Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Work on the swine flu vaccination could reap huge profits for pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline.
British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is set to reap billions as fear of the swine flu pandemic grows. The world's second-largest drug company has secured orders from 16 countries for 195 million doses of the vaccine it is developing against the H1N1 virus, which has killed more than 740 people worldwide.
The Brentford (England)-based drugmaker began production of its new flu vaccine in June and is on track to begin shipping the first doses in September. At a July 22 briefing to announce the company's second-quarter results, CEO Andrew Witty confirmed the number of orders is expected to be "substantially more" as the company currently is in discussions with 50 countries. While Britain has ordered 60 million doses of the vaccine, according to Witty, the US has paid GSK $250 million (€175.6 million) to supply it with "pandemic products" such as the individual ingredients used in the vaccine. These include the antigen that prompts an individual's immune response and GSK's adjuvent technology, a sort of booster used to increase the vaccine's yield and potency.
GSK also announced it expects to increase annual production of its inhalable anti-viral flu treatment Relenza threefold, to 190 million doses, by yearend. Relenza sales for the three months ended June 30 were $99 million, up from just $5 million in the second quarter of 2008. Since the beginning of 2006, GSK has invested $2.5 billion to put in place the technology and capacity needed to meet demand. "Short of putting beds in the labs, we are throwing just about every resource we have into this,"
Matthias Orth is fighting on the frontlines against the epidemic. He works as a medical manager at the Marienhospital in the southwestern German city of Stuttgart. This is where the city's emergency health facilities are, and this is where the ill gather at night and on the weekends.
One might think that the arrival in Germany of the first of 50 million doses of swine flu vaccine on Monday might be cause for celebration. But with news breaking over the weekend that top government officials in Berlin will be injected with an alternative vaccine -- one widely seen as safer -- a debate about an alleged two-class medical system has erupted.
Monday, October 19, 2009
This is what the Weekend Australian's health section seems to be saying. Please read and forward the information below:
Below is an article that ran in this weekend's Australian newspaper. It is by Dr Sue Page who is a local GP on the Far North Coast of NSW where the AVN is located. One of our members alerted me to this article (thank you!) which is great because I never saw it this weekend. I contacted the editor of this section, a woman named Leigh Dayton, who admitted that she has no sympathy for our viewpoint and believed that we really don't have any scientific reason to question vaccination.
I asked her for the right of reply and she asked me to send her my piece and she would see. She just wrote back and said that she would not be running my article because Sue Page never mentioned either myself or the AVN by name.
I think that those of you who think this is not good enough should take the time to write a quick letter into the newspaper. Direct your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please send a copy to David King who is the Chief of Staff at email@example.com - just put his email address in the cc field.
Please read below. I will put Sue Page's article first, followed by my covering letter and my article last. Feel free to use any of this information to draft your own response and as always, please send a blind copy (BCC) to me at firstname.lastname@example.org. (and I note with interest that the paper is soliciting comment from health professionals - as if they are the only ones with any interest in this issue - or perhaps - the only ones with any common sense?)
A Dose of Commonsense won't hurt: Vaccination
I UNDERSTAND the media loves controversy, but as a GP in a region with one of the lowest vaccination rates in Australia I am sick of having local kids injured or killed by illnesses that could have been prevented.
It is time to stop giving media attention (otherwise known as free advertising) to the crackpot claims of the anti-vaccination lobby. Unfortunately, through the years the group in question has found little trouble finding journalists willing to give it a platform.
The arguments this group presents, with fancy websites and titled authors, do not stand up to even the most rudimentary investigative journalism. Arguing vaccines are not effective, they have been using the same graphs for more than 20 years.
Yes, death rates fell before the introduction of vaccination campaigns, but death is surely the most crude measure of health outcome. I would rather children did not need to test the improvements we have made in intensive care, including life support machines.
Far more dramatic have been the reductions in children exposed to harm through the falling incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases. For instance, for every 3000 children who contract measles (listed by this group as a ``harmless'' childhood illness), just one will die, but one in 25 will contract a severe form of pneumonia that cannot be treated by antibiotics and can cause permanent lung scarring and bronchiectasis.
Before the mass vaccination program, in NSW in 1981 and 1984 there were 200,000 cases with 2850 recorded hospital admissions. In 2007 just three cases were reported.
In promoting vaccines as dangerous, some of the agitators' claims become ludicrous. Nobody is arguing vaccines are 100 per cent safe. But if you are going to quote the anti-vaccination lobby, at least check their information or give the full context so people can judge its reliability for themselves.
The same group recently sent a newsletter saying flu vaccines can cause pregnant women to lose their unborn child and become sterile, and this was part of a campaign to reduce the world's population. The newsletter included photographs of a microdot contraceptive said to be inserted in the vaccine. Puh-leeze! Nobody in media thinks it is OK to falsely shout ``fire'' in the airport, and we never see articles promoting the use of alcohol to reduce stress while driving. The interests of free speech have never been served by publicising rubbish.
Sue Page is a GP in northern NSW and vaccination spokeswoman for the Northern Rivers GP Network.
Health professionals, send your 350-word comment or concern to email@example.com
Thank you for your time on the phone earlier today. Attached to this email is my response to Sue Page's piece from this weekend's Health Section in the Weekend Australian. I do hope that this will be printed since right of reply is one of the most important features of journalistic fairness. If I could ask you to let me know one way or the other, I would really appreciate that.
