on General Mills, Quaker and Kellogg’s to get glyphosate out of their products. Last month EWG – joined by companies including MegaFood, Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farm, MOM’s Organic Market, Nature’s Path, One Degree Organic Foods, Happy Family Organics, Patagonia, PCC Community Markets and Amy’s Kitchen – petitioned the EPA to sharply limit glyphosate residues allowed on oats and prohibit its use as a pre-harvest drying agent.

    GET GLYPHOSATE OUT OF OUR FOOD!
    Stand with EWG and tell food companies like General Mills, Quaker and Kellogg’s to get glyphosate out of our food!
    Take action here:https://www.ewg.org/release/roundup-...m_medium=email

    “Once again, our message to General Mills, Quaker and other food companies is that you can take the simple step of telling your oat farmers to stop using glyphosate,” said Cook. “You can hide behind an outdated federal standard, or you can listen to your customers and take responsibility for cleaning up your supply chain. It’s your choice.”

    EWG sent letters today to General Mills and PepsiCo asking each company if it had conducted similar analyses for the presence of glyphosate. And, if any tests have been done, we asked if the companies to inform the public when the testing began and what they found.

    KEY ISSUES:

    TOXICS

    FARMING

    FOOD

    CHEMICALS IN FOOD "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (26th October 2018), Flash (26th October 2018), pueblo (27th October 2018), william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  35. Link to Post #218
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Vaccine Lie, Smoking Gun!
    NOVEMBER 1, 2018
    by RALPH FUCETOLA
    http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vax-lie-smoking-gun/

    Informed Consent Action Network v.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services (1:18-cv-03215)



    Sometimes you win by voluntarily dismissing your case. That’s what happened a few weeks ago when the Informed Consent Action Network voluntarily dismissed its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Earlier this year the Network sought copies of the Reports that the infamous 1986 Vaccine (sic) Safety Law required the Secretary to provide to Congress every two years.

    Let’s remember where that all started. In 1976 we had the First Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine. Over 400 people died from the vaccine and the drug companies had to withdraw the vaccine, subsequently, there was no flu pandemic. The lawsuits started. Then the companies told Congress they would withdraw from the vaccine business unless Congress “protected” them. It did. The 1986 law, which unconstitutionally took away from us our First Amendment Right to Redress of Grievances regarding vaccine injuries, also commanded the Secretary to make sure vaccines got safer, and to report to Congress about that every other year.

    As we’ve known for some time, that never happened. Vaccines got much, much more dangerous — “unavoidable unsafe” as our Courts have said, and the Secretary never told anything to Congress.

    We now know the truth, as a result of the FOIA suit. Below is a copy of excerpts from the stipulated Order regarding the FOIA action. It sets out the wording of the law requiring the Secretary to tell Congress, and all Americans, the truth about vaccine safety. The final paragraph is what the Secretary told the Court: the Reports required by the Law were never made!



    The smoking gun of vaccine lies! What can you do about the Secretary’s failure to obey the Law and make sure vaccines are safer? What can you do to protect yourself and your family? You must assert your right of Informed Consent. You can, and must, refuse all vaccines!

    Natural Solutions Foundation helps you do just that. With the Advance Vaccine Directive card you can assert your Informed Consent right with clear legal intent. The law is clear: if you do not assert the right, it can be “deemed waived.” Get it here: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard



    Vax Lie Smoking Gun!
    NOVEMBER 1, 2018RALPH FUCETOLA 0
    0
    Informed Consent Action Network v.
    United States Department of Health and Human Services (1:18-cv-03215)https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

    Sometimes you win by voluntarily dismissing your case. That’s what happened a few weeks ago when the Informed Consent Action Network voluntarily dismissed its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Earlier this year the Network sought copies of the Reports that the infamous 1986 Vaccine (sic) Safety Law required the Secretary to provide to Congress every two years.

    Let’s remember where that all started. In 1976 we had the First Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine. Over 400 people died from the vaccine and the drug companies had to withdraw the vaccine, subsequently, there was no flu pandemic. The lawsuits started. Then the companies told Congress they would withdraw from the vaccine business unless Congress “protected” them. It did. The 1986 law, which unconstitutionally took away from us our First Amendment Right to Redress of Grievances regarding vaccine injuries, also commanded the Secretary to make sure vaccines got safer, and to report to Congress about that every other year.

    As we’ve known for some time, that never happened. Vaccines got much, much more dangerous — “unavoidable unsafe” as our Courts have said, and the Secretary never told anything to Congress.

