Mr. Happy’s Banned Health News

Medical news the Main stream media or the Big Pharmaceutical Companies won’t print

 

Making Plant-Based Diets the New Normal

by: Michael Greger M.D. 15December2015

A Nutritional Update for Physicians was published in the official journal of Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed care organization in the United States. It told physicians that healthy eating may best be achieved with a plant-based diet, defined as a regimen that “encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy and eggs as well as all refined and processed junk.”

The Update notes:

“too often, physicians ignore the potential benefits of good nutrition and quickly prescribe medications instead of giving patients a chance to correct their disease through healthy eating and active living. Physicians should therefore consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity.”

The major downside described is that it may work a little too well. If people are on medications, their blood pressure or blood sugar could actually drop too low, so physicians may need to adjust medications or eliminate them altogether.

The report continues that “despite the strong body of evidence favoring plant-based diets, many physicians are not stressing the importance of plant-based diets as a first-line treatment for chronic illnesses. This could be because of a lack of physician awareness or a lack of patient education resources.” So Kaiser sought to change that. “Want to lose weight, feel better, improve, stabilize, or even reverse chronic disease, and get off some of your medications?” a Kaiser Permanente leaflet (which you can see in my video, What Diet Should Physicians Recommend?) asks. “If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then a plant-based eating plan may be for you.” Side-effects include: lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar; reversal or prevention of heart disease, our number one killer; a longer life; a healthier weight; lower risk of diabetes; improvement of inflammatory conditions like rheumatoid arthritis; and a slowed progression of certain types of cancer.

Kaiser offers tips to get started, such as meal plan ideas, and a list of online resources (including NutritionFacts.org!). The paper ends with a familiar refrain: “further research is needed.” In this case, though, further research necessary, they explained,  to “find ways to make plant-based diets the new normal for our patients and employees.”

So exciting to see lifestyle medicine suppported. For more on this new medical specialty:

Unfortunately much of medical training is substandard when it comes to nutrition:

-Michael Greger, M.D.
TOP


Best Foods for Autism

TOP

Top seven fuels that feed the cancer ‘fire’ and mutate more cells

December 02, 2016 by: S. D. Wells http://www.naturalnews.com/056213_cancer_fuel_food_carcinogens.html
(NaturalNews) Cancer is not a disease, but rather a disorder of the cells, where they mutate and multiply uncontrollably. That’s why cancer is not contagious, except for HPV, because that’s a virus, not a cell disorder.

It doesn’t matter whether you believe in “conspiracies” or not, because the fact is that American conventional food has been engineered and processed to cause cancer, and in many more ways than one. There is a definitive reason why one out of every three Americans get cancer, when next to nobody in America got cancer 100 years ago.

Have you started wondering why the “search for the cure” is all one big scam? Sure, you wish that your donations were helping, but they’re not. The pink ribbons are just little mini-posters that represent Ponzi schemes invented by billionaires who wanted to double and triple their wealth. Want to prevent and cure cancer? Stop consuming chemicals, and while you’re at it, tell your friends, family, neighbors and coworkers what you’re doing. Yes, it is that simple. Sorry about all that money you wasted walking with “Komen.”

Cancer is a ‘fire’ that needs fuel to burn

Consider a metaphor for a moment here. Imagine cancer starting out like a small brush fire in a dry field next to a forest on a sunny day with very little wind blowing. That fire needs fuel to continue and to grow. It will use the drier brush to burn, and if the wind picks up, it will spread faster. If you go over to the fire and snuff out a small part of it, it will just continue to grow anyway (compare to surgery here for tumors). The ultimate fuel for the cancer is the consumption of chemicals, so if you throw gasoline, oil or even alcohol on it, it grows quite quickly (think of GMOs, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners and processed sugar here). The simple solution is to remove the fuel the fire needs to burn, and then the small brush fire simply fizzles out, never becomes a forest fire, and there’s no need to call in the fire department for trucks and planes to apply “emergency aid” (think of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy). Kill the fuel and you kill the cancer. Period.

You see, all cancer begins in the cells, and cells produce signals to control how often they divide. Chemicals in foods, beverages, vaccines, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy create faulty signals and destroy others, enabling the cells to multiply exponentially, and that begins the formation of a lump called a tumor. Folks, that’s where cancer starts – in the primary tumor. That’s the brush fire. If a surgeon goes in and cuts out a small portion of that “brush fire,” what happens when you keep on pouring fuel around the rest? You see what’s happening? The cancer industrial complex knows this.

When the genes of cells are changed by chemicals, it’s called gene mutation. This is when the cell genes have been damaged, lost or copied. There must be several of these mutations, up to half a dozen, before a normal cell turns into a cancer cell. You could have too many proteins triggering your cells to divide too often, or you could have abnormal proteins and mutated genes telling your cells not to divide. That is why it is so dangerous to consume genetically modified organisms in food. Scientists have woven toxic plant and insect genes into crops to kill insects, worms, animals and yes, people.

So, without further ado, here are the top seven “fuels” that feed the cancer “fire” and mutate more cells:

1. Fluoridated municipal tap water

2. Genetically modified food – (laced with pro-cancer herbicides)

3. Artificial sweeteners – namely aspartame, sucralose and sorbitol

4. Vaccines and the yearly flu shot – often contain mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and MSG

5. Pharmaceutical medications

6. OTC (over-the-counter) medications for colds, allergies, headaches and fever – often contain heavy metal toxins, artificial sweeteners and toxic industrial-based food dyes

7. Chemotherapy and radiation

Stop pouring gasoline on the cancer fire

What happens when someone goes to the hospital for surgery, chemotherapy or diagnostic testing? They are trapped under a roof where the only food served is GMO, processed, cancer-causing trash. Those same patients are exposed to superbugs – bacteria that are now immune to antibiotics and conventional medicine. Those same patients are given chemical-based pharmaceuticals for pain, infection and symptom cover-up, including toxic flu shots, vaccines, opioid-based drugs and everything else you can imagine that kills immunity and mutates cells. In effect, hospitals directly cause cancer. The food is a processed nightmare, and hospitals even serve artificial sweeteners that are proven to be carcinogenic. Go figure.

Your body is a machine, capable of healing itself with the right medicine – nature’s medicine. That means eating clean. Switch now to organic food, spring water and herbal remedies, and visit a naturopathic physician who understands that the right food is medicine that destroys cancer.

Sources for this article include

NaturalNews.com

CancerTutor.com

CancerResearchUK.org

TruthWiki.org

TOP

Are Your Medications Safe?

By Charles Seife 09February2015 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.single.html

Agents of the Food and Drug Administration know better than anyone else just how bad scientific misbehavior can get. Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wild video. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—each of which catches a medical researcher in an unguarded moment, succumbing to the temptation to do things he knows he really shouldn’t be doing. Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.

That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.

Much of my research has to do with follies, foibles, and fraud in science, and I knew that the FDA wasn’t exactly bending over backward to correct the scientific record when its inspectors found problems during clinical trials. So as part of my investigative reporting class at New York University, my students and I set out to find out just how bad the problem was—and how much important information the FDA was keeping under wraps.

The silence is unbroken even when the FDA itself seems shocked at the degree of fraud and misconduct.

We didn’t have to search very hard to find FDA burying evidence of research misconduct. Just look at any document related to an FDA inspection. As part of the new drug application process, or, more rarely, when the agency gets a tipoff of wrongdoing, the FDA sends a bunch of inspectors out to clinical sites to make sure that everything is done by the book. When there are problems, the FDA generates a lot of paperwork—what are called form 483s, Establishment Inspection Reports, and in the worst cases, what are known as Warning Letters. If you manage to get your hands on these documents, you’ll see that, most of the time, key portions are redacted: information that describes what drug the researcher was studying, the name of the study, and precisely how the misconduct affected the quality of the data are all blacked out. These redactions make it all but impossible to figure out which study is tainted. My students and I looked at FDA documents relating to roughly 600 clinical trials in which one of the researchers running the trial failed an FDA inspection. In only roughly 100 cases were we able to figure out which study, which drug, and which pharmaceutical company were involved. (We cracked a bunch of the redactions by cross-referencing the documents with clinical trials data, checking various other databases, and using carefully crafted Google searches.) For the other 500, the FDA was successfully able to shield the drugmaker (and the study sponsor) from public exposure.

It’s not just the public that’s in the dark. It’s researchers, too. And your doctor. As I describe in the current issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, my students and I were able to track down some 78 scientific publications resulting from a tainted study—a clinical trial in which FDA inspectors found significant problems with the conduct of the trial, up to and including fraud. In only three cases did we find any hint in the peer-reviewed literature of problems found by the FDA inspection. The other publications were not retracted, corrected, or highlighted in any way. In other words, the FDA knows about dozens of scientific papers floating about whose data are questionable—and has said nothing, leaving physicians and medical researchers completely unaware. The silence is unbroken even when the FDA itself seems shocked at the degree of fraud and misconduct in a clinical trial.

Such was the case with the so-called RECORD 4 study. RECORD 4 was one of four large clinical trials that involved thousands of patients who were recruited at scores of clinical sites in more than a dozen countries around the world. The trial was used as evidence that a new anti-blood-clotting agent, rivaroxaban, was safe and effective. The FDA inspected or had access to external audits of 16 of the RECORD 4 sites. The trial was a fiasco. At Dr. Craig Loucks’ site in Colorado, the FDA found falsified data. At Dr. Ricardo Esquivel’s site in Mexico, there was “systematic discarding of medical records” that made it impossible to tell whether the study drug was given to the patients. At half of the sites that drew FDA scrutiny—eight out of 16—there was misconduct, fraud, fishy behavior, or other practices so objectionable that the data had to be thrown out. The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire study to be “unreliable.” Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes. This means that physicians around the world are basing life-and-death medical decisions on a study that the FDA knows is simply not credible.

It’s not just one study, either. The FDA found major problems with sites involved in the other three clinical trials that were used to demonstrate rivaroxaban’s safety and effectiveness. RECORD 2, for example, was nearly as awful as RECORD 4: Four out of 10 sites that the FDA inspected showed evidence of misconduct, or other issues grave enough to render the site’s data worthless—including clear evidence of data falsification at one site. In aggregate, these problems raise serious doubts about the quality of all four key rivaroxaban studies—and, by extension, doubts about how seriously we should take the claim that rivaroxaban is safe and effective. The FDA is keeping mum, even as wrongful-death lawsuits begin to multiply.

The FDA’s failure to notify the public is not merely a sin of omission. In March 2009, the FDA convened a committee of outside scientific experts to mull the “robustness and meaningfulness” of the results from the four rivaroxaban trials, RECORDs 1, 2, 3, and 4. (The agency regularly calls in advisers to get advice, or, more cynically, to get cover, about a decision the agency has to make.) When the agency briefed the committee, it was (to put it mildly) coy about the problems it was finding. It said only that inspectors had found “significant issues” at two clinical sites involved in the RECORD 4 study—and that data from one of them was included in the analysis. Inspections were still ongoing, so it’s not easy to say precisely what the agency knew at that point, but it’s clear that the FDA wasn’t admitting to everything it knew. A bunch of inspections had been completed a month prior to the meeting, and we know for certain that the agency was fully aware of major issues beyond the two it revealed to the advisory committee. In a memo dated three days before the advisory committee meeting convened, the FDA detailed “falsification of data by a subinvestigator” at a RECORD 2 site. The advisory committee was not told.

By itself, this might seem like a miscommunication or an oversight, but the FDA has a history of not notifying the public about the misconduct it finds. About a decade ago, the agency got into trouble over a newly approved antibiotic, Ketek. Inspectors had found extensive problems (including fraud) affecting key clinical trials of the drug. Yet the agency did its best to hide the problems from even its most trusted advisers. As David Ross, the FDA official in charge of reviewing Ketek’s safety, put it, “In January 2003, over reviewers’ protests, FDA managers hid the evidence of fraud and misconduct from the advisory committee, which was fooled into voting for approval.” However, when the reports of misconduct at one clinical site began appearing in the press—along with stories of liver damage and blurred vision associated with the new drug—Congress stepped in, demanding information from the agency about the fraud.