I did want to pass one thing by you because it's something that has been going through my mind since we spoke. When I told you that we had received a report of a woman who was pregnant losing her baby within 24 hours of getting the swine flu vaccine, your first reaction was to say that there was no evidence that the vaccine was linked with this spontaneous abortion.
That is perfectly true. But think about this.
If there were a new medication which had never been tested for its safety in pregnancy and it had been administered to a woman who was 4 months pregnant and she began to feel ill within 3-4 hours and before 24 hours had elapsed, had lost her baby, would your first response still be that there must be no connection?
Well, no vaccine has ever been tested for safety in pregnancy and all vaccines carry a warning in the manufacturer's information stating that they should only be used in pregnancy if the risk of the disease is considered to outweigh the unknown risk of the shot. So every pregnant woman is a guinea pig and yet, the media tells them that the vaccine is perfectly safe in pregnancy. Is this right or fair? Is that the media's role?
Vaccines hold a privileged place in society but is this status warranted? There are many top doctors who question both the safety and effectiveness of this medical procedure - it is not just the AVN. Tom Jefferson an epidemiologist with The Cochrane Collaboration, the largest database of medical information in the English language, has just completed a 40-year retrospective study on the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines. His results may surprise you. He demonstrated that the vast majority of studies indicate that in the target age groups, flu vaccines are completely ineffective. In children who are now targeted, there has only been one scientific study and the results of that study were mixed.
And safety has never been studied at all since any study which claimed to look at safety was so flawed in its design as to be completely useless. This is what Dr Jefferson said - not me.
So, is it really wrong to question this shot and to ask for more science since it is now aimed at billions of people worldwide?
I hope that you will look at this information and will take the time to consider that, though you may not agree with what the AVN is saying, our message is scientifically valid and we do have a right to say it.
Studies Fail To Demonstrate Safety Or Effectiveness Of Influenza Vaccine In Children And Adults - http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55507.php
Cochrane Influenza Resources - http://www.cochrane.org/influenza/press.html
Does the vaccine matter? Atlantic Monthly - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
Trust me, I'm a doctor - not good enough any more
It is dangerous to represent a viewpoint that opposes what the mainstream considers to be self-evident. Dr Semmelweis discovered this when he was discredited for claiming that women and babies were dying from Puerperal fever due to surgeons going straight from the morgue to the maternity ward without washing their hands. It was decades before he was exonerated and decades more before hand washing became routine.
It took decades for doctors to admit that smoking cigarettes did not reduce the symptoms of asthma; that thalidomide did in fact cause catastrophic birth defects; that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks and stroke and that antibiotics were most-often counterproductive in the treatment of otitis media.
In each of these instances, those who pushed for increased attention to safety and scientific principles in opposition to ingrained beliefs were called anti-science, ignorant or crackpots. They were ridiculed, ignored or denigrated by those who could not accept that something they believed in could possibly be wrong.
No other area exemplifies this resistance to open debate more than the issue of vaccination where, instead of examining the opposing viewpoints, the pro-choice side is accused of misinformation even though their evidence is scientifically based.
Dr Page criticises those who ask questions about vaccination, but who benefits when questions are suppressed? Where would we be now if Semmelweis had been stopped or if McBride hadn't questioned Thalidomide?
In her article, Dr Page accuses the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) of spreading absurd conspiracy theories. Check our web site - we don't. Our information is referenced from primary, peer-reviewed medical sources.
Dr Page says that death rate is a crude measure of vaccine effectiveness, but many studies have shown that between 95-97.5% of doctor-diagnosed measles diagnoses are wrong. Other diseases such as whooping cough are also incorrectly diagnosed more often than not. Crude though it may be, death rate is the most accurate measure of infection we have. And as Dr Page says, these diseases declined long before vaccinations were introduced.
An investigative journalist would be good; a Royal Commission would be better. How about a study examining the health of the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated, using the Medicare database which is linked with the ACIR? Simple - and Australia is possibly the only country in the world that can do it.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Vaccination is central to the government’s plan for preventing deaths from swine flu. The CDC has recommended that some 159 million adults and children receive either a swine flu shot or a dose of MedImmune’s nasal vaccine this year. Shots are offered in doctors’ offices, hospitals, airports, pharmacies, schools, polling places, shopping malls, and big-box stores like Wal-Mart. In August, New York state required all health-care workers to get both seasonal and swine flu shots. To further protect the populace, the federal government has spent upwards of $3billion stockpiling millions of doses of antiviral drugs like Tamiflu—which are being used both to prevent swine flu and to treat those who fall ill.
But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
It's been months since dancer and former gymnast Nicole Goodman of Pocasset has been able to do a forward jazz slide or a kick ball change move.
The 18-year-old fell ill weeks after receiving her third Gardasil shot, and she blames the vaccine for the human papillomavirus for putting her in a wheelchair.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The German army has ordered a stock of special swine flu vaccine that does not contain controversial additives that will be given to the general public, the Defence Ministry confirmed on Monday.
The announcement came in response to a report in daily Westfalen-Blatt, which said that Bundeswehr soldiers and their families on foreign deployments or preparing for missions overseas would receive the inoculations.
The A/H1N1 flu shots given to soldiers will contain neither a controversial strengthening additive, nor the preservative agent mercury, both of which are contained in the shots for the general public.
Additive-free Celvapan, manufactured by the US pharmaceutical company Baxter, was approved on October 6 for use in the European Union.