    We now know the truth, as a result of the FOIA suit. Below is a copy of excerpts from the stipulated Order regarding the FOIA action. It sets out the wording of the law requiring the Secretary to tell Congress, and all Americans, the truth about vaccine safety. The final paragraph is what the Secretary told the Court: the Reports required by the Law were never made!



    The smoking gun of vaccine lies! What can you do about the Secretary’s failure to obey the Law and make sure vaccines are safer? What can you do to protect yourself and your family? You must assert your right of Informed Consent. You can, and must, refuse all vaccines!

    Natural Solutions Foundation helps you do just that. With the Advance Vaccine Directive card you can assert your Informed Consent right with clear legal intent. The law is clear: if you do not assert the right, it can be “deemed waived.” Get it here: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard
    And don’t forget what other Natural Solutions Dr. Rima Recommends™:
    http://www.nsfmarketplace.com/mainstore/

    Share this message with all your circles of influence:
    http://www.opensourcetruth.com/vax-lie-smoking-gun/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  37. Link to Post #219
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Don’t Fall for the CDC’s Outlandish Lies About Thimerosal
    NOVEMBER 01, 2018
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...ut-thimerosal/
    "By the Children’s Health Defense Team
    Propaganda experts have long admitted that the “big lie” is an important tool for molding public opinion. A psychological profile of Hitler carried out by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services noted that one of the German leader’s “primary rules” was that “people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one” and “if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

    [The CDC’s] Immunization Safety Office posted a fact sheet that once again insists that “thimerosal in vaccines is not harmful to children,” despite ample evidence to the contrary.
    CDC FACT SHEET— “The evidence is clear: thimerosal is not a toxin…”
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appears to agree that a big and oft-repeated lie is a powerful public relations tool, because in August, its Immunization Safety Office posted a fact sheet that once again insists that “thimerosal in vaccines is not harmful to children,” despite ample evidence to the contrary. The fact sheet trots out the same handful of thimerosal-related studies (“conducted by CDC or with CDC’s involvement”) that it has used for years to silence thimerosal critics. Fortunately, multiple resource pages on the Children’s Health Defense website make it easy to rebut the CDC’s regurgitated falsehoods. Our website provides a thimerosal FAQ, information dispelling myths about thimerosal’s use in vaccines and countering false vaccine safety claims (including claims about thimerosal), analysis of the flawed studies that the CDC relies on to exonerate thimerosal from any role in the childhood epidemics of neurodevelopmental disorders—and more. Below, we summarize three of the most obvious reasons to ignore the CDC’s latest attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.

    The handful of CDC-funded or CDC-approved studies listed in the thimerosal fact sheet stand in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful…
    Still dangerous and neurotoxic
    The CDC says “the evidence is clear” that thimerosal is “merely a preservative” and not a neurotoxin. However, no one who actually takes the time to examine the scientific literature can rationally conclude that mercury in any form—including the mercury in thimerosal—is safe for humans. The handful of CDC-funded or CDC-approved studies listed in the thimerosal fact sheet stand “in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful”; this independent research has linked thimerosal to “neurodevelopmental disorders, …tics, …speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, describes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications and the “broad consensus among research scientists that Thimerosal is a dangerous neurotoxin.”

    The CDC falsely claims that “thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001.” However, 25 micrograms of thimerosal remain in many of the influenza vaccines administered in the U.S., including to pregnant women and infants. In fact, “thimerosal wasn’t so much removed as it was moved around.”

    All eight studies included in the CDC fact sheet involve lead or co-authors accused of fraud or known to have been involved in behind-closed-doors data manipulation or weighed down by serious conflicts of interest.
    Fraudulent authors
    All eight studies included in the CDC fact sheet involve lead or co-authors accused of fraud or known to have been involved in behind-closed-doors data manipulation or weighed down by serious conflicts of interest. Dr. William Thompson, who authored three of the studies in his former capacity as a senior CDC vaccine safety scientist, made a whistleblower deposition to Congressman William Posey and issued statements through his personal attorney about fraud and destruction of data at the CDC. In one of his most egregious examples, Thompson reported that his bosses, including Branch Chief Frank DeStefano (an author on three of the studies included in the fact sheet), ordered Thompson and other CDC scientists to get rid of data demonstrating vaccine-induced autism. As described previously by Children’s Health Defense:

    “DeStefano called his four co-authors into a room and ordered them to dump the damning datasets into a giant garbage can. The published study omitted those datasets.”