But even the Senate couldn’t wring key information about the misconduct out of the FDA. “Every excuse under the sun has been used to create roadblocks,” complained an indignant Sen. Charles Grassley, “even in the face of congressional subpoenas requesting information and access to FDA employees.” The head of the FDA, Andrew von Eschenbach, attempted to explain to Congress why the agency didn’t tell its advisory committee about the problems in the Ketek study: “After considering the fact that the investigation results were preliminary … FDA decided to hold the Advisory Committee meeting as planned …” without notifying the committee of the potential problems. But Rep. Bart Stupak quickly pointed to an email, which, he argued, contradicted von Eschenbach’s testimony. “So either you are not being forthright with us, when I believe you are, but whoever is doing your work is trying to  lead this committee down the wrong path.” And the correct path showed that site after site involved in study 3014, as well as other key Ketek studies, were tainted as well.

In the decade since the Ketek affair, it’s hard to see any change in behavior by the agency. On occasion, the FDA has even actively approved and promoted statements about drugs that, according to its own inspectors, are based upon falsehoods. At the end of 2011, the FDA learned that an audit of a Chinese site involved in a key clinical trial of a different anti-clotting agent, apixaban, had turned up evidence of fraud: Personnel had apparently been fiddling with patient records. Worse yet, the fraud appeared to invalidate one key finding of the study. Just three months earlier, the researchers running the trial proudly announced in the New England Journal of Medicine that there was a “significant reduction in mortality” among patients who took apixaban compared with those who took the old standby, warfarin. Alas, the moment you exclude the data from the Chinese fraud site, as per standard FDA procedure, that statement went out the window. Yet look at the label for apixaban—the one approved by the FDA after the fraud was discovered—and you read that “treatment resulted in a significantly lower rate of all-cause death … than did treatment with warfarin,” backed up by the data set with the Chinese site included. In other words, the label is carrying a claim that the FDA knows is based upon fraud. In a written response to my questions on this subject, the FDA stated that, “The FDA extended the drug’s review period to address the concerns. However, the review team did conclude concluded [sic] that the data at that site and other sites in China did reflect meaningful clinical information; that was not what was considered unreliable.”

Again, this isn’t an isolated incident. I had previously encountered bogus data on FDA-approved labels when a colleague and I were looking into a massive case of scientific misconduct —a research firm named Cetero had been caught faking data from more than 1,400 drug trials. That suddenly worthless data had been used to establish the safety or effectiveness of roughly 100 drugs, mostly generics, that were being sold in the United States. But even after the agency exposed the problem, we found fraud-tainted data on FDA-approved drug labels. (The FDA still maintains its silence about the Cetero affair. To this day, the agency refuses to release the names of the 100-odd drugs whose approval data were undermined by fraud.)

And the FDA covers up drug-related misconduct in other, more subtle ways, too. For example, the agency publishes the canonical listing of generic drugs in the United States, known as the “Orange Book.” Prescription drugs in this book are often given what’s called a “therapeutic equivalence code.” This code is a two-letter designation that signals the quality of the scientific evidence that a generic is “bioequivalent” to the name-brand drug. The code “AB,” for example, tells pharmacists and physicians that there are solid scientific studies proving that bioequivalence. Another code, “BX,” signals that there isn’t sufficient data to prove the generic is bioequivalent to the name brand.

When the Cetero misconduct was uncovered, key bioequivalence studies for scores of generic drugs turned out to be worthless. By rights, some of those drugs should have had their designation downgraded from AB to BX. But even though the FDA updates the Orange Book monthly, there was no rash of drugs losing their AB rating in the months after the Cetero affair broke. In the year and a half after the Cetero fraud was first announced, I was able to identify a grand total of four generic drugs (in various dosages) that were downgraded to BX, none of which appeared to be linked to the Cetero problem. On the other hand, the one prescription generic drug that I knew for sure had been hit hard by the Cetero fraud—both key studies supporting its bioequivalence to the name brand were declared worthless—had no change in its designation. The FDA apparently allowed the drug to keep its AB badge for months without any valid data backing the drug’s bioequivalence. When asked, point blank, whether the agency had downgraded the bioequivalence code of any products due to the Cetero affair, officials promptly dodged the question. A written statement issued by the agency’s press office in response to my queries noted that the FDA requested additional data from the companies whose drugs were implicated in the Cetero affair and that “If the data were not provided within 6 months or the data provided did not support a finding of bioequivalence, FDA said it would consider changing the generic product’s therapeutic equivalence rating in the Orange Book from AB to BX.” Not a word about a single bioequivalence rating actually being changed.
Why does the FDA stay silent about fraud and misconduct in scientific studies of medicine?

This, too, is a pattern of behavior rather than a one-off. In the past few weeks, another major Cetero-type case began to emerge—this time, having to do with GVK Biosciences, a firm in Hyderabad, India. The European Medicines Agency, the European equivalent of the FDA, examined more than 1,000 drugs in various dosages affected by GVK’s “data manipulations” and has suggested pulling 700 off the market. You can find the full list on the EMA website; to their credit, the Europeans are being relatively transparent as the crisis develops. Not so much on this side of the pond, alas. So far from the FDA, we’ve heard precious little, even though there are drugs on the U.S. market that rely entirely on GVK’s tests. In a written statement, the FDA admitted that there were some 40-odd drugs whose approval depended upon GVK-run studies. Which ones? The agency is keeping mum, as it did with Cetero and with other similar cases. However, the agency assures us that it inspected GVK’s facility and found nothing to be concerned about; if the situation changes, “FDA will take swift and appropriate action to ensure that the drug products available to American consumers are safe and effective.”

Why does the FDA stay silent about fraud and misconduct in scientific studies of pharmaceuticals? Why would the agency allow claims that have been undermined by fraud to appear on drug labels? And why on earth would it throw up roadblocks to prevent the public, the medical community, its advisory panels, and even Congress from finding out about the extent of medical misconduct? The answers the FDA gives are fascinating—they show how an agency full of well-meaning people can do intellectual backflips to try to justify secrecy.

The most common excuse the agency gives is that exposing the details about scientific wrongdoing—naming the trials that were undermined by research misconduct, or revealing which drugs’ approvals relied upon tainted data—would compromise “confidential commercial information” that would hurt drug companies if revealed. This claim falls apart under scrutiny. The courts have ruled that when information is provided by companies involuntarily, such as the information that an FDA inspector finds, “commercial confidential information” refers to proprietary material that causes substantial, specific harm when it falls into the hands of a competitor. It doesn’t cover embarrassing peccadilloes—or misconduct that might cause bad publicity when word gets out.

Another excuse I’ve heard from the FDA is that it doesn’t want to confuse the public by telling us about problems, especially when, in the FDA’s judgment, the misconduct doesn’t pose an immediate risk to public health. For example, when my colleague and I asked the director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research why the agency wouldn’t name the drugs affected by the Cetero fraud, she told us that the matter “did not rise to the level where the public should be notified. We felt it would result in misunderstanding and inappropriate actions.” But even the most paternalistic philosophy of public health can’t explain why the FDA would allow drug companies to put data on its labels that the agency knows are worthless, or to fail to flag bioequivalence problems in a publication that is specifically designed for the purpose of flagging those very problems.

The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception. And despite being called out numerous times over the years for its bad behavior, including from some very pissed-off members of Congress, the agency is stubbornly resistant to change. It’s a sign that the FDA is deeply captured, drawn firmly into the orbit of the pharmaceutical industry that it’s supposed to regulate. We can no longer hope that the situation will get better without firm action from the legislature.

The FDA wants you to take it on faith that its officials have the public’s best interest at heart. Justification through faith alone might be just fine as a religious doctrine, but it’s not a good foundation for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our drugs. After all, the whole point of science-based medicine is to keep us from having to make a leap of faith every time we swallow a pill.

About the Author
Charles Seife is a journalism professor at New York University. His most recent books are Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking and Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception.

comments:

As usual, it’s all about protecting corporate profits. America’s new religion.

The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception. And despite being called out numerous times over the years for its bad behavior, including from some very pissed-off members of Congress, the agency is stubbornly resistant to change. It’s a sign that the FDA is deeply captured, drawn firmly into the orbit of the pharmaceutical industry that it’s supposed to regulate. We can no longer hope that the situation will get better without firm action from the legislature.

Who Determines if Food Additives are Safe? from NutritionFacts on Vimeo.

For links to all the cited sources, a written transcript, commentary from Dr. Greger, as well as discussion and Q&A about this video, go to: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/who-determines-if-food-additives-are-safe/

TOP

New York Attorney General Targets Supplements at Major Retailers

If You Can’t Trust WalMart – Who Can You Trust?

03February2015 http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/if-you-can%E2%80%99t-trust-walmart-%E2%80%93-who-can-you-trust#ixzz3R7k6TiTk

Not Target, not Walgreen, and not even GNC – according to the New York Attorney General’s office, which just issued a ‘cease and desist’ letter to all four major purveyors of nutritional supplements. According to a story in yesterday’s NY Times on-line health blog, tests showed that four out of five of the companies’ popular products did not contain the key ingredients listed on their labels. What they did contain was plenty of fillers – some of which were unlisted and could be harmful to consumers’ health.

Take the case of Ginseng. Walgreen’s brand, which is advertised as providing the consumer with greater endurance and vitality, contained only powered rice and garlic. Walmart’s ginseng biloba – looked upon as a memory enhancer – “contained little more than powdered radish, houseplants and wheat — despite a claim on the label that the product was wheat- and gluten-free.” Target and GNC scored no better in that they were missing the key listed ingredients but contained unlisted fillers that could trigger negative allergic reactions.

“If this data is accurate, then it is an unbelievably devastating indictment of the industry,” said Dr. Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and an expert on supplement safety. “We’re talking about products at mainstream retailers like Walmart and Walgreens that are expected to be the absolute highest quality.”

Walgreens promised to remove the products not only from their NY stores but all across the nation. Walmart was planning to ‘take appropriate action’ with their suppliers. The story did not mention Target and GNC’s reaction to the order.

“Mislabeling, contamination and false advertising are illegal,” said the NY State attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman. “They also pose unacceptable risks to New York families — especially those with allergies to hidden ingredients.” Schneiderman demanded that the companies stop selling these products and also explain the process by which they verify the accuracy of their suppliers’ claims.

Whether the supplement industry should fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA has been a contested issue. This latest incident may turn the tide in favor of the testing and review process required of pharmaceuticals. But just in case you were thinking the FDA was a safe place to invest your trust, keep in mind that its Deputy Commissioner for Food and Veterinary Medicine was formerly vice president for public policy at Monsanto Company. You may want to read about his work for Monsanto here: http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

So, what’s the answer? Caveat emptor is always a good guide to shopping. You can beware by staying current with the news, heightening your own intuitive discernment, and doing your best to get your nutritional needs met from the organic foods you prepare and consume.
Read the original source: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/if-you-can%E2%80%99t-trust-walmart-%E2%80%93-who-can-you-trust#ixzz3R7kcTRyx
TOP

Systemic Failure: “Doctors Prescribing Meds Based On Drug Company Kickbacks” Edition

  Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-09/systemic-failure-doctors-prescribing-meds-based-drug-company-kickbacks-edition

When the drug maker Genentech introduced a major product in 2006, it found itself in an awkward position: persuading eye doctors to start using its new more expensive drug instead of a popular cheaper version that the company already sold.

 

Ophthalmologists had been enthusiastically using the company’s cancer drug Avastin, which cost about $50 a dose, to treat a common eye disease in the elderly, wet macular degeneration. Then Genentech introduced Lucentis, a nearly equivalent drug that cost $2,000 a dose and was approved specifically to treat the disease.

Now, a new federal database shows that many of the doctors who were the top billers for Lucentis were also among the highest-paid consultants for Genentech, earning thousands of dollars to help promote the drug. The data raises questions about whether financial relationships between doctors and drug companies influence treatment decisions, even though physicians maintain they cannot be swayed.