Defence Ministry spokesman Thomas Raabe said the Bundeswehr needs to be able to quickly and impartially inoculate soldiers and their dependants on foreign missions to ensure they were protected.
Raabe said that not all of the Bundeswehr‘s 250,000 soldiers could be vaccinated at once, but added it is important that the 7,200 troops on foreign missions receive the first shots, he said.
Some doctors have warned of unforeseeable side effects to the other EU-approved vaccines Pandemrix, made by British firm GlaxoSmithKline, and Focetria, manufactured by Swiss company Novartis.
However, there are no studies comparing the side effects, according to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, which oversees drug registration and safety in Germany.
The president of Germany's Association of Children’s and Young People’s Physicians (BVKJ), Wolfram Hartmann, told the Westfalen-Blatt that the vaccines committee of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin had reacted with surprise to the Bundeswehr’s “solo approach.”
He called for children aged six months to six years to also be given the additive-free shots
Thursday, October 8, 2009
When I voted in this poll about 5 minutes ago, these were the results from more than 34,000 votes. Perhaps there is hope yet?
If you would like to vote, please click on the image to the right.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Teen girl suffers permanent brain damage after cervical cancer vaccine
(NaturalNews) As the cervical cancer vaccine continues to maim or kill even more teenage girls across the UK, 18-year-old Stacey Jones is the latest victim to suffer severe harm. Previously in a state of apparent health, Stacey began to suffer severe seizures and brain inflammation within days after receiving the Cervarix vaccine injection. The swelling of her brain was so severe that it cause permanent brain damage, and today Stacey Jones is an "empty shell" of a girl.
Her mother isn't fooled by Big Pharma. "I really feel she has been used as a guinea pig," she said in a DailyMail news article (source below). "I don't think there is enough evidence that the vaccination programme is safe - this all happened days after Stacey was given the vaccine, and we don't have any other explanation for what triggered her brain injury."
Any other company that used these sorts of tactics would have been shut down ages ago and their directors and those involved put in prison. For goodness sake! Pan Pharmaceuticals was closed down for one of their drugs causing nausea! Merck has killed and maimed millions and spent billions covering up the damage. Why is this allowed to continue? Where are our regulators? Is drug money too lucrative for those who are supposed to be protecting us to actually do their job?
By Mike Adams
Previously secret documents that surfaced at a Vioxx court case in April of this year reveal pharmaceutical giant Merck maintained a “hit list” of doctors to be “neutralized” for speaking out against Vioxx. Although this story was reported on NaturalNews and other sites in April, Merck’s involvement in the recent round of swine flu vaccines raises new questions regarding Merck’s behavior towards its critics (see below).
As was reported in The Australian, documents that have surfaced in the Federal Court in Melbourne expose the criminal intent of Merck staffers who admitted they intended to “stop funding to institutions” and “interfere with academic appointments.” (These actions are highly illegal, by the way.)
According to on-the-record testimony in this Australian trial, one Merck employee said, in referring to the doctors on the hit list, “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live…”
Sunday, October 4, 2009
So, when drug companies say (as they continually do) that they don't make money from the vaccines they sell, what do you think they mean? Do cigarette companies make money selling cigarettes? Do drug pushers make money when the kid up the road buys crack? If drug companies aren't making money from vaccines, why are they the richest companies in the world?
Posted using ShareThis
One can only hope that they are right. It shows that Australians are a LOT smarter than the drug companies and medical community give them credit for. Now Minister Roxon...about that $1 billion you've spent on this vaccine....
Posted using ShareThis
This is a woman who worked on the HPV vaccine and is considered an expert on this subject. She says two very important things:
1- The vaccine will NOT prevent even one case of cancer.
2- Taking the vaccine will put girls and women at greater risk than if they were not vaccinated.
So why are we still pushing this shot on our innocent girls and women - and soon boys and infants? Do drug companies really hold that much sway that our government and medical authorities are willing to consider our families to be sacrificial lambs for profit?
Posted using ShareThis
The New York State Health Commissioner's new mandate that all health care workers be vaccinated against both the seasonal and the swine flu this fall could qualify as the major public health blunder of the year, because it is likely to backfire.
Flu has been rightly characterized as a "slippery disease" that can mutate quickly and unpredictably, which means that planning for flu epidemics must be flexible and should be reviewed regularly as evidence of disease spread and severity accumulates.
We are already experiencing the beginning of a second wave of swine flu, the 2009 H1N1 influenza. Effective response will require cooperation of the public, and such cooperation (in actions such as getting vaccinated, social distancing and staying home when sick) will happen only if the public trusts its health officials.
Surveys have noted an erosion in public trust of government officials, but continued confidence in physicians and nurses. In this context, persuasion based on science, ethics and prudence, not on legal threats, should be the mandatory course of action for public health officials.
Teenage girl left brain-damaged after receiving cervical cancer jab | Mail Online
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, October 2, 2009
Let's see more of these lawsuits being filed - we need everyone who is being forced to stand up and say they are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it any more!
Posted using ShareThis
FDA - TGA - same old garbage. They are totally beholden to the drug companies and therefore, they almost never say no. Especially when they are asked so nicely $$$$$$$$$
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, October 1, 2009
There is nobody who says it straighter and with more guts than Hilary Butler. If there is anyone in the world who has a clearer understanding of how vaccines can affect the immune system and how susceptible people can be injured or killed by them, I have never yet met them. If you haven't read Hilary's two books, Just a Little Prick and From One Prick to Another, I don't know what you are waiting for? You can find more information about both books by clicking here.