    The bulk of Thompson’s whistleblowing revelations occurred in 40-plus phone conversations and over 10,000 pages of documents shared with Dr. Brian Hooker. In those conversations, Thompson also stated that CDC officials “worked hard” to “dilute Dr. Thompson’s strong and statistically significant finding…that thimerosal exposure via infant vaccines causes tics in boys.” In fact, Thompson asked Hooker to “start a campaign to publicize the fact that multiple CDC-sanctioned publications show that thimerosal causes tics.”

    In addition to the studies authored by Thompson and DeStefano, two of the papers held out by the CDC as definitive proof of thimerosal’s innocence are 2003 studies authored by Thomas Verstraeten and Paul Stehr-Green—two participants at the infamous secret meeting held in Simpsonwood in 2000 to discuss the relationship between exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurological damage in children. Both Verstraeten and Stehr-Green were heavily involved in trying to make a clear association between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental effects seem unimportant. Although the Verstraeten study nonetheless went on to report “statistically significant associations between thimerosal and language delays and tics,” the CDC fact sheet dismisses the associations as “weak” and “not consistent.”

    Massaged data
    As outlined previously by Children’s Health Defense and others, and as indicated in the preceding sections, there are a variety of reasons not to trust the results of the eight studies included in the CDC fact sheet—including CDC funding and other conflicts of interest as well as erroneous and fraudulent reporting of data. The table below summarizes the studies’ major problems.



    1. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926486
    2. The CDC fact sheet includes the Stehr-Green study twice, formatting the study slightly differently in each of the two rows; although the duplication is immediately apparent to the attentive reader, a casual reader might conclude that the CDC had nine rather than eight studies at its disposal.

    Lacking credibility
    At this juncture, with over 80 studies
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/t...ildren/autism/
    connecting the dots between thimerosal and autism alone, and new studies appearing every day that link other vaccine ingredients such as aluminum to the chronic illness epidemics beleaguering today’s children, the CDC has lost all credibility when it makes poorly substantiated claims about thimerosal or vaccine safety. An agency that buys and sells well over $4 billion of vaccines annually clearly has a vested interest in tamping down any discussion of vaccine risks. Fortunately, the public increasingly recognizes that the CDC’s “fact sheets” lies must be read with a large grain of salt.
    Sign up: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/about-us/sign-up/ for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

  39. Link to Post #220
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,217
    Thanks
    47,691
    Thanked 116,162 times in 20,648 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Dr. Paul Offit’s Promo for ‘BAD ADVICE’ Falls Flat
    OCTOBER 30, 2018
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...ce-falls-flat/
    "By the Children’s Health Defense Team

    Dr. Paul Offit was at the National Press Club in Washington, DC last night peddling his new book, “BAD ADVICE: Or Why Celebrities, Politicians and Activists Aren’t Your Best Source of Health Information.” It is clear that Dr. Offit desperately wants to be the authority on vaccines. He already is the industry shill, but is he the authority? The opinion of the crowd in attendance at the event was a resounding NO.

    Children’s Health Defense advocates, parents of vaccine-injured children, and scientists came from all over the United States to ask Dr. Offit questions. They pointed out in their respectful, thoughtful questions that they do their own research. Although Offit declined to take questions directly from the audience, it was a good day for parents everywhere to see Dr. Offit forced to have a moderator filter the written questions he did address down to the very basics so he could answer with one of his canned responses. And the harder questions from the group were never presented to him. Attendees also distributed the list of questions to those present at the event. Perhaps the media will use them to create their own list of probing questions to ask Dr. Offit?

    [Parents] know that they don’t need self-proclaimed and industry-funded vaccine ‘authorities’ like Dr. Offit or other doctors who only listen to industry.
    Offit’s rhetoric sounded old and tired. He implied that parents should only listen to his vaccine science from his sources, but educated parents know that there are other more enlightened doctors to talk to and listen to. They know that they don’t need self-proclaimed and industry-funded vaccine “authorities” like Dr. Offit or other doctors who only listen to industry. Doctors used to rely solely on drug reps who peddled their own studies to bolster sales of their drugs. Perhaps some doctors, who are witnessing the string of ill-fated pharma horror stories and lies—about Vioxx, the opioid crisis and the like—or who are seeing vaccine-injured children day after day, have begun forming their own opinions and reading science that has them questioning the industry mantra and blanket statements that all vaccines are safe all the time for all children.

    Such opinions that differ from Dr. Offit’s are not from fringe doctors peddling treatments for autism as he implied last night. In fact, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of NEJM wrote in 2009 that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.”