Half of the 20 doctors who received the most money from Genentech to promote Lucentis in 2013 were among the highest users of the drug in 2012, billing for higher amounts of Lucentis than 75 percent of their peers. The figures were compiled from two federal databases that covered different periods, and it is not known whether or how much Genentech paid the doctors in 2012.

 

– From the New York Times article: Paid to Promote Eye Drug, and Prescribing It Widely

The topic at the heart of the following post is not a commonly discussed one here at Liberty Blitzkrieg. It has to do with big corporate money influencing and corrupting the medical profession. The reason I chose to highlight this particular article, is because it perfectly puts into focus two of the most important macro cancers plaguing these United States today: A complete loss of ethics, and the dangers of over-centralization/corporatization.

Let’s start with ethics. If there’s one thing I want readers to take away from reading this site, it’s an understanding that the banker bailout following the 2008 financial crisis was one of the most destructive events to happen within the U.S. during my entire lifetime. The other was the government and public’s reaction to the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist attacks turned most of the American public into groveling cowards, while the bailouts taught every criminal and person of questionable moral character that systemic crimes are encouraged and rewarded, while petty crimes will be punished to the full extent of the law.

In other words, if your criminality is compatible with and supportive of the status quo power of large corporations and government bureaucrats, it will be permitted to flourish without punishment. On the other hand, if you commit even the slightest infraction against anyone or anything even marginally related to the status quo (police, banks, government bureaucrats, corporate profits, etc) you will likely end up dead or in jail.

While criminals will often be attracted to positions of power in order to conceal and protect their schemes, criminal tendencies and a lack of ethics exists throughout all socio-economic layers of a society. Such a mindset is particularly dangerous in certain professions, which is likely why the hippocratic oath came into prevalence to begin with. Here’s a brief description from MedicineNet:

Hippocratic Oath: One of the oldest binding documents in history, the Oath written by Hippocrates is still held sacred by physicians: to treat the ill to the best of one’s ability, to preserve a patient’s privacy, to teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, and so on.

Basically, the idea is to do no harm. While the medical industry/profession hasn’t been a key theme of mine, I’ve covered some disturbing trends and developments previously. See:

Americans are Now Traveling Overseas for Surgery

Fraud Alert: FDA Allowed Drugs with Fraudulent Testing to Remain on the Market

Problems in the Education System? Solution: Give Toddlers Powerful Drugs

The second main problem I want to highlight, are the dangers of centralization and corporatization and how these things provide a fertile environment for systemic criminality.

The overwhelming majority of people who become doctors do so with good intentions. You don’t enter medicine to make as much money as possible, particularly not these days. The few friends I have who became M.D.’s are good people with strong ethics. This is where centralization and corporatization come into play.

There is no doubt that the historically personal and intimate relationship between patients and doctors has been in a long-term decline in the U.S. My contention is that a lot of this has to do with the centralization and corporatization of the industry. In this day and age, most of us merely owe a copay and some deductible when we go in for treatment, but beyond that, one’s insurance company or the government is responsible. Thus, when a doctor decides to prescribe a much more expensive medicine versus a cheaper alternative, in that person’s mind he or she isn’t directly harming the patient. The insurance company or the government pays for it, so such a decision becomes much more ethically justifiable in the doctor’s mind.

Of course, taxpayers and society as a whole ends up footing the bill, but it is this disconnect between patient and doctor that makes it an easier choice. That, and the overall decline in societal ethics ever since the no strings attached banker bailouts told everyone that systemic crime pays.

The people who blew up the global economy are doing better than ever, as well as better than everyone else. What sort of message do you think that sends? What sort of culture does it promote? You’re seeing the answers to those questions all around you.

Now from the New York Times:

When the drug maker Genentech introduced a major product in 2006, it found itself in an awkward position: persuading eye doctors to start using its new more expensive drug instead of a popular cheaper version that the company already sold.

 

Ophthalmologists had been enthusiastically using the company’s cancer drug Avastin, which cost about $50 a dose, to treat a common eye disease in the elderly, wet macular degeneration. Then Genentech introduced Lucentis, a nearly equivalent drug that cost $2,000 a dose and was approved specifically to treat the disease.

Use of Lucentis took off, and it has become one of Medicare’s most expensive treatments — costing the federal government about $1 billion a year — even though several studies have concluded Lucentis has no significant advantage over its cheaper alternative.

Now, a new federal database shows that many of the doctors who were the top billers for Lucentis were also among the highest-paid consultants for Genentech, earning thousands of dollars to help promote the drug. The data raises questions about whether financial relationships between doctors and drug companies influence treatment decisions, even though physicians maintain they cannot be swayed.

Half of the 20 doctors who received the most money from Genentech to promote Lucentis in 2013 were among the highest users of the drug in 2012, billing for higher amounts of Lucentis than 75 percent of their peers. The figures were compiled from two federal databases that covered different periods, and it is not known whether or how much Genentech paid the doctors in 2012.

The 20 doctors earned $8,500 to $37,000 over five months in 2013, payments that included consulting and speaking fees as well as travel expenses and meals. Genentech says it has an annual cap of $50,000 a doctor for speaking fees.

Sure they have an annual cap of $50,000 per doctor, but this is just one company. If a doctor can earn that amount from 2 or 3 companies, that quickly adds up to real money.

Since Lucentis was approved in 2006, several studies have shown that the drugs are nearly equivalent, including a large government-sponsored clinical trial involving 1,200 patients that was completed in 2011. Avastin is still the most popular choice of doctors: About half of patients who were treated for wet macular degeneration received Avastin, with Lucentis and Eylea sharing the rest of the market.

Genentech has aggressively promoted Lucentis to doctors to encourage them to switch, even paying rebates to those who use large amounts of Lucentis, a practice that critics have described as improper but the company says is legal. For Genentech, the stakes are high. Lucentis is one of its top products, generating $1.3 billion in sales in the first nine months of this year, an increase of 5 percent over that period last year.

Even with widespread Avastin use, injecting Lucentis remains one of Medicare’s costliest procedures. In 2010, Medicare paid $1 billion to treat macular degeneration patients with Lucentis, while it spent $27 million for such patients treated with Avastin, according to a 2012 study from the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Here’s the problem I alluded to earlier. When a doctor can say to him or herself “who cares, Medicare pays for it,” you make a questionable ethical decision much easier to justify.

In 2011, the office determined that if all patients being treated with Lucentis were instead given Avastin, the federal government would have saved about $1.4 billion.

A review released this year of nine clinical trials showed that Avastin and Lucentis had similar safety profiles and that Avastin did not appear to increase deaths or serious side effects. The review was conducted by the nonprofit Cochrane Collaboration.

Still, several doctors, including those who speak on behalf of Lucentis and those who do not, said the choice between Avastin and Lucentis was not simply a matter of cost.

For example, Lucentis is specially prepared to be injected into the eye, but Avastin must be divided into smaller doses by outside compounding pharmacies, which can lead to contamination in rare cases. In 2011, more than a dozen people developed severe eye infections, and some were blinded, after they received injections of contaminated Avastin.

You’d think Genentech could figure out a way to safely divide Avastin into smaller doses, wouldn’t you?

Some doctors say there is no good reason to use Lucentis more frequently than Avastin.

“They keep talking about evidence-based medicine, and they keep pretending the corporate-sponsored research is nonbiased,” said J. Gregory Rosenthal, a retina specialist in Toledo who has become an outspoken critic of Lucentis and Eylea. “The evidence says that Avastin has at least the clinical efficacy of Lucentis and is perhaps safer.”

As above, so below.

Corruption and lack of ethics is now endemic to American life and the economy.

TOP

The US Healthcare System: Most Expensive Yet Worst In The Developed World

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world

One month ago we showed that when it comes to the cost of basic (and not so basic) health insurance, the US is by far the most expensive country in the world and certainly among its “wealthy-nation”peers (in a world in which indebtedness is somehow equivalent to wealth), which in the context of the irreversible socialization of American healthcare, was in line with expectations.

Cost of Healthcare_1_0

It would be logical then to think that as a result of this premium – the biggest in the world – the quality of the healthcare offered in the US among the best, if not the best, in the world. Unfortunately, that would be wrong and, in fact, the reality is the complete opposite: as a recent study by the Commonweath Fund, looking at how the US healthcare system compares internationally, finds, “the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.” In other words: most expensive, yet worst in the developed world.

healthcare ranking 2_0

From the report:

The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland (Exhibit ES-1).

healthcare ranking 1_0

Expanding from the seven countries included in 2010, the 2014 edition includes data from 11 countries. It incorporates patients’ and physicians’ survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care. It includes information from the most recent three Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and primary care physicians about medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems (2011–2013). It also includes information on health care outcomes featured in The Commonwealth Fund’s most recent (2011) national health system scorecard, and from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Affordable Care Act is increasing the number of Americans with coverage and improving access to care, though the data in this report are from years prior to the full implementation of the law. Thus, it is not surprising that the U.S. underperforms on measures of access and equity between populations with above- average and below-average incomes.

The U.S. also ranks behind most countries on many measures of health outcomes, quality, and efficiency. U.S. physicians face particular difficulties receiving timely information, coordinating care, and dealing with administrative hassles. Other countries have led in the adoption of modern health information systems, but U.S. physicians and hospitals are catching up as they respond to significant financial incentives to adopt and make meaningful use of health information technology systems. Additional provisions in the Affordable Care Act will further encourage the efficient organization and delivery of health care, as well as investment in important preventive and population health measures.

For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other 10 countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States. These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation’s substantial investment in health.

Major Findings

  • Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
  • Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
  • Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
  • Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
  • Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Summary

The U.S. ranks last of 11 nations overall. Findings in this report confirm many of those in the earlier four editions of Mirror, Mirror, with the U.S. still ranking last on indicators of efficiency, equity, and outcomes. The U.K. continues to demonstrate strong performance and ranked first overall, though lagging notably on health outcomes. Switzerland, which was included for the first time in this edition, ranked second overall. In the subcategories, the U.S. ranks higher on preventive care, and is strong on waiting times for specialist care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from primary care physicians. Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.

Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home. Under the Affordable Care Act, low- to moderate-income families are now eligible for financial assistance in obtaining coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care.

Many U.S. hospitals and health systems are dedicated to improving the process of care to achieve better safety and quality, but the U.S. can also learn from innovations in other countries—including public reporting of quality data, payment systems that reward high-quality care, and a team approach to management of chronic conditions. Based on these patient and physician reports, and with the enactment of health reform, the United States should be able to make significant strides in improving the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system in coming years.

* * *

It should, although if the government is in charge of it, as it now appears to be, it won’t.

Comments:

Stuck on Zero 06/22/2014

Here in Southern California wait times for specialists can easily exceed 6 – 9 months.  Allergists, 9 months, surgeons, 6 months.  My friends wife needs knee surgery and she is on a 5 month wait list.  In the meantime she is confined to a wheel chair.  The second biggest killer in the United States is now the medical system: MRSA, hospital caused infections, errors, and mis-use of prescription drugs top the list.  U.S. doctors prescribe more medicine than all doctors in the rest of the world and we’re paying the price.

I helped develop digital x-ray systems that we exported all over the world.  We sold them for $180K in the U.S. and $60K in third world countries. The price difference was due to FDA approval.  The third world countries get better, more advanced equipment faster and cheaper.  Southern California hospitals very often use thirty year old, high-dose equipment because they can’t afford the more modern systems.

TheFourthStooge-ing  06/22/2014

The study on which the article is based completely misses the point.

The purpose of the healthcare system in the US is to rake in as much money as possible via skimming operations of ever increasing complexity. The only connection it has with actual health is that it must facilitate the bare minimum level of treatment required to maintain the thin veneer of “care” that keeps enough people from seeing through the scam.

When viewed in this context, the US healthcare system is the best in the world.