Posted using ShareThis
It seems that no matter what the evidence is, nothing must ever be allowed to draw into disrepute - even for a very short time - the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations.
Where does the truth lie?
Our buddies from the scumbags organisation (well, if Paul Keating can say it, I can too!) have been emailing me all morning to demand that I take down the article I posted a couple of days ago in which I stated that I didn't believe that Natalie's death was coincidental to the Cervarix vaccine.
I won't do that. Because I still don't believe in coincidence. Not when it comes to vaccines.
Perhaps there are some cardiologists on this list who might want to answer the following question.
How likely is it that a 14 year old girl can have a massive heart / lung tumour of the type which the coroners claim she had - and still be totally asymptomatic?
This is a girl who was described by her family and by those around her as being perfectly healthy. She certainly looked to be the picture of health.
Shouldn't she have had problems with extreme tiredness? With breathing? Shouldn't she have been pale and wan looking - I mean, a tumour large enough to cause sudden death should have been impeding her blood-flow for quite some time. Even the most aggressive tumours do, when they affect major organs like the heart and lungs, produce some symptoms even though they may not be specific enough to require exploratory surgery.
My aunt, Sheila, who smoked for many years though she had stopped some time in her 40s, passed away several years ago in her early 60s. She had developed a tumour in her lungs which had spread to her heart. She had months of feeling a pressure on her chest, being unaccountably tired and progressivley getting worse until she had to see her doctor. And even then, she did not just drop dead on the floor. She died slowly in hospital whilst being given massive doses of chemotherapy.
It all seems too convenient to me - this sudden diagnosis of a perfectly health girl who has died almost immediately after receiving one of the most toxic vaccines we have today.
If I were her parents, I would be asking for a second opinion - for an independent pathologist to review the autopsy results or perhaps, if I had a good relationship with my family doctor, I would ask them to actually veiw Natalie's body and see if there truly is a tumour.
We will probably never know the truth about the death of this tragic child. But her passing leaves more questions then it does answers. And while deaths from vaccines continue to be minimised as coincidental, blamed on the parents or put down to just plain bad luck, these questions will remain.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
According to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Executive Director of Thoughtful House and a co-investigator of the project, "What is particularly concerning is that in spite of the recommendation to remove Thiomersal from vaccines a decade ago, millions of people, many of them children and pregnant mothers, are about to get mercury in their shots. Thiomersal is still routinely used in Hepatitis B and numerous other vaccines world-wide. "
The implications for Australia's new national campaign which is targeting pregnant women as its first recipients are frightening.
The Australian Vaccination Network, a national vaccine safety and health lobby group, urges the Federal government and Minister Roxon to err on the side of caution when it comes to administering untested vaccines containing mercury to those who are the most vulnerable. Surely when weighing up the risk of significant brain damage from Thiomersal preservatives against an influenza which has been shown to be milder than seasonal flu, we must say that the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the flu. In addition, if this vaccine has not been shown to be safe in children under the age of 10, surely foetuses should likewise be excluded.
Below is the abstract of the study:
This study examined whether acquisition of neonatal reflexes and sensorimotor skills in newborn rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) is influenced by receipt of the single neonatal dose of Hepatitis B (HB) vaccine containing the preservative thimerosal (Th). HB vaccine containing a standardized weight-adjusted Th dose was administered to male macaques within 24 hours of birth (n=13). Unexposed animals received saline placebo (n=4) or no injection (n=3). Infants were raised identically and tested daily for acquisition of 9 survival, motor, and sensorimotor reflexes by a blinded observer. In exposed animals there was a significant delay in the acquisition of three survival reflexes: root, snout and suck, compared with unexposed animals. No neonatal responses were significantly delayed in unexposed animals compared with exposed. Gestational age (GA) and birth weight were not significantly correlated. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the main effects and interactions of exposure with birth weight and GA as independent predictors and time-invariant covariates. Significant main effects remained for exposure on root and suck when controlling for GA and birth weight such that exposed animals were relatively delayed in time-to-criterion. There was a significant effect of GA on visual follow far when controlling for exposure such that increasing GA was associated with shorter time-to-criterion. Interaction models indicated that while there were no main effects of GA or birth weight on root, suck or snout reflexes there were various interactions between exposure, GA, and birth weight such that inclusion of the relevant interaction terms significantly improved model fit. This, in turn, indicated important influences of birth weight and/or GA on the effect of exposure which, in general, operated in a way that lower birth weight and/or lower GA exacerbated the detrimental effect of vaccine exposure. This primate model provides a possible means of assessing adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes from neonatal Th-containing HB vaccine exposure, particularly in infants of lower GA or low birth weight. The mechanism of these effects and therequirements for Th is not known and requires further study.
When will we say enough is enough? When will we declare that our precious girls are not to be used as fodder for the pharmaceutical company's greed? Natalie Morton should not have died. This vaccine should never be given to anyone until it is proven that (a) HPV is related to cervical cancer and (b) the use of AS04 adjuvants is safe for use in humans.
Dr Richard Halvorsen: I'm not opposed to jabs but there are serious worries
Evangelists for mass vaccination like to claim that these programmes are of universal benefit to public health. Indeed, so zealous is their enthusiasm for vaccines that, through a cocktail of scaremongering and propaganda, they attempt to suppress all debate.
The result is that people, especially parents, feel bullied or patronised if they dare to challenge the official drive to vaccinate against every possible risk of disease. Moreover, this climate of fear is ruthlessly exploited by the big pharmaceutical companies, which see vast profits in exaggerated health concerns.
Yet the sudden death of Coventry schoolgirl Natalie Morton after a jab against cervical cancer highlights the reality that vaccination programmes are not without their risks
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217057/Dr-Richard-Halvorsen-Im-opposed-jabs-worries.html#ixzz0SaNp0WWb
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Protesters rally against swine flu vaccine | Politics on the Hudson
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, September 28, 2009
They have no idea why this previously healthy girl would die such a short time after getting a Cervarix vaccine, but it wasn't the vaccine - oh no, that could not be!
Posted using ShareThis
Sunday, September 27, 2009
This is terrifying. And it is happening now. How will this device be administered? What other applications will it be put to? How will the satellite tracking be managed? Will we have the option to say no to this device? The implications are myriad and the abuses are even greater.
Technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that ethics and safety are not keeping up.
Anyone who is considering having ANY flu vaccine needs to watch this presentation. Fully referenced, it demonstrates clearly that the risks from the flu vaccine far outweigh any potential benefits and that in fact, this incredibly ineffective vaccine has NO benefits - except for the bank accounts of Big Pharma, that is.
This could very well be the cause of a new American revolution. If the police begin to remove children from their parents and FORCIBLY vaccinate them, there is no doubt that there will be huge civil unrest.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
By John Stone
A widely publicized report purporting once again to disprove a link between the measles-mumps-rubella shot and autism has been shown to be irretrievably flawed within hours of publication. Launched two days ago in the British media amid headlines like ‘Autism just as common in adults, so MMR is off the hook’ (Guardian HERE) and ‘Autism rates back MMR jab safety’ (BBC HERE) the study was based on just 19 cases, who were never assessed according to accepted diagnostic criteria for autism, and included adults as young as 16 who would have received MMR vaccine anyway.
The study (HERE) – led by Professor Traolach (Terry) Brugha - was conducted by the University of Leicester and the prestigious Autism Research Centre of the University of Cambridge, director Professor Simon Baron-Cohen. Despite this, neither standardized psychometric testing for autism, or accepted epidemiological methods were employed in reaching its conclusions , and much of its methodology remains obscure. The Department of Health has long been under pressure to show that autism was just as prevalent as today before MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988. But rather than dispel such concerns the new report is more likely to support claims of a cover-up.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Gary Matsumoto is an award-winning journalist whose book, Vaccine-A, is a must-read for anyone interested in this issue. Read a bit about him here:
According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your children should be the first target for mass swine flu vaccinations when school starts this fall.[i]
This is a ridiculous assumption for many reasons, not to mention extremely high risk.
In Australia, where the winter season has begun, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is reassuring parents the swine flu is no more dangerous than regular seasonal flu. "Most people, including children, will experience very mild symptoms and recover without any medical intervention," she said.[ii]
Sydney-based immunization specialist Robert Booy predicts swine flu might be fatal to about twice as many children in the coming year as regular influenza. Booy estimates 10-12 children could die from the H1N1 virus, compared with the five or six regular flu deaths seen among children in an average year in Australia.[iii]
Saturday, September 19, 2009
If these trained professionals feel this way (and 70% of them do!), then why is the answer - MAKE THEM VACCINATE? Surely, if those who are supposed to push vaccinations on others refuse to take them themselves, there is a problem and forcing them to vaccinate won't solve it.
IS ANYONE LISTENING???????
Researchers reveal reasons for low vaccination rates against influenza viruses
Shared via AddThis
Friday, September 18, 2009
'Click the Share button to create links to this email on popular social networking and bookmarking size like Facebook, Twitter, and Digg.'
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
I have never taken one of these courses myself so I can't endorse them - but I do feel that if you have questions and are afraid of viruses and bacteria, it would be worth checking this out and asking Sheri about it yourself.
For those who wonder if they really do...yes, they do. Please read Dr Todd Elsner's book on vaccination to find out more about how every year, hundreds of thousands of aborted human foetuses are sent to labs to have their cells harvested for the production of drugs and vaccines without their mothers ever being advised and without their permission.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Well, I think I have found the answer. The other two were partially vaccinated - and that doesn't make good news when the medical community and the media are trying to panic parents into vaccinating their children, themselves, their parents, etc. Please read the following:
There were 3 infant deaths recorded in NNDSS for this quarter. The youngest, from New South Wales, was 4 weeks of age at onset of illness (my note - they can't even get the details right! Dana got ill at 2 1/2 weeks of age and died at about 4 weeks - that wasn't when she was admitted to hospital!), was admitted to hospital and died in intensive care.8 The infant was too young to be vaccinated. The other 2 infants that died in Australia were eligible for vaccination and each had received 1 dose of pertussis-containing vaccine.
To read the entire article, please click here - http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3301-pdf-cnt.htm/$FILE/cdi3301g.pdf
Friday, September 4, 2009
Judy has also sent through a poster which she has put together which the AVN will shortly be reproducing for sale. If you have a place where you would be able to display this excellent and informative poster in your place of business, school or any other public venue, that would be great. Please email firstname.lastname@example.org and ask her to send it through to you as a pdf file so you can preview it. Judy has also provided us with two papers she has written and you can find those by clicking here and here.
I am writing to bring to your attention a human rights issue that many community members are concerned about. This issue is the increasingly coercive nature of the childhood immunisation schedule and the recent implementation of mandatory immunisation for health professionals and students intending to work in clinical situations.
The childhood immunisation schedule has been linked to welfare benefits, school entry and doctors pay. This means that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are required to fill out a conscientious objector's form which many parents are not informed about. In other words parents are not being openly informed that vaccination in Australia is not compulsory and that they have a right to choose this procedure.
Is it legal for a government to misinform the public about a public health policy?
Immunisation is a medical intervention for healthy individuals and as such we should have the right to choose how we look after our own health unless the government can provide conclusive evidence that the benefits of the vaccines on the recommended schedule conclusively outweigh the risks to individuals.
The Precautionary Principle should apply if the science on a new technology or procedure is incomplete. This principle states that "The burden of proof of harmlessness of any new technology/process/activity/chemical is on the proponent and not the general public".
I have just watched the presentation of the whooping cough debate on the ABC 7.30 Report and am concerned that the government continues to use anecdotal evidence and fear of whooping cough to support whooping cough immunisation . Attached to this email is an article that was published in the Public Health Association of Australia's newsletter illustrating that the vaccine does not control the incidence of this disease and this fact is supported by public health officials of the 20th century.
Therefore I would like the government to provide the following evidence to support the claim that vaccines are safe and effective:
1) Evidence of the vaccination status of cases of whooping cough that are hospitalised or result in mortality? This evidence is not provided to the public to convince us of the need for the vaccine. We continue to have serious outbreaks of whooping cough despite the fact that Australia has had a vaccination rate of 90% in infants for the last decade. This trend is also observed in America and England.
2) Evidence that the whooping cough vaccine prevents the most severe cases of this disease. This can only be demonstrated if you have monitored the vaccination status of hospitalised cases of this disease. Yet this has not been publicised to support this claim by the government.
3) The whooping cough vaccine has not controlled the incidence of this disease since it was first used in 1954. Public health officials of the 20th century have explained why this is the case (see attachment). So why is the government promoting this policy to the public under the impression that it will control the incidence of whooping cough?
4) The government knows that children vaccinated against whooping cough are still getting this disease. So how is the government able to claim that it is the unvaccinated children that are spreading this disease?
5) Children under 6 months - the age of highest mortality - cannot be protected from this vaccine. A child is only protected after 3 doses of this vaccine and this occurs after 6 months.
6) Where are the long-term studies which show it is safe to combine 12 vaccines in an infant's body? There are many studies showing that the chemicals in vaccines can cause chronic illness in humans. Therefore it is essential that long-term health studies have been done of the combined effects - cumulative and synergistic - of the 12 vaccines the government is recommending we put into an infant's body. Can you please provide this evidence? It is well known that the toxicity of substances varies with age, gender and genetics and that health effects can have latency periods.
7) Why are Hepatitis B and chickenpox vaccines recommended for all infants when they are a risk to a small minority of children?
Many families rely on welfare benefits and are therefore feeling forced to vaccinate even though they are concerned about the escalating chronic illness in children. 41% of children 1-14 years of age now have a chronic illness (AIHW).
I would like you to justify this policy which leads the public to believe immunisation in Australia is compulsory.
It is important that the government can provide open and transparent information to explain why it has implemented mandatory and coercive immunisation policies. I believe it is unethical for these policies to be coercive if the above evidence is not provided by an independent body.
This is not rocket science. The chemicals in vaccines are observed to have harmful effects in animals. When they are injected directly into the tissues of infants they bypass the normal defence mechanisms. The government has continued to increase the number of vaccines on the schedule without knowing the long-term health effects of combining these vaccines and without fully understanding the functioning of human body systems.
In addition, parents have not been informed that all vaccines in previous years have contained antibiotics, preservatives (mercury, formaldehyde) and aluminium adjuvants. I have been investigating vaccines for a number of years and I am currently doing a PhD at Murdoch University supported by Associate Professor Peter Dingle and Associate Professor Brian Martin.
I will attach the poster and papers that I have recently had published at the National Health Promotion Conference and in the ACNEM journal of medicine.
It is a fact that the safety and efficacy clinical trials for vaccines performed by the NHMRC are sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies. This is not objective science and the bias is enhanced by preventing the general community (upon whom this policy is being imposed) from having an input into the risk assessment process. This is against the risk assessment guidelines.
It is known that the risk assessment for the use of a drug/vaccine will vary according to the assessor and the stake they have in the procedure. This is an issue which concerns all of us and the genetics of the population is at risk if we do not have the science to support this policy. It is time that all possible causes of chronic illness in children were examined to prevent the cost that we are observing to society. In addition, mandatory and coercive policies are inappropriate if this evidence is not provided and the government is currently misleading the public by promoting this public health policy as if it were compulsory when it is not.
This is a very up-to-date and complete web site where you can get heaps of information on Swine Flu. For those in the US, the National Vaccine Information Centre will be holding an international vaccination conference in October this year. If you can go - go! I wish I could!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg has said that there are many risks associated with the vaccine for the H1N1 virus.
He has grave reservations about the firm Novartis who are developing the vaccine and testing it in Germany. The vaccination is injected “with a very hot needle”, Wodarg said.
The nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells from animals and "we do not know if there could be an allergic reaction".
But more importantly, some people fear that the risk of cancer could be increased by injecting the cells.
The vaccine - as Johannes Löwer, president of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, has pointed out - can also cause worse side effects than the actual swine flu virus.