    The trusted physician and authoritative guidelines that Offit promotes were previously the only resource parents had to make health decisions. According to Wired Magazine, an unforeseen outcome of making Medline – an online government database of 11 million biomedical abstracts – free was that it was discovered by the public. This discovery has leveled the playing field in that the traditional mantle of physician authority has been shaken and for Dr. Offit, that is problematic.

    Now parents have access to hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that contradict Offit’s infamous claims…
    Once, parents could only turn to flawed papers published by government agencies or to other pharma-supported sources exhibiting blatant conflicts of interest. Now, however, there are many high-quality independent studies that display scientific integrity, use rigorous methods and present the research in ways that the public can understand. Now parents have access to hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that contradict Offit’s infamous claim that babies can safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once. The bottom line is that today’s intelligent parents don’t need a pharmaceutical tycoon physician from Philadelphia with a “gift of gab” telling them what the industry wants them to hear.

    Offit Wins the Lottery
    Offit is an industry insider who has made millions from a patent for a rotavirus vaccine that is now recommended for every child in the U.S. To hear him tell it, the poor doctor was working away in a lab for the good of humanity, but in actuality, his years of vaccine work (supported by Merck) enabled him to win the lottery, as he told Newsweek when he sold his rotavirus vaccine patent.

    Offit may be the mainstream bought-and-paid-for media darling, but he is losing ground with the public—and fast. “BAD ADVICE” is just another worn-out retread of every other book he has written. If things play out in the same way as with his other books, Offit’s pharma boosters will purchase “BAD ADVICE” in volume and give it to every doctor to push up its ratings on the bestseller lists. Offit’s book tells the masses to listen only to him and others like him, but people who attended last night’s event aren’t fooled. Parents who study science and make decisions for themselves and their families aren’t either.

    And neither is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Mr. Kennedy has tried many times to debate Dr. Offit, but he refuses, saying that RFK, Jr. is not an “expert.” Once again, Offit talks from his self-built bully pulpit. If Offit is the expert he claims to be, he would have an obvious advantage in a debate with Mr. Kennedy, but Offit’s silence and refusal to engage seem to be saying that Offit knows better.

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Challenges Dr. Paul Offit to a Debate with Experts
    Mr. Kennedy, in anticipation that Dr. Offit would again refuse a debate with him on the grounds that he isn’t an “expert,” has asked three leading scientific experts if they would be willing to debate Dr. Offit on the subject of vaccines and vaccine safety. Dr. Chris Exley, Dr. Christopher Shaw and Dr. George Lucier have all said yes. Children’s Health Defense hand-delivered a letter (dropped in below) to this effect from RFK, Jr. to Dr. Offit last night at the promo event for “BAD ADVICE.”

    Dr. Offit, we are waiting on your reply to debate the experts on vaccines. If you refuse, the reason will be obvious.



    October 29, 2018

    Paul A. Offit, MD

    Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

    3401 Civic Center Blvd.

    Philadelphia, PA 19104

    Dear Dr. Offit:

    Your new book, Bad Advice: Or Why Celebrities, Politicians, and Activists Aren’t Your Best Source of Health Information, appears poised to repeat one of your favorite arguments, namely, that scientists are the sole trustworthy purveyors of health information. The notion that non-scientists, no matter how educated or credentialed, have nothing to contribute to discussions about health has been a running theme in many of your books and lectures, and particularly in the realm of vaccine safety.

    This is the reason you give for continually rebuffing my requests that you participate in a public debate with me about vaccine safety. In recognition of the theme of your new book, I would now invite you to debate three top-flight and extensively published researchers whose academic standing and contributions to science are beyond dispute: Professor Chris Exley of the United Kingdom’s Keele University, Professor Christopher A. Shaw of the University of British Columbia (UBC) and Dr. George Lucier, former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environmental Toxicology Program. Drs. Exley, Shaw and Lucier are precisely qualified to dispute your reckless, dangerous and scientifically baseless assertions that aluminum adjuvants and mercury preservatives in our vaccines are harmless or even “beneficial.”

    Dr. Exley, the Group Leader of the Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory at Keele University’s Birchall Centre, has devoted his lengthy career to understanding the toxicology of aluminum in humans and other biological systems. His groundbreaking article on aluminum in the brain tissue of deceased autistic individuals (published in March 2018 in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology) reported “some of the highest values for aluminum in human brain tissue yet recorded,” including unaccountably high amounts in young people. Dr. Shaw’s laboratory at UBC focuses on neurotoxins and neurological diseases ranging from autism to Alzheimer’s disease. Recent publications by Dr. Shaw and colleagues have raised a number of important questions about the toxicity of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. Dr. Lucier has presented evidence to the Institute of Medicine and others that ethylmercury in thimerosal-containing vaccines “should be considered equipotent to methylmercury as a developmental neurotoxin.” Taken together, the three researchers’ findings highlight significant gaps in our understanding of vaccines’ potential relationship to the epidemics of neurodevelopmental disorders and autoimmune and chronic illnesses affecting so many of today’s children.