AdvancingTime  06/22/2014

Healthcare is ridiculously expensive because many people have convinced themselves of  three things: The answers for good health outcomes rest with pills and procedures rather than good diet and exercise. Death at late stages of life is some strange, recent development in human history which justifies and necessitates extreme, exorbitant payouts to delay it for every possible last second.  And last but not least, thinking that mixing all the myriad of “health care” transactions that result from the just mentioned concepts with health insurance as originally conceived to protect a person from unforeseeable, catastrophic events like an accident is a good idea. Just because we can does not mean we should, healthcare is like a tape worm ever ready and always wanting to grow larger. More on wht healthcare is so expensive in the article below.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/05/healthcare-going-forward.html

TOP

How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia

Academia hoaxed by fake scientific papers auto-generated by gobbledygook text generators

March 27, 2014 by: PF Louis
(NaturalNews) Natural News has exposed dirty dealings with Big Pharma, the FDA and medical journals who publish bogus study reports for years. Bogus study reports included ghost-written papers signed by credentialed physicians and paid for by the drug companies. They also included papers based only on data from trials considered favorable, while data from trials with adverse reactions were withheld.

The first woman editor-in-chief for the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, MD, resigned from her position at the prestigious journal upon realizing that she couldn’t trust journal submissions anymore due to various corrupt, profit-motivated influences within Big Pharma and conflicts of interest between Big Pharma and the FDA.

She went on a crusade from there with her best-selling book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Despite more sophistication for peddling drugs and stomping on non-pharmaceutical solutions or anything critical of pharmaceutical interventions, what’s going on now is basically not so different than how medical journals, the American Medical Association and Big Pharma have been colluding for decades. There’s just more of it.

Bring on the gobbledygook text generators

In 2005, three MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) grad students decided to test their perception of journal and scientific publishing integrity by creating a software program named SCIgen that would create a wordy, convoluted paper to be accepted.

They had noticed that paper-publishing pressure was evident at scientific conferences, as well as from within a university’s need for notoriety and research funding, and the need for professors and researchers to publish or perish. They thought that their hoax would expose low acceptance standards of research papers.

Journal publishers that offer peer reviews are paid registration fees ranging from $2,500 to $5,000. The lower-end fees are with a few newer open-access journals such as PLOS ONE. “Open-access” means anyone can read them free of charge. The more “old guard” journals take a heftier registration fee and charge readers for viewing. Institutions that are interested have to pay per view or pay subscription fees.

So those three naughty nerds at MIT decided to see how much garbage in for garbage out these academic publishers would withstand for their fees. Their first computer-generated paper was called “Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy,” by Jeremy Stribling, Daniel Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn.

It was accepted by an international scientific conference that’s been spamming scientists for papers since 1995. That conference group took the paper down after the hoaxers informed them that it was bogus. You can download a PDF file of it here. Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification

More recently, a French researcher named Cyril Labbe revealed that 16 gobbledegook papers created by SCIgen had been used by German academic publisher Springer. More than 100 more fake SCIgen papers were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Both groups took steps to remove the papers.

Labbe has developed a program that understands SCIgen’s vocabulary, phrasing and how it generates convincing diagrams to locate bogus reports originating from that software. He tested SCIgen to create a fake researcher, Ike Antkare, who became the 21st most highly cited scientist in Google Scholar’s database in 2010 based only on SCIgen papers.

“This ought to be a shock to people,” Krohn, one of the MIT original three hoaxers said. “There’s this whole academic underground where everyone seems to benefit, but they are wasting time and money and adding nothing to science. The institutions are being ripped off, because they pay publishers huge subscriptions for this stuff.”

Krohn actually expects an arms race of computer programs to generate better, more convincing papers and programs similar to what Labbe developed to counter the fakes.

Sources for this article included:

http://www.theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com

http://www.nature.com

http://www.ibtimes.com

http://www.slate.com
TOP

CDC’s vaccination schedule inevitably leads to autoimmune diseases

by November 7th, 2013 Updated 11/11/2013 Natural Society

Several epidemiological surveys show vaccinated children suffer from poorer chronic health more than unvaccinated kids, but it means little to vaccine pushers and advocates. Well, here is another study which shows how over-stimulating the immune system (through vaccines) inevitably leads to autoimmune diseases.

The Japanese Study Summarized

Click to download PDF fileHere’s the Kobe University study’s conclusion: journal.pone. autoimmune

“Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system’s self-organize criticality.” (Emphasis added.)

Ironically, the initial purpose of this independently funded study was to understand how autoimmune diseases develop. It was not originally intended as an effort to prove vaccination safety or danger.

The researchers even used mice that were bred to avoid autoimmune diseases. They were injected with solutions that contained antigens without toxic additives.

Antigens generate antibodies to protect against invading disease pathogens. Antibodies can turn against the host if they become overly and unnecessarily self generated, causing long term autoimmune diseases, such as asthma, food allergies, arthritis, MS, and a host of neurological disorders that plague us much more than infectious diseases.

A vaccination injects cultured vaccine antigens of weakened (attenuated) or dead viruses to create an immune response of antibodies to that antigen, supposedly for creating immunity to that particular disease.

Read: Study Detracting Vaccine-Autism Link Backfires

The researchers injected the mice repeatedly with the antigen Staphylococcus entertoxin B (SEB) with just enough time between each injection to recover from immediate antigen reactions. They wanted to ascertain the specific mechanics of how an immune system could turn on itself to create autoimmune diseases if it was over-stimulated.

Toxic adjuvants or preservatives normally used in vaccines were not part of the study. After seven injections, the mice recovered each time with their immune systems intact. But after the eighth injection, problems with key immunity cells began arising. Looks like “greening” vaccines is useless.

Damaged cells were observed microscopically and showed signs of early autoimmunity. Their immune systems had started to self generate antibodies for autoimmune reactions after repeated antigen inoculations.

As expected, this lab study summarized here has not received much if any public attention. The findings were echoed by others, including retired neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock. He expressed concern over the over-stimulation of young people’s immune systems with repeated antigen vaccinations, even without toxic additives. Here is the video interview.

Conclusion

This study should put to rest the notion that “greening” vaccines by removing or withholding vaccines’ normal toxic additives would make the childhood vaccination schedule of close to 40 vaccinations by 18 months of age more acceptable. It is also a direct challenge to the theory and practice of vaccinations.

With the  Click to download PDF fileCDC-Immunization-Schedule human infants and children are usually not given enough  “recovery time”, which was allowed for the study mice.

The very basis of creating immunity with even “greened” vaccinations is worse than false, it is actually very unhealthy.

Committees on Vaccination Found To Withhold Critical Data On Adverse Reactions From Both Parents and Health Practitioners

September 16, 2013 by DAVE MIHALOVIC From Prevent Disease.com
Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. That’s exactly the behavior exhibited by health authorities for the last 30 years. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.
commitee_vaccines-pd

Vancouver scientist Chris Shaw who is on faculty at the University of British Columbia the Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience, and his colleague Lucija Tomljenovic have recently published a carefully parsed and thoroughly peer reviewed paper on vaccine safety.
Despite the cautious and professional tone of the paper, and despite the authors’ clear statement that their findings are not in themselves decisive, only pointing to the need for more extensive research into vaccine safety, the paper, published in November 2011 in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry which describes correlations and possible causal links between increased exposure to aluminum salts used as adjuvants in vaccines and increased levels of neurological trouble in exposed populations, seems to inflame angry and punitive responses in some quarters.

Tomljenovic provided evidence to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not rest on solid scientific evidence.

As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) but also, their own Code of Practice.

The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”, and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions Minutes 1986-1992.

The documents reveal that vaccinations don’t work, and that they cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They also indicate scientific fraud, that government ‘experts’ are working to conceal information. The 45 page paper was published in 2011 and presented at the BSEM scientific conference organised by Dr David Freed.

They resolved to publish the proceedings online, and Dr. Freed worked with the speakers to put papers into an agreed and acceptable format. The next day he suddenly died. What follows are the last words that he wrote. He speaks from the heart about science, about corruption in high places, about the ethics of patient care, and above all about truth.

Assertions

In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;

4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;

5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;

6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;

7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;

We dedicate these proceedings to David Freed. We have lost a wise man and a friend.

The issue of vaccination and its risks arouse strong emotions, not least of fear – fear of public attack for speaking out, for one. These are the conference presentations that we are permitted to publish. Several booked speakers withdrew, for various reasons, so are not posted. Some speakers were unable to attend, but were keen for their papers to be included in the proceedings; they are posted here.

EDITORIAL


1. The Health Hazards Of Disease Prevention-html

1. The Health Hazards Of Disease Prevention-pdf

Dr David Freed

It seems to me that the ethical background to vaccination – giving potentially harmful medications to healthy individuals in the hope of keeping them that way – has never been clearly addressed… Who gave us the right (a) to invade the bodies of healthy people who never asked us to, and (b) to do it not only without explanation of the possible risks, but in some countries even applying coercive pressures, denying the existence of the risks, and suppressing relevant information?

 

PRESENTATIONS


2. Vaccines, Atopy & allergy: Problems & Solutions

Dr Richard Halvorsen

Time and time again I have heard from parents how they have been patronised, bullied and accused of not doing the best for their children, when they have simply questioned the necessity of the large number of vaccines that are being given to their children at such an early age…. The risk of severe eczema (atopic dermatitis) in a child who has caught chickenpox under eight years of age is 4% of that of a child who has not contracted the illness.

3. The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?

Lucija Tomljenovic

Deliberately concealing information from parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.

4. Labels of Convenience: Are Labels of Child Abuse being used to cover up Vaccine Damage?

Christina England

Just over ten years ago my family became one of the families in the child abuse statistics. In 1999, I was accused of suffering from Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy. In my case many of the reports and evidence ascertaining to my children were not read and many mistakes were made. I adopted both of my children and was accused of making up and causing the disabilities that they both had before I ever met them. This would not have happened if reports had been read in full.

5. Global Concerns about HPV Vaccines

Leslie Carol Botha and Freda Birrell

We believe in science-based medicine. Our primary goal is to provide the information necessary for you to make informed decisions regarding your health and well-being. We also provide referrals to helpful resources for those unfortunate enough to have experienced vaccine-related injuries.

6. The Autism Epidemic & The Pill

Dr Ellen CG Grant

The use of hormonal contraceptives rose steeply in the 1970s, becoming nearly universal; the incidence of autism and ASD rose steeply in the 1980s. Exogenous hormones have been shown to be genotoxic in their own right, but they are also associated with accumulation of DNA-damaging toxins, and ASD subjects have decreased detoxifying ability.

 

POSTER PRESENTATIONS


The pathogenesis of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in the development of cervical cancer: are HPV vaccines a safe and effective management strategy?

Judy Wilyman

The decision to use an HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer was based upon circumstantial evidence: assumptions. HPV vaccines have been promoted to women on selective information. This vaccine is an HPV vaccine not a cervical cancer vaccine. There is inconclusive evidence it will reduce any cervical cancer and the long -term risks of using this vaccine have not been determined.

Animal Vaccination Concerns: Vaccine-Associated Auto-Immune And Other Diseases

Download: fox-revised

Michael W. Fox

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, transferrin, cardiolipin and collagen. Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in genetically susceptible patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The widespread use of multiple modified live and new generation genetically engineered vaccines in food animals raised under cruel, stressful and disease-promoting intensive ‘factory’ farm conditions that have become epicenters for global zoonoses and food-born illness, are also examined.

The UK Health Select Committee Report ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry’ published April 2005

Doris M Jones MSc

For almost a century patients have taken prescribed drugs on medical advice and on trust, believing them to be based on sound and reliable science and playing a vital part in healing processes. Now huge question marks hang over many if not all these assumptions…

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL


Summary of vaccine ingredients according to the current US and UK vaccination schedules

Download: vax-ingredients-us-uk

Lucija Tomljenovic

‘ASIA’ – Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants

Download: shoenfeld-link

Yehuda Shoenfeld

Sources:
ecomed.org.uk
vancourier.com

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

TOP

Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism

Tuesday, October 01, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Mainstream doctors and media pundits are notorious for claiming that the vaccine-autism debate is over and that no legitimate scientific evidence exists to suggest even a possible link between vaccinations and autism spectrum disorders (ASD): case closed. But a thoroughly-researched report recently published by Arjun Walia over at Activist Post reveals that there are at least 22 published scientific studies that show a link between vaccines and autism and that there are many more out there with similar findings.

Much of the original controversy stems from Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study back in the late 1990s, which exposed gastrointestinal inflammation as an obvious side effect of vaccination with the combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Dr. Wakefield obviously struck a major nerve with his research, which was quickly torn apart by the establishment and maliciously paraded around as being fraudulent, even though his groundbreaking findings have repeatedly been validated and replicated by many other studies.

A 2002 study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences, for instance, observed a causal effect between the MMR vaccine and autism, particularly with regards to the measles portion of the vaccine. The researchers from Utah State University concluded that MMR is capable of inducing an abnormal measles infection in some children, which in turn can lead to neurological problems that fall under the umbrella of ASD.

Another study published in the journal Entropy in 2012 observed a strong correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism, except in this case aluminum was the culprit. According to an abstract of this study, vaccines that contain aluminum are particularly toxic to children, who end up later being diagnosed with ASD, as they have insufficient serum levels of both sulfate and glutathione. The aluminum found in some vaccines, in other words, appears to be a primary aggravator of ASD symptoms.

“Regardless of the MMR vaccine and autism debate, there are still a number of studies that link vaccines to a possible autism connection,” writes Walia. “[M]ultiple courts worldwide have ruled in favor of vaccines causing autism, brain damage and other complications that include the MMR vaccine,” he adds, noting that many other side effects besides autism have been observed in relation to vaccines.

Heavy metals, adjuvants, preservatives and other vaccine additives all linked to causing autism

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Walia’s extensive research on the subject is the fact that there appear to be multiple ingredients in vaccines responsible for triggering autism. Besides toxic metals like aluminum and mercury, vaccines also contain adjuvant materials, preservatives and other additives that have all been identified as culprits in the studies listed in his article. Realistically, each of these additives is most likely toxic both in isolation and in combination with the other additives, eliciting compounded toxicity depending on the mixture.

“Oxidative stress, brain inflammation and microgliosis have been much documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals,” admits one study out of Massachusetts General Hospital, which verified that autistic individuals possess a unique type of neuroinflammation in their brain tissue that points to vaccine damage.

Several of the studies listed in Walia’s report also pin thimerosal, a toxic mercury derivative that is still being added to multidose vials of flu vaccine, as a trigger in causing the types of brain damage linked to autism. One particular study out of the University of Texas Health Science Center found that for every 1,000 pounds of mercury released into the environment, there is a consequential 61 percent increase in autism rates.

With thimerosal-containing flu shots now being administered to children as young as six months old, it is highly plausible that ASD-associated brain damage is still occurring as a result of mercury being injected directly into muscle tissue.

Be sure to read Walia’s full report, which contains 22 cited scientific studies, here:
http://www.activistpost.com

Sources for this article include:

http://www.activistpost.com

http://www.mdpi.com

http://vran.org

22 Medical Studies That Show Vaccines Can Cause Autism

Arjun Walia Thursday, September 12, 2013 Activist Post

Concerns regarding vaccinations continue to increase exponentially in light of all of the information and documentation that has surfaced over the past few years. As a result, corporate media has responded to alternative media, stating that the increase of persons who are choosing to opt out of vaccines and the recommended vaccine schedule is a result of ‘fear mongering.’

This may not be too surprising as the corporate media is owned by the major vaccine manufacturers, and the major vaccine manufacturers are owned by corporate media(1)(2)(3)(4). Given this fact, it’s easy to fathom the possibility that these institutions are desperately trying to protect the reputation of their product.

For example, if we take a look at GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, they are owned by the same financial institutions and groups that own Time Warner (CNN, HBO etc.) and General Electric (NBC, Comcast, Universal Pictures etc.).(1)(2)(3)(4) This is seen throughout all of the major vaccine manufacturers and all of the 6 corporations that control our mainstream media. Keep in mind that these are the major funders of all ‘medical research’ that’s used to administer drugs and vaccinations. Despite these connections, medical research and documentation exists to show that vaccines might indeed be a cause for concern.

Vaccines and Autism, Both Sides of The Coin

Here we will simply present information from both sides of the coin because many are not even aware that two sides exist. We’ve presented multiple studies, citing multiple research papers and published research conducted by doctors and universities from all across the world. Here is an example of a paper that describes how vaccine manufactures and medical ‘experts’ with drug industry connections have been aware of the multiple dangers associated with vaccinations for over 30 years. We’d also like to present medical research that indicates the many dangers associated with vaccines, and have done this on multiple occasions. We do this because the safety of vaccinations is commonly pushed by the mainstream media, without ever mentioning or citing the abundant medical research that should also be taken into consideration when discussing vaccinations. Please keep in mind that there is evidence on both sides. At the same time, some of the evidence on the side that negates a positive outlook on vaccination has been labelled fraudulent, but then again many haven’t.

The vaccine-autism debate has been going on for years. It has been a tale of shifting beliefs as child vaccination rates remain high. On February 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist and his colleagues published a paper that supposedly linked Autism to Vaccines(5). More specifically, he claimed that the MMR vaccine was responsible for intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually non-permeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development(5). His work was unpublished, and he lost his medical license despite the fact multiple studies seem to support Andrew Wakefield’s work (here is one example, and here is another.) He has been labelled a fraud by the mainstream medical world, some experts claim that his research and methods are weak and based on very little evidence. Dr Wakefield’s research will NOT be used in this article.

At the same time I must mention that multiple studies from around the world have concluded that there is no link between Autism and the MMR Vaccine(5). It can become quite confusing a subject given that we have multiple medical studies contradicting each other. Was Dr. Wakefield exposing something that the medical industry did not want you to know? It is known that vaccine manufacturers suppress harmful data regarding their product, as mentioned and illustrated earlier in the article. Regardless of the MMR vaccine and autism debate, there are still a number of studies that link vaccines to a possible autism connection. Please keep in mind that multiple courts worldwide have ruled in favour of vaccines causing autism, brain damage and other complications (6)(7), that include the MMR vaccine.

Here is a great video narrated by Rob Schneider outlining the vaccine-autsim link. Below that you will find a list of 22 medical studies that show possible connections to vaccines and autism. Please keep in mind that we’ve only presented 22 studies here, there are many more published papers that document the link. Hopefully this inspires you to further your research on the subject. Also keep in mind that Autism is only one of the multiple shown consequences of vaccine administration, as they have been linked to a number of other ailments.

1. A study published in the journal Annals of Epidemiology has shown that giving the Hepatitis B vaccine to newborn baby boys could triple the risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder compared to boys who were not vaccinated as neonates. The research was conducted at Stony Brook University Medical Center, NY.

2. A study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry by researchers at the Neural Dynamics Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia determined that Aluminum, a highly neurotoxic metal and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant may be a significant contributing factor to the rising prevalence of ASD in the Western World. They showed that the correlation between ASD prevalence and the Aluminum adjuvant exposure appears to be the highest at 3-4 months of age. The studies also show that children from countries with the highest ASD appear to have a much higher exposure to Aluminum from vaccines. The study points out that several prominent milestones of brain development coincide with major vaccination periods for infants. These include the onset of synaptogenesis (birth), maximal growth velocity of the hippocampus and the onset of amygdala maturation. Furthermore, major developmental transition in many bio-behavioural symptoms such as sleep, temperature regulation, respiration and brain wave patterns, all of which are regulated by the neuroendocrine network. Many of these aspects of brain function are known to be impaired in autism, such as sleeping and brain wave patterns.

According to the FDA, vaccines represent a special category of drugs as they are generally given to healthy individuals. Further according to the FDA, “this places significant emphasis on their vaccine safety”. While the FDA does set an upper limit for Aluminum in vaccines at no more that 850/mg/dose, it is important to note that this amount was selected empirically from data showing that Aluminum in such amounts enhanced the antigenicity of the vaccine, rather than from existing safety. Given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude paediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopment outcomes , including those associated with autism.

3. A study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues by the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of New York shows how researchers suspect one or more environmental triggers are needed to develop autism, regardless of whether individuals have a genetic predisposition or not. They determined that one of those triggers might be the “battery of vaccinations that young children receive.” Researchers found a positive and statistically significant relationship between autism and vaccinations. They determined that the higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher the prevalence of autism. A 1 % increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having autism. The results suggest that vaccines may be linked to autism and encourages more in depth study before continually administering these vaccines.

4. A study published in the Journal of Toxicology by the Department of Neurosurgery at The Methodist Neurological Institute in Houston has shown that ASD is a disorder caused by a problem in brain development. They looked at B-cells and their sensitivity levels to thimerosal, a commonly used additive in many vaccines. They determined that ASD patients have a heightened sensitivity to thimerosal which would restrict cell proliferation that is typically found after vaccination. The research shows that individuals who have this hypersensitivity to thimerosal could make them highly susceptible to toxins like thimerosal, and that individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be affected by thimerosal. The fact that ASD patients’ B cells exhibit hypersensitivity to thimerosal tells us something.

5. A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Sciences determined that the autoimmunity to the central nervous system may play a causal role in autism. Researchers discovered that because many autistic children harbour elevated levels of measles antibodies, they should conduct a serological study of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies. They used serum samples of 125 autistic children and 92 controlled children. Their analysis showed a significant increase in the level of MMR antibodies in autistic children. The study concludes that the autistic children had an inappropriate or abnormal antibody response to MMR. The study determined that autism could be a result from an atypical measles infection that produces neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant of MV, or it could be the MMR vaccine.

6. Study published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry suggests that Autism is likely triggered by a virus, and that measles virus (MV and/or MMR vaccine) might be a very good candidate. It supports the hypothesis that a virus-dincued autoimmune response may play a causal role in autism.

7. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that an increased vulnerability to oxidative stress and decreased capacity for methylation may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism. It’s well known that viral infections cause increased oxidative stress. Research suggests that metals, including those found in many vaccines are directly involved in increasing oxidative stress.

8. A study published by the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Northeastern University, Boston determined that a novel growth factor signalling pathway that regulates methionine synthase(MS) activity and thereby modulates methylation reactions. The potent inhibition of this pathway by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum and thimerosal suggests that it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins. You can read more about this here, and here. You can read more about the MS/autism link here

9. A study published in the Journal of Child Neurology examined the question of what is leading to the apparent increase in autism. They expressed that if there is any link between autism and mercury, it is crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs. Researchers determined that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and the diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.

10. A study published in the Journal of Child Neurology noted that autistic spectrum disorders can be associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Researchers determined that children who have mitochondrial-related dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.

11. A study conducted by Massachusetts General Hospital at the Centre for Morphometric Analysis by the department of Paediatric Neurology illustrates how autistic brains have a growth spurt shortly after birth and then slow in growth a few short years later. Researchers have determined that neuroinflammation appears to be present in autistic brain tissue from childhood through adulthood. The study excerpt reads:

Oxidative stress, brain inflammation and microgliosis have been much documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals. The awareness that the brain as well as medical conditions of children with autism may be conditioned by chronic biomedical abnormalities such as inflammation opens the possibility that meaningful biomedical interventions may be possible well past the window of maximal neuroplasticity in early childhood because the basis for assuming that all deficits can be attributed to fixed early developmental alterations in net.

12, A study conducted by the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Arkansas determined that thimerosal-induced cytotoxicity was associated with the depletion of intracellular glutathione (GSH) in both cell lines. The study outlines how many vaccines have been neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain. Depletion of GSH is commonly associated with autism. Although thimerosal has been removed from most children’s vaccines, it is still present in flu vaccines given to pregnant women, the elderly and to children in developing countries.

13. A study published in the Public Library of Science (PLOS) determined that elevation in peripheral oxidative stress is consistent with, and may contribute to more severe functional impairments in the ASD group. We know that oxidative stress is triggered by heavy metals, like the ones contained in multiple vaccines.

14. A study conducted by the University of Texas Health Science Center by the Department of Family and Community Medicine determined that for each 1,000 Ib of environmentally released mercury, there was a 43% increase in the rate of special education services and a 61% increase in the rate of autism. Researchers emphasized that further research was needed regarding the association between environmentally released mercury and developmental disorders such as autism.

15. A study published in the International Journal of Toxicology determined that in light of the biological plausibility of mercury’s role in neurodevelopment disorders, the present study provides further insight into one possible mechanism by which early mercury exposures could increase the risk of autism.

16. A study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health determined that mercury exposure can induce immune, sensory, neurological, motor and behavioural dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with ASDs. Based upon differential diagnoses, 8 of 9 patients examined were exposed to significant mercury from Thimerosal-containing vaccine preparations during their fetal/infant developmental periods. These previously normal developing children suffered mercury encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive ASDs. Evidence for mercury intoxication should be considered in the differential diagnosis as contributing to some regressive ASDs.

17. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine conducted by the University of Texas Health Science Centre suspected that persistent low-dose exposures to various environmental toxicants including mercury, that occur during critical windows of neural development among genetically susceptible children, may increase the risk for developmental disorders such as autism.

18. A study conducted by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine showed that Macaques are commonly used in pre-clinical vaccine safety testing. Collective Evolution does not support animals testing, we feel there is a large amount of evidence and research that already indicated the links to vaccines in which some animals have been used to illustrate. The objective of this study was to compare early infant cognition and behaviour with amygdala size and opioid binding in rhesus macaques receiving the recommended childhood vaccines. The animal model, which examines for the first time, behavioural, functional and neuromorphometric consequences of the childhood vaccine regimen, mimics certain neurological abnormalities of autism. These findings raise important safety issues while providing a potential model for examining aspects of causation and disease pathogenesis in acquired disorders of behaviour and development.

19. A study conducted by The George Washington University School of Public Health from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics determined that significantly increased rate ratios were observed for autism and autism spectrum disorders as a result of exposure to mercury from Thimerosal-containing vaccines.

20. A study published in the journal Cell Biology and Toxicology by Kinki University in Osaka, Japan determined that in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.

21. A study published by the journal Lab Medicine determined that vaccinations may be one of the triggers for autism. Researchers discovered that substantial data demonstrates immune abnormality in many autistic children consistent with impaired resistance to infection, activation of inflammatory responses and autoimmunity. Impaired resistance may predispose to vaccine injury in autism.

22. A study published in the journal Neurochemical Research determined that since excessive accumulation of extracellular glutamate is linked with excitotoxicity, data implies that neonatal exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines might induce excitotoxic brain injuries, leading to neurodevelopmental disorders.

Sources:

All sources not listed below are listed throughout the article and highlighted. To view them, please click on them.

(1)http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=GSK

(2)http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=twx+Major+Holders

(3)http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=ge+Major+Holders

(4) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=pfe+Major+Holders

(5)http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

(6) http://www.ebcala.org/unanswered-questions

(7)http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/07/courts-rule-mmr-thimerosal-containing-vaccines-caused-autism-brain-damage/

Arjun Walia writes for Collective-Evolution, where this first appeared. You can Email him here: arjun@collective-evolution.com
TOP

Breaking: Courts discreetly confirm MMR vaccine causes autism

Tuesday, September 03, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) You won’t hear anything about it from the mainstream media, but the federal government’s kangaroo “vaccine court” has once again conceded, albeit quietly, that the combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine does, indeed, cause autism. In a recently published ruling, part of which was censored from public view, a young boy was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars after it was determined that the MMR vaccine led to a confirmed diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Ten-year-old Ryan Mojabi’s parents say he first suffered an encephalopathy after being vaccinated for MMR on December 19, 2003. Known as a “table injury,” encephalopathy is a recognized, compensable adverse reaction to vaccines, and one that the kangaroo vaccine court has previously linked to vaccines. According to Ryan’s parents, the MMR vaccine caused their son’s encephalopathy, which manifested as “neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD.”

After being bumped around from court to court, Ryan’s case was eventually heard by the vaccine court’s Autism Omnibus Proceedings, according to The Huffington Post. And in the end, the federal government agreed that Ryan’s encephalopathy had been caused by the MMR vaccine, a landmark ruling that confirms what Dr. Andrew Wakefield found more than 15 years ago when studying gut disorders in children given the MMR vaccine.

“Ryan suffered a Table injury under the Vaccine Act — namely, an encephalitis within five to fifteen days following receipt (of MMR),” admitted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the case. “This case is appropriate for compensation,” it added, in full agreement with the court’s decision.

Of particular note in the case is the fact that concession documents by the government remain under seal. While the court and the government at large openly admitted that the MMR vaccine caused Ryan’s encephalitis, it did not make public its opinion on whether or not that encephalitis led to Ryan’s other injuries, including those that fall into the category of ASD. But the fact that these documents remain censored shows that the government is hiding something of importance from the public, which most definitely has to do with the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Concerned parents everywhere were right all along: MMR vaccine can cause autism

In a similar case heard during the same month, young Emily Moller from Houston, Texas, was also awarded massive compensation for injuries resulting from the MMR vaccine. According to reports, Emily experienced a severe reaction after receiving not only the MMR vaccine but also the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), HiB, and Prevnar vaccines. Like with Ryan’s case, the government conceded that these vaccines led to Emily’s autism and other developmental problems.

These two cases, combined with numerous published studies out of the U.S., South America, and Europe, prove that the MMR vaccine is not the harmless vaccine that the conventional medical industry claims it is. In fact, everything that Dr. Wakefield found back in the late 1990s concerning the MMR vaccine — findings that cost him his career and reputation, by the way — are proving to be undeniably true.

“There can be very little doubt that vaccines can and do cause autism,” Dr. Wakefield recently stated from his home in Austin, Texas. “In these children, the evidence for an adverse reaction involving brain injury following the MMR that progresses to an autism diagnosis is compelling. It’s now a question of the body count. The parents’ story was right all along. Governments must stop playing with words while children continue to be damaged. My hope is that recognition of the intestinal disease in these children will lead to the relief of their suffering. This is long, long overdue.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.whiteoutpress.com

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.coml

http://www.examiner.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

 TOP
 

Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized

11May2015 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger: http://www.naturalnews.com/049669_vaccine_injury_depopulation_agenda_deadly_side_effects.html#ixzz3qfHCKw7Q

(NaturalNews) Despite the insidious attempts of the corporate-controlled U.S. media to censor the stories about the deadly side effects of vaccines, the truth keeps surfacing. The latest vaccine tragedy to strike has killed two babies in La Pimienta, Mexico and sent 37 more to the hospital with serious reactions to toxic vaccine additives. (Tweet this story)

“…14 children are in serious condition, 22 are stable and one is in critical condition,” the Chiapas Health Secretariat said in a statement via Latino.FoxNews.com.

What’s especially alarming is that only 52 children were vaccinated in all, meaning that 75% of those receiving the vaccines are now either dead or hospitalized.

The vaccines were administered by the Mexican Social Security Institute, known as IMSS. The IMSS confirmed the deadly reactions occurred after children received injections of vaccines for tuberculosis, rotavirus and hepatitis B — the same viral strains targeted by vaccines routinely administered to children in the United States.

IMSS suspends vaccination pending further investigation

According to Fox News Latino, the IMSS has suspended the vaccines pending the outcome of an investigation into why so many children have been killed and hospitalized.

According to the entire mainstream media in the United States — which is 100% controlled by corporate interests — vaccines never harm anyone and are perfectly safe to inject into children in unlimited quantities. This dangerous, inhumane “Vaccine Injury Denialism” is rampant across the corporate-controlled media, which contributes to the deaths of innocent babies and children by refusing to acknowledge the truth that vaccines kill and injure children on a regular basis.

Just recently, in fact, the UK government agreed to pay $90 million to victims of the swine flu vaccine. That vaccine caused permanent brain damage to over 800 children across Europe. The truth is that vaccines regularly harm and even kill innocent children, most likely because of the toxic chemical adjuvants and preservatives they still contain.

As the CDC openly admits, vaccines are still intentionally formulated with mercury, aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde. Some vaccines even use ingredients derived from aborted human fetal tissue. Last year, a CDC scientist blew the whistle on the CDC committing scientific fraud to cover up links between vaccines and autism in young African-American males.

Test run for depopulation via vaccines?

As globalists now fully realize, vaccines are by far the best way to cull the human population because most people can be tricked into lining up and asking for them. Thus, there’s no need to resort to all the difficulties used by the Nazis to commit genocide in World War II, involving complex logistics of railroad cars, gas chambers, construction of mass graves, prisoner tracking via IBM computing technology, and so on. (Yes, Nazi genocide and prisoner tracking was powered by early IBM computers. See IBM and the Holocaust, the strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s most powerful corporation…)

As the vaccine industry has now come to realize, it’s so much easier to kill people when they voluntarily comply with the injections. Hence the aggressive media propaganda push to achieve absolute blind obedience to vaccines so that no one will ask questions when sterilization or euthanasia chemicals are used. That’s no doubt why vaccines have been routinely tested for depopulation programs via two primary methods:

# 1) Achieve covert sterilizations of targeted populations by combining sterilization chemicals with vaccines. (The “slow kill.”)

# 2) Directly kill vaccine recipients by intentionally lacing vaccines with euthanasia chemicals that cause death. (The “fast kill.”)

Method #1 has been repeatedly used throughout Africa, Mexico and South America to inflict sterilization upon targeted groups via immunization and vaccination programs. Just last year, in fact, I reported on the discovery of a covert depopulation vaccine program being run in Kenya:

Tetanus vaccines given to millions of young women in Kenya have been confirmed by laboratories to contain a sterilization chemical that causes miscarriages, reports the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, a pro-vaccine organization.

A whopping 2.3 million young girls and women are in the process of being given the vaccine, pushed by UNICEF and the World Health Organization.

“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

Method #2 now appears to be under way in Mexico as 75% of those children injected with vaccines are now either dead or hospitalized.

Vaccine-induced depopulation was attempted in Mexico in 1974

As Truth Stream Media exhaustively documented, a depopulation exercise was run in Mexico in 1974, using vaccines as the cover story.

The scheme was dreamed up after the release of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 which highlighted the global population problem and urged governments to find ways to reduce the global population.

As TruthStreamMedia.com explains:

Concentration on this “problem” of how to reduce the population was planned for 13 key countries, including India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia. Of those, the document singled out Mexico as having one of the highest (and therefore, most worrisome) growth rates of all. The document read, “Perhaps the most significant population trend from the viewpoint of the United States is the prospect that Mexico’s population will increase from 50 million in 1970 to over 130 million by the year 2000.”

To combat this problem, “medical spooks” — who were almost certainly U.S.-funded depopulation vaccine crews — began injecting women all across Mexico with anti-fertility drugs disguised as vaccines. If you doubt this, read your history. The U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health was caught red-handed running human medical experiments on prisoners in Guatemala. President Obama was even forced to publicly apologize in 2011 after the cover-up collapsed! There is nothing the Nazis did in the 1930s and 40s that the pharmaceutical industry wouldn’t be willing to repeat today under the label of “science.”

But getting back to Mexico, as the covert depopulation vaccination program spread across Mexico City in 1974, locals began to catch on to the deception, and public resistance grew. As these newspaper clippings reveal, parents began hiding their children in their own homes to avoid them being injected with sterilization chemicals at the public schools. (California, by the way, also targets children at schools in order to avoid parents having the opportunity to say “No!”)

Mexico City – Associated Press – Rumors that persons disguised as inoculation teams were giving school children shots that sterilized them forced health authorities to suspend all vaccination drives today and to post police outside Mexico City schools. Thousands of parents stormed various schools in the Mexico City area Tuesday and took their children home.

Santa-Cruz-Sentinel-Wed-Dec-11-1974

It’s also important to note that these sterilization vaccines were being administered essentially at gunpoint, as police were accompanying the vaccine crews:

Callers told newspapers and TV stations that the sterilization crews were protected by police escorts and that they included white-robed men and women “who looked like foreigners.”

This same scenario is now about to be replicated in California, by the way, where SB 277 would criminalize parents of children who are not vaccinated, essentially at gunpoint.

What’s even more interesting is that the exact same arguments we hear today about vaccine skeptics — they’re punitively labeled “anti-vaxxers” or “anti-science” — were also being used in Mexico in 1974. As the following newspaper clipping shows:

The Mexican Medical Association issued statements denying that any kind of inoculation could cause sterility… Officials said superstition and ignorance of preventive health [i.e. “anti-science”] were responsible for the widespread belief that the rumors were true.

Las-Vegas-Optic-Fri-Dec-13-1974

In other words, even though sterilization teams were running around Mexico, injecting people with chemicals as part of a depopulation agenda, any person who pointed this out was immediately labeled “anti-science” and derided as “ignorant.”

Very little has changed in four decades, it seems: the same tactic is still used today, even while children are being killed or injured every single day due to the toxic ingredients used in vaccines.

CDC’s intelligence operatives caught running disinfo campaigns

The “science bullying” behind vaccines also allows governments of the world to run sterilization and depopulation programs disguised as public health. Once the population is bullied into accepting vaccines without question — blind obedience is now demanded almost everywhere — governments can add any chemicals they want to those vaccines, including chemicals that cause permanent sterilization or even death.

The fact that all vaccine injuries are systematically denied to exist also means that any person harmed or killed by vaccines is immediately wiped from the national memory. Like a criminal mafia, the vaccine industry works hard to hide the bodies and thereby maintain its monopolistic racket on the utterly false premise that vaccines are 100% safe. To further drive home this extraordinary medical propaganda, the CDC uses intelligence operatives like Nurse Hickox who spread disinfo through the mainstream media, which is always happy to comply with the destructive agendas of the vaccine industry.

As Natural News uncovered during the Ebola scare of 2014:

Nurse Kaci Hickox, who has made headlines over the last few days by refusing to quarantine herself after returning from the Ebola front lines in Africa, turns out to have been trained as an “intelligence officer” under a two-year CDC program modeled after the U.S. military.

As you can see from the document below, Hickox graduated from a two-year CDC intelligence officer training program in 2012. This is the same nurse whose LinkedIn page was recently scrubbed to hide her ties to the CDC

The official intelligence designation granted to Nurse Hickox by the CDC was “Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer,” and she is a graduate of the 2012 EIS program according to this CDC document (PDF). (See page 138 – 139 for her name and photo, or view photo below.)

That same year, the CDC graduated 81 such “intelligence officers” whose names and photos are also listed in the public document.

EIS-Officers-Class-of-2012

Bottom line? Don’t trust the vaccine industry

What’s the takeaway realization from all this? Vaccines have been and will continue to be used as a cover for forced depopulation programs involving sterilization or euthanasia chemicals.

Obedience to vaccines allows depopulation teams accompanied by armed police to intimidate people into accepting any liquid they want to put in a syringe. That liquid might be a vaccine, or it might be a sterilization chemical or even a euthanasia chemical.

Any population that is indoctrinated into trusting the vaccine industry — an industry steeped in repeated criminal activity combined with a total disregard for human life — is ripe for being targeted for depopulation. (See Nigeria Issues Arrest Warrants for Top Pfizer Officials After Drug Experiments Conducted on Children.)

After all, why go through the trouble of building gas chambers and rounding people up for mass extermination when you can achieve the same result without any resistance at all if you simply label the chemicals “vaccines”?

(Click here for hi-res version of the graphic below.)

Infographic-The-Vaccine-Racket

Sources for this article include:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2…
http://www.naturalnews.com/049423_swine_flu_…
http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_ad…
http://www.naturalnews.com/038873_childhood_…
http://www.naturalnews.com/047571_vaccines_s…
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-mass-ster…
http://truthstreammedia.com/who-attempted-th…
http://schillerinstitute.org/strategic/NSSM2…
http://www.naturalnews.com/033483_guatemalan…
http://www.sb277.org
http://www.naturalnews.com/047444_ebola_quar…
http://www.naturalnews.com/047406_Ebola_quar…
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/PDF-2013-EI…
http://www.naturalnews.com/023654_pfizer_dru…
http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistl…
TOP

From Clinical Infectious Diseases

Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011

Jennifer B. Rosen1, Jennifer S. Rota2, Carole J. Hickman2, Sun Sowers2, Sara Mercader2, Paul A. Rota2,
William J. Bellini2, Ada J. Huang3, Margaret K. Doll1, Jane R. Zucker1,2, and Christopher M. Zimmerman1

+ Author Affiliations


  1. 1Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, New York, U.S.A.

  2. 2National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, U.S.A.

  3. 3Westchester County Department of Health, New Rochelle , New York, U.S.A.
  1. Corresponding author: Jennifer Rosen, MD, Address: 42-09 28th St, 5th Fl, CN 21, Queens, NY 11101; Phone: 347-396-2473, Fax: 347-396-2558; Email: jrosen4@health.nyc.gov
  1. Alternate corresponding author: Christopher Zimmerman, MD, MPH, Address: 409 Vanderbilt St, Brooklyn, NY 11218; Phone: 770-371-2093; Email: cbz0@cdc.gov

Abstract

Background.  Measles was eliminated in the United States through high vaccination coverage and a public health system able to rapidly respond to measles. Measles may occur among vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.

Methods.  Suspected cases and contacts exposed during a measles outbreak in New York City in 2011 were investigated. Medical histories and immunization records were obtained. Cases were confirmed by detection of measles-specific IgM and/or RNA. Tests for measles IgG, IgG avidity, measurement of measles neutralizing antibody titers, and genotyping were performed to characterize the cases.

Results. The index case had two doses of measles-containing vaccine. Of 88 contacts, four secondary cases were confirmed that had either two doses of measles-containing vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All cases had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles, and high avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response. Neutralizing antibody titers of secondary cases reached >80,000 mIU/mL 3-4 days post-rash onset while that of the index was <500 mIU/mL 9 days post-rash onset. No additional cases occurred among 231 contacts of secondary cases.

Conclusions.  This is the first report of measles transmission from a twice vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status.

  • Received November 6, 2013.
  • Accepted February 9, 2014.

TOP

Groundbreaking New Study: 42% of Drug Reactions are Vaccine Related

A pioneering new drug study testing the safety of many common pharmaceutical drugs has revealed that almost half of all adverse drug reactions reported in Shanghai, from anaphylaxis to death, were caused by vaccines.

The study is published in an all access journal called PLos, titled, “Adverse Drug Reactions of Spontaneous Reports in Shanghai Pediatric Population,” and within it Chinese pediatric populations were studied via spontaneous reports gathered from physicians (52.03%), pharmacists (24.27%) and other health care practitioners (15.46%), with only 2.52% coming from ‘consumers.’[wpex Read more]

This is a significant study for those who are anxious to dismiss vaccine dangers as just consumer confusion or merely anecdotal reports from those who are without real facts. Since many are wary to give weight to any reports that are not from a clinical setting, it is difficult to argue with this particular study’s findings.

This is also one of the first-ever studies conducted on the topic of vaccines in China.

“Knowledge of drug safety in the pediatric population of China is limited. This study was designed to evaluate ADRs in children reported to the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) of Shanghai in 2009.”

The results were reported as such:

“A male overrepresentation was observed regarding the total number of reports. The most frequently reported group of drugs were vaccines (42.15%). Skin rash and fever were the commonest symptoms reported in the total pediatric dataset. The proportion of children that suffered from a serious ADR was 2.16% and that for drug related deaths was 0.34%. And we found that the multiple drug exposure experienced a high proportion of serious ADRs compared with the single drug use (χ215.99, P<0.0001). Sixty-five percent of ADRs were for children less than 6 years of age. And more than half of reports were from doctors.”

Read: If Publicized, this Study Would be a Vaccination Schedule Bombshell

The study quotes the World Health Organization (WHO) for its definition of an adverse drug reaction (ADRs) as ‘events related to a medication that are noxious, unintended and occur at normal doses used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis or therapy of disease, or for modification of physiological function.’ The WHO does not include deliberate or excessive consumption (overdose) in their definition of an ADR.

The Study Findings

The study found that ADRs are so globally problematic that they are in fact one of the leading causes of morbidity in many countries. A 1998 report published in JAMA found that 106,000 Americans die every year from correctly prescribed medications. These are not deaths from overdoses or misuse of drugs – another prevalent problem which is seldom discussed in the scientific community. Furthermore, the study finds that the younger an individual, the more at risk they become for harm due to vaccines and ADRs.

Also at higher risk are males compared to females:

The Young Are More at Risk to ADRs: ”When the data were assessed in terms of age groups, almost two thirds of ADRs were reported for children from birth to 5 years of age (65.01%) and 39.46% concerned children aging 2 months-2 years.” Furthermore, “The highest proportion (6.58%) of serious reports was reported for newborn (0–1 month).”

Males Were More Prone than Females to ADR Dangers: A total of 1790 ADRs (40.41%) and 2640 ADRs (59.59%) were reported for female and male patients, respectively.

Of note in the study – children under five are the most often vaccinated!

The study expands on this fact further:

“The ADR rate causes by vaccine is much higher than other drugs, and this may be related to the types and number of vaccination being used in China, as the types of routine immunization vaccines in China reach up to 15 kinds, which is much higher than 7 kinds in India and Vietnam, 9 kinds in Thailand and 11 kinds in America, and most of the vaccines in China are attenuated live vaccines, which may bring greater potential safety hazard.”

Chinese vaccine schedules are similar to American schedules, often subjecting young children, prior to the full development of their immune systems, to a ‘polypharmacy’ approach, exposing their little bodies and minds to a cornucopia of combined toxins. The total affect of these toxins cannot be minimized. Their interactions are at least part of the reason for such high incidence of ADRs as well as death, not just their singular use. There is no way that small, developing bodies are ready for more than 12 different strains of vaccines before they even leave kindergarten.

Read: Study Shows How Vaccines Stimulate Autoimmune Diseases

This study extrapolates the dangers linked to vaccines further:

“With the seemingly constant flow of new therapeutic agents and new treatment indications for existing medications, polypharmacy is increasingly common. Drug-drug interactions (DDI) occur when two or more drugs are taken in combination and one drug influences the effects of another drug. This may subsequently cause a change in the pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic parameters which may lead to lack of efficacy, or to an increase in the number of reported adverse drug reactions.

The association between multiple drug exposure and the incidence of ADRs has been studied, consistently showing an exponentially increased risk with the increase of the number of drugs taken. When assessing the severity of the reported ADRs, our study confirmed that multiple drug exposure experienced a high proportion compared with the single drug use. This finding indicate that in order to minimize the risk of serious ADRs, HCPs should pay particular attention to children who are prescribed two drugs or more.”

Dr. Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD, agrees that vaccine schedules are harmful, if not likely fatal, with the US having one of the highest infant mortality rates of over 33 developed countries in the world:

“The current schedule has never been studied – not one vaccine in a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated design, let alone multiple delivered at once, or the entire long-term effects of 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6.”

This study is monumental, in that it proves the onslaught of vaccines we give our children is not exactly a medical miracle as it has been touted.

The autoimmunity generating properties of vaccines, and other chronic health issues associated with the presence of ‘hidden’ pathogenic viruses in the live and attenuated vaccines most commonly used in China and the underdeveloped or developing world, will become more curious to researchers with eyes to see how ‘preventative’ vaccines really are.[/wpex]
TOP

9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims

vaccination-questionsSince the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called “vaccine experts” coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions. [wpex Read more]

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.

 

Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined

or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.

There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to human health).

There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any

part of the world.

Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won’t address those.

******************************************************************************

Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for use in humans.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines

Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on the human body. People just don’t read them. All you have to do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.

See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.

Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human health.

******************************************************************************

Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.

Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!

Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.

I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:

– They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped

– They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.

– They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again.

Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.

Flu Vaccine Exposed: Think Twice!

 

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

[/wpex] TOP

H1N1 Vaccine Ingredients, Packages’ Inserts and Warnings

 

The following are the ingredient lists, warnings and side effects for vaccines currently scheduled to be administered to populations worldwide for the H1N1 swine flu.

Not one scientific study has ever established the long-term safety of adjuvants and none have ever been approved for use in vaccines for humans.

International Chart of ALL H1N1 Vaccines By Country [wpex Read more]

 

2009 H1N1 Vaccines FDA-Approved in the U.S.

including Ingredients and Toxicity (REPORT)

H1N1 Vaccines’ Immunotoxity, Neurotoxicity,

Sterility and Carcinogenic Ingredients (REPORT)

Research Citations Linking Vaccines To Disease (REF)

9 Questions That Stump Every

Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims (REPORT)

APPROVED FOR USE IN CANADA

GlaxoSmithKline Arepanrix™ H1N1

AS03-Adjuvanted Pandemic Influenza Vaccine (PDF)

 

Analysis of Arepanrix H1N1 Vaccine

and How It Can Harm Your Health (REPORT)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UK/EUROPE

Assessment Report For GlaxoSmithKline

Pandemrix based on application to EMEA (PDF)

Pandemic H1N1 Vaccines Authorized EMEA (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UK/EUROPE

Product Characteristics of Pandemrix H1N1 Vaccine 2009 (PDF)

Focetria H1N1 Adjuvanted EMEA 2009

GlaxoSmithKline Fluarix 2009-2010 Formula (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES

Sanofi-Pasteur Influenza A-2009 H1N1 Vaccine

Package Insert Based On 1980 Approval for Fluzone (PDF)

Novartis FLUVIRIN Latest 2009 Package Insert (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES

Novartis A-H1N1 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Package

Insert Based On 1980 Approvalfor Fluvirin (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES

Intranasal Spray MedImmune A-H1N1 Vaccine

Package Insert Based On 2003 Approval for FluMist (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES

FLUARIX 2009 Latest Package Insert (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES

ID Biomedical Corporation 2009 H1N1 Monovalent Vaccine (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES

CSL Influenza A-H1N1 2009 Vaccine Package

Insert Based On 2007 Approval for Afluria (PDF)

APPROVED FOR USE IN AUSTRALIA

CSL Product Information of PANVAX H1N1 Vaccine 2009 (PDF)

CSL 2009 Latest Afluria Package Insert (PDF)

BAXTER Patent Application Citing

Monkey Kidney (VERO) Cell Culture (PDF)

* Download PDF on H1N1 Flu Vaccines

Chemicals and Package Inserts of Common Vaccines

[/wpex] TOP

Vaccine Fraud: The Polio Elimination by Vaccine Hoax

by

July 3rd, 2013

Perhaps you’ve seen those fierce trolling vaccine shills pop into comment sections of articles that report truthfully on vaccines. They often talk about vaccine merits that heavily outweigh any risks from adverse effects that they don’t even believe actually exist. Though by now everyone should at least know there are risks to vaccinations.

A common argument used to throw people off is that polio was eradicated by vaccinating entire populations with polio vaccines. You may think for a moment that it’s a valid argument, one which you cannot counter. But that’s simply not true.

You may want to strengthen your own anti-vaccination resolve or fortify your arguments by printing and using several quotes from real physicians, scientists, and other medical professionals commenting on vaccine failure in the Vaccines Uncensored site. Most of these kinds of sites are attacked in various ways, but offer some insightful information.

‘The Change the Name Game’

The disappearance of iron lungs, those huge devices resembling miniature, individually customized decompression chambers in which polio victims were placed to help them breathe, has led most to believe the problem of polio is over. But the iron lung has merely been replaced with another, much smaller portable medical device known as the ventilator. Ventilators are used now to help those stricken with any form of breathing restrictions, whether from completely congested lungs, polio, or other paralysis that makes it impossible to breathe normally.

According to Dr. Suzanne Humphries M.D., shortly after 1955, a cover-up was created to hide the fact that the polio vaccine was even spreading polio. Dr. Humphries went on to explain how a deadly live polio virus strain had infected the Salk vaccines and created an epidemic of polio-type diseases labeled aseptic meningitis or Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP). The term AFP includes Guillain-Barre’ syndrome aka “French Polio”, traumatic neuritis, Reye’s syndrome, enteroviral encephalitis, transverse myelitis, and poliomyelitis.

Dr. Humphries displayed a graph in her article showing how reports of polio leveled out while AFP cases continually soared since the mid-1990s, demonstrating that polio has not disappeared.

Dr. Lorraine Day, who healed herself from cancer naturally, away from mainstream medicine’s harsh interventions after she was “sent home to die”, also explained that vaccines don’t work in a video interview you can view here.

Related Read: Saying ‘No’ to Vaccines – Your Rights

After polio vaccinations had begun, polio was assigned different names to hide the vaccines’ ineffectiveness. Dr. Day asserts that 80 to 100 percent of polio cases were created by the vaccine itself. But few knew this because the name was changed to aseptic meningitis.

Polio peaked in the early 1950s and was on its way out prior to the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine.

Then came the oral polio vaccine (OPV) invented by Albert Sabin using attenuated live viruses. This was designed to create “viral shedding” from those vaccinated to those not vaccinated, thus immunizing them also.

Nice theory, but the reality was live viruses contained in OPVs tended to recombine and mutate into a fourth, more virulent wild virus polio strain. There have even been cases in the United States where parents were stricken with polio from OPV viruses while changing their vaccinated babies’ diapers.

The dangerous oral polio vaccines were eventually banned in America and other industrialized nations, but the vaccine manufacturers managed to push them off to third world countries that not only paid for them, but agreed to enforce the OPVs on their populations.

A Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation program in India was promoted as “The Last Mile: Eradicating Polio in India.” The promotional video displayed numbers showing thousands of cases of polio in India decades ago, with the number of cases dropping to 42 by 2010.

But those wild polio virus stats have been traded for vaccine induced polio cases with a different name, non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP).

Again, simply change the name of a disease and it disappears while another one appears with the same symptoms! Great for the vaccine industry’s PR campaigns to sell their junk to third world and developing nations.

In case you’re wondering why the mainstream media helps the pharmaceutical industry hide this dirt, realize the media protects the status-quo as well as its large source of advertising revenue from the pharmaceutical industry.

Additional Sources: NaturalNews.com/035627

BS”D

In case anyone had any delusions that the new “Polio epidemic hazard scare” is a false flag, a scam dumped on the public for who knows what nefarious reason here is proof.

Now I have 2 reasons to suspect HIGHLY it all.

1] As you all know the vaccine business is an international high roller $$$ cartel with a lot of dirty politics involved.

2] OPV was outlawed NOT taken off because disease is “dead” due to the many outbreaks of polio that the OPV caused as well as many cases of epilepsy it caused!!!!! Now either the manufacturers want to make $$ off it again & are seeking “sucker” countries to do it with &/or since this is THE ONLY country that it being pushed into giving OPV & it is by foreign organisations that are KNOWN to be anti-Israel plus we have a new mis-government that stinks of its being a puppet to external controls (despite making some local-patriotic mumblings that have not born any edible fruit & likely will not), & the ENTIRE “basis” for pushing the new vaccine drink is on an alleged finding of polio virus in the sewer of a Bedouin village & 2 cities in Southern Israel 5 months ago & since then no new findings & NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE CASE of active polio; it stinks of being a fake drive.

הונאה חיסון: ביעור הפוליו על ידי מתיחת חיסון

אולי ראית shills פופ למקטעי תגובה של מאמרים שדיווח אמת על חיסוני החיסונים האלה העזים החכות. לעתים קרובות הם מדברים על יתרונות חיסון עולים על סיכונים שכבדות מתופעות לוואי שהם אפילו לא מאמינים שבאמת קיימים. למרות שעד עכשיו כולם צריך לפחות לדעת שיש סיכונים לחיסונים.

טיעון נפוץ בשימוש לזרוק את אנשים הוא שפוליו שיחוסל על ידי חיסון אוכלוסיות שלמות עם חיסון פוליו. אתם עשויים לחשוב לרגע שמדובר בטיעון תקף, אחד שאתה לא יכול להתמודד. אבל זה פשוט לא נכון.

אולי אתה רוצה לחזק אותך נגד חיסון לפתור או לחזק את הטיעונים שלך על ידי ההדפסה ושימוש בכמה ציטוטים מרופאים אמיתיים, מדענים, ואנשי מקצוע רפואיים אחרים להעיר על כישלון חיסון באתר לא מצונזר חיסונים. רוב הסוגים של אתרים אלה תקפו בדרכים שונות, אבל מציע קצת מידע תובנה.

“לשנות את המשחק שם”

ההיעלמות של ריאות ברזל, אותם מכשירים הענקיים דמויי מיניאטורי, תא לחץ מותאם באופן אינדיבידואלי בנפגעי פוליו שהונחו כדי לעזור להם לנשום, הובילה ביותר להאמין הבעיה של פוליו נגמרה. אבל ריאות הברזל הוחלפה רק עם מכשיר אחר, קטן בהרבה נייד רפואי המכונה הנשמה. מאווררים נמצאים בשימוש כיום כדי לעזור לאלה לקו בכל צורה של הגבלות נשימה, בין אם מריאות גדושות לחלוטין, פוליו, שיתוק או אחר שעושה את זה אי אפשר לנשום כרגיל.

לדבריו של ד”ר סוזן האמפריז MD, זמן קצר לאחר 1955, טיוח נוצר כדי להסתיר את העובדה שחיסון הפוליו אפילו היה מתפשט פוליו. ד”ר האמפריז המשיך והסביר כיצד זן נגיף קטלני חי פוליו שהדביק את החיסונים של סאלק ויצר מגיפה של מחלות פוליו מסוג שכותרתו דלקת קרום המוח aseptic או שיתוק רפה אקוטי (AFP). AFP המונח כולל ‘גייךבאךה תסמונת המכונה “הצרפתי פוליו”, דלקת טראומטית, תסמונת ריי, דלקת מוח enteroviral, דלקת חוט שדרה רוחבית, ושיתוק ילדים.

ד”ר האמפריז מוצג גרף במאמרה מראה איך דיווחים על פוליו התיישר ואילו במקרי AFP נסקו ברציפות מאז שנת 1990 אמצע, הוכחת מחלת הפוליו, שלא נעלמה.

ד”ר לוריין היום, שרפא את עצמה מהסרטן באופן טבעי, הרחק מהתערבויות הקשות של הרפואה המערבית לאחר שהיא “נשלחה הביתה כדי למות”, גם הסביר כי חיסונים לא עובדים בראיון וידאו תוכל לצפות כאן.

קרא בנושא: אמירה ‘לא’ לחיסונים – הזכויות שלך

לאחר החיסונים פוליו החלו, פוליו הצטרף שמות שונים כדי להסתיר את חוסר יעילותם של החיסונים. ד”ר היום טוען כי 80 עד 100 אחוזים ממקרי פוליו נוצרו על ידי החיסון עצמו. אבל רק מעטים ידעו את זה כי השם שונה לדלקת קרום מוח aseptic.

פוליו הגיע לשיאו בתחילת 1950 והיה בדרכו החוצה לפני כניסתה של חיסון פוליו סאלק.

ואז הגיע החיסון האוראלי (OPV) שהומצא על ידי אלברט סאבין באמצעות וירוסים חיים מוחלשים. זה נועד ליצור “שפיכת ויראלי” מאלו שחוסנו לאלו שלא חוסנו, ובכך מחסנים אותם גם.

תאוריה נחמדה, אבל המציאות הייתה וירוסים חיים הכלולים בOPVs נטתה לשלב מחדש ולעבור מוטציה לתוך זן רביעי, ארסי יותר פראי נגיף פוליו. יש אף היה מקרים בארצות הברית שבו הוריהם לקו בשיתוק ילדים מפני וירוסי OPV תוך שינוי החיתולים של התינוקות שחוסנו שלהם.

את חיסון הפוליו האוראלי המסוכן סופו של דבר נאסר באמריקה ובמדינות מתועשות אחרות, אבל את יצרני החיסונים הצליחו לדחוף אותם למדינות העולם שלישיות ששלמו עבורם לא רק, אבל הסכים לאכוף את OPVs על האוכלוסיות שלהם.

ביל ומלינדה גייטס תכנית בהודו הועלו לדרגת כ” המייל האחרון: מיגור פוליו בהודו. “המספרים המוצגות וידאו קידום המכירות מראים אלפי מקרים של פוליו