Wodrag also described people’s fear of the pandemic as an "orchestration": “It is great business for the pharmaceutical industry,” he told the ‘Neuen Presse’.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Here is the link to the bill: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf)
and to the article originally alerting people to this: (http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html)
The following is from John:
Actually, I’m afraid it is true. The Bill has already been passed by the lower house, and it seems deliberately drafted to allow for enforcement of orders of the widest possible scope.
The Bill, which amends various parts of Massachussets’s General Laws, is directly accessible from the Massachusetts Legislature’s site, at <http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf>. The document is only 380 kB in size, and is worth downloading. Despite being riddled with mistakes in spelling and punctuation, unless somebody has forged an entire government web site, this is the real thing.
Natural News (which gave the above link) quotes some of the Bill’s juiciest parts at <http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html>. But it doesn’t mention some of the most concerning parts of the Bill.
Take, for instance, the Bill’s provision of the right of the commissioner to make an order -- any order. Section 13 amends the older law by replacing its section 95. The new section 95 provides that, once such an order is made, anybody refusing to comply with it may be fined up to USD 1000 per day of “violation” and imprisoned (lines 384 to 387). But
“It shall not be a defense to aprosecution for this offense t hat the commissioner or the local public healt h authority erroneously determined that noncompliance would pose a serious danger to public healt h, if the commissioner or local public health authorit y was acting in good faith under color of official authority” (Iines 387 to 391).
In plain English, if the commissioner makes an order for, say, compulsory medical treatment upon the evidence of hearsay claims that without it a person poses a serious public risk, and that person refuses the treatment, he or she may be imprisoned and fined; and if it later is revealed that the person posed no risk, that the hearsay was marketing material manufactured for the purpose, and that the commissioner was derelict in his duty, the person fined will have no right of recompense: he or she will still be in the wrong. “Violation” even of an order not based on a perception of serious risk is subject to USD1000/day fines (see lines 387 to 391).
But here is the most serious part I’ve yet seen in the document [section 95(b)]:
“Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public healt h authorit y within its jurisdict ion determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authorit y may exercise the following authority:
“(1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possibly communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual; and
“(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual” (lines 399 to 408).
There is no suggestion that whether a vaccine is “reasonably likely to lead to serious harm” would be open to test by a court; it appears to be a matter for the commissioner’s judgement. In any case, no court is likely ever to conclude that serious harm is “reasonably likely” in any medically usual individuals without overwhelming evidence to overturn the usual presumption.
The only small light the new section 95 will offer in all this destruction of fundamental human rights is this:
“An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccinat ion or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertaint y whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authorit y operating wit hin its jurisdiction” (lines 409 to 414)
“If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontaminat ion or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court. During the t ime necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal to submit to decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertaint y whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 425 to 431).
This pinprick of light is, of course, the right to refuse -- which refusal may be effectively punished without trial.
Following that is a provision that on the surface is more innocuous but actually serves an insidious purpose:
“(d) (1) When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdict ion reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condit ion that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under sect ion 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public healt h authority may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condit ion and to obtain contact information, including but not limited to the persons residence and employment addresses, date of birth, and telephone numbers.
“(2) If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to sect ion 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condit ion that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 432 to 443).
In plain English, this provides that the commissioner, based solely upon his fallible beliefs and without need for a warrant or court order, may choose to arrest any person; subject him or her to brainwashing techniques; and keep him or her in indefinite detention without charge or trial on the basis that the person is unwilling or unable to supply a particular name or address and that the commissioner, with no evidence either way, is uncertain whether the person has been exposed to a serious disease -- which means anybody at all.
On the basis of its section 13 alone, it’s evident that this Bill is perhaps the most serious attack on U.S. constitutional rights and fundamental human rights in the United States that has been mounted in modern times.
The history of the Bill appearing below (from http://www.mass.gov/legis/186history/s02028.htm; with apologies for the peculiar U.S. date format) suggests, and Natural News states, that the Bill has passed in the Senate already (and evidently did so unanimously); and that its only potential barrier to becoming law lies in mobilising the House to strike it down.
One can be sure that if it passes into law, it will be used; and that it will be treated as a paradigm for further Bills in the U.S. and in other countries.
The conspiracy theorists, it seems, were right all along.
The defence of fundamental human rights is something that cannot be left to others. If we do not act in their defence, they will be violated by all the largest vested interests and will come to be regarded as unnecessary, impractical anachronisms. The time to defend those rights is not tomorrow.
History of An Act relative to pandemic and disaster preparation and response in the Commonwealth:
4/6/2009SReported from the committee on Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
4/6/2009SNew draft of S18 and H108
4/6/2009SBill reported favorably by committee and referred to the Senate Committee On Ethics and Rules
4/8/2009SDischarged to the Senate Committee On Ways and Means
4/27/2009SCommittee recommended ought to pass with an amendment
4/27/2009SRead second, amended (as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means) and ordered to a third reading
4/28/2009SRead third (title changed)
4/28/2009SPassed to be engrossed - 36 YEAS to 0 NAYS (See Senate Roll Call, No. 32)
4/30/2009HRead; and referred to the House Committee On Ways and Means
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Of 1,122 survey participants, 48.5% said they always recommend HPV vaccines to girls, Jessica Kahn, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues reported in the August issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
Two thirds of respondents said they are likely to recommend vaccination to boys if the vaccine is approved for that indication.
A majority disagreed with mandated vaccination.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The New York State Nurses Association has strongly opposed a regulation that would require every healthcare worker in the state to be immunized for influenza.
Despite these objections, the New York State Hospital Planning and Review Council has adopted the proposal as an emergency rule that could go into effect before this winter’s flu season. The rule affects all healthcare personnel, both paid and unpaid, who interact with patients in hospitals, diagnostic and treatment centers, certified home health agencies, long-term healthcare programs, AIDS home care programs, licensed home care services, and hospices.
In its testimony, the association called the council’s action a “scorched earth” approach. “While we encourage nurses to be immunized for the flu, we do not agree that nurses should be required to get immunizations as a condition of employment,” said Eileen Avery, RN, associate director of the association’s Education, Practice & Research Program.
“The seasonal flu vaccine is not 100 percent effective and sometimes is highly ineffective, as it was in 2005 and 2007,” Avery said. “There is no guarantee that in any given year, the public will benefit from mandatory immunization of healthcare providers.”
MANY people seem genuinely baffled that western governments are hyping the arrival of a swine flu pandemic as if it’s the greatest threat to humanity since the bubonic plague, despite the relatively low number of deaths from the virus, unaware that the pharmaceutical industry has been intimately joined at the hip with the state for decades.
Another illustration of that fact is the revelation that one of the UK government’s top advisors on swine flu also happens to be a sitting board member of GlaxoSmithKline, the company selling dangerous and untested swine flu vaccines, as well as anti-viral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, to the NHS.
“Professor Sir Roy Anderson sits on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), a 20-strong task force drawing up the action plan for the virus. Yet he also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline,” reports the Daily Mail.
From: Forty people a day could die from swine flu by next month by Shan Ross
Source: The Scotsman, 7/4/2009.
Via: HighBeam™ Research
Copyright 2009 The Scotsman
Hualan Biological Engineering Inc completed the vaccine last month and will test it on more than 2,000 volunteers in the city of Taizhou in the eastern province of Jiangsu, Xinhua news agency said, citing a company official.
It said the vaccine for the A(H1N1) virus could hit the market in September -- ahead of the prime winter flu season -- if the trials are successful and that the company could make up to 600,000 doses a day.
The race for a vaccine has heated up, with the World Health Organization's top vaccine researcher, Marie-Paule Kieny, warning this month that all countries need access to vaccines as the virus was "unstoppable".
China has seen 1,668 cases of the virus, according to health ministry statistics, but no deaths have since been reported.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Hospital workers are supposed to be first in line for any pandemic influenza vaccine so they can keep Canadian hospitals running during an outbreak – but that strategy hinges on workers agreeing to take an unproven vaccine for an uncertain threat.
Across Canada, somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent of health-care workers opt for a flu shot each season, despite extensive efforts to persuade the entire work force to get immunized. In a normal flu season, that's not a major problem.
But in a serious outbreak of H1N1, the unwillingness of large numbers of doctors, nurses, paramedics and others could lead to soaring absenteeism rates, draining the health-care system of workers just as they are needed most. Faced with lesser risks, Canadian health officials have tried to make flu shots mandatory, but those efforts have typically failed, with the rights of the individual trumping any broader societal concern.
Friday, July 31, 2009
'U.S. health officials say swine flu could strike up to 40% of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die."
So declares an Associated Press article, the writer of which you can picture trying to catch his breath as he pounds away at the keyboard. In its exclusive revelation of unpublished figures, AP says: "Those estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mean about twice the number of people who usually get sick in a normal flu season would be struck by swine flu."
No, they don't. The CDC's influenza Web site shows they're essentially the same.
Welcome to the wonderful world of swine flu hysteria, in which health agencies — be it the World Health Organization (which declared a worldwide pandemic with just 244 deaths) or the CDC — can tell any scary story they want with the assurance that the mainstream media will never challenge them. That includes pointing to a piglet and proclaiming it to be a wild, raging boar.
In a daring experiment in Europe, scientists used mosquitoes as flying needles to deliver a "vaccine" of live malaria parasites through their bites. The results were astounding: Everyone in the vaccine group acquired immunity to malaria; everyone in a non-vaccinated comparison group did not, and developed malaria when exposed to the parasites later.
The study was only a small proof-of-principle test, and its approach is not practical on a large scale. However, it shows that scientists may finally be on the right track to developing an effective vaccine against one of mankind's top killers. A vaccine that uses modified live parasites just entered human testing.
"Malaria vaccines are moving from the laboratory into the real world," Dr. Carlos Campbell wrote in an editorial accompanying the study in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. He works for PATH, the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, a Seattle-based global health foundation.
The new study "reminds us that the whole malaria parasite is the most potent immunizing" agent, even though it is harder to develop a vaccine this way and other leading candidates take a different approach, he wrote.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Two years ago a study in the British Medical Journal concluded that the effectiveness of annual flu shots has been exaggerated, and that in reality they have little or no effect on influenza campaign objectives, including reducing the number of hospital stays, time off work, and death from influenza and its complications. Other studies, done prior and subsequently, also confirm these findings.
However, preventing flu-related deaths in the elderly has been, and still is, the primary argument for recommending flu shots each year. And, according to the theory of “herd immunity,” a majority of the population must be vaccinated in order to protect the lives of the elderly and other categories of people susceptible to flu-related complications.
However, the flu prevention strategy set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been called into serious question time and again. Another study from 2005, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine also could not find support for the use of flu vaccine to prevent deaths in the elderly. The report highlights that=2 0although immunization rates in people over 65 have increased dramatically in the past 20 years, there has not been a consequent decline in flu-related deaths.