    Your book title and press releases suggest that, in contrast to “celebrities, politicians and activists,” you consider yourself to be eminently qualified to furnish health information in a truthful and unbiased manner. I would like to take this opportunity to inquire as to whether your own substantial financial entanglements with the $52 billion vaccine industry—conflicts you deliberately conceal from your allies in the mainstream media—should disqualify you from representing yourself as a neutral and trustworthy voice in this contentious debate. You have accepted tens of millions of dollars from vaccine companies for your work as the primary spokesman for the industry. You occupy a chair at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia endowed with a $1.5 million grant from Merck, and you were a co-developer, with Merck, of the RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine.

    Indeed, your financial conflicts of interest with the vaccine industry since the early 2000s, during your tenure on a key Centers for Disease Control vaccine panel, were the subject of two federal investigations. While sitting on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), you voted to add a rotavirus vaccine to the CDC childhood vaccine schedule. You neglected to recuse yourself despite the fact that you had your own rotavirus vaccine patent in development. Six years later, thanks to the inclusion of rotavirus on the CDC schedule, you and your business partners were able to sell your patent for $186 million. This self-dealing transaction in which you effectively “voted yourself rich” was condemned by a 2003 congressional investigation and a 2008 investigation by the HHS Inspector General. Congressman Dan Burton described the “paradox” of the CDC “routinely allow[ing] scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on influential advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines, as well as policy matters,” even though “these same scientists have financial ties, academic affiliations, and other vested interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.” When ACIP added your vaccine (RotaTeq) to the childhood vaccine schedule in 2006, policy-makers of the time acknowledged that the vaccine was “one of the most expensive” and potentially lucrative ever added to the schedule. Critics of the decision wondered why we were mandating a ruinously expensive and shoddily tested vaccine for tens of millions of children to combat mild illness that accounts for only a few dozen deaths in the United States annually.

    You routinely talk about RotaTeq’s achievements, but you have never publicly commented on the elevated rate of agonizingly painful and sometimes deadly intussusception observed in recipients of RotaTeq nor on the vaccine’s contamination with DNA fragments from two porcine circoviruses known to cause serious wasting disease in pigs. Scientists and public health experts suggest that your vaccine may be infecting millions of children each year with these viruses. Since the vaccine was never properly safety tested against inert placebos, we may never know the truth.

    In a 2011 interview on National Public Radio’s “Science Friday,” you denigrated “professional anti-vaccine people” for relying on “ad hominem attacks” rather than using science. Yet when you paint those who question your unsound and often wild assertions about vaccine safety as being “false prophets” and “slick charlatans,” while at the same time refusing to debate me or acknowledge the over 1500 peer-reviewed scientific publications cited in my book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, linking mercury and aluminum in vaccines and the exploding epidemic of chronic diseases and neurological disorders in children born after 1989, it is clear that you, in fact, strongly prefer the ad hominem route.

    In August, 2008, you attacked a skeptical reporter, CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson in an article published in the Orange County (OC) Register (“Dr. Paul Offit Responds”), making “disparaging statements” about Attkisson. Two and a half years later, the OC Register was forced to publish a lengthy correction indicating that you had made a number of “unsubstantiated and/or false” statements. According to the OC Register, you untruthfully claimed that you had provided CBS News with the details of your financial relationship with Merck (after the network requested information about your speaking and consulting fees and past and future RotaTeq royalties), even though you had not furnished any of the requested information. In fact, you have repeatedly been cagey about your share of the RotaTeq royalties, stating only that it was “like winning the lottery.” Your net worth is currently reported to be $19 million—not bad for a physician employed by a hospital where the average physician salary ($144,200) is 9% below the national average.

    A debate with Drs. Exley, Shaw and/or Lucier would provide you with a timely opportunity to answer your critics and defend your contentions about vaccine safety and to explain the etiology of the chronic health disorders now affecting 54% of American children. I look forward to your favorable reply.

    Sincerely,

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman

    Children’s Health Defense"

    (I would dearly love to see Offit exposed once and for all. I have encountered him on various blogs, etc. about vaccines and he is such an obvious shill. )
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (9th December 2018)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst 1 11 20 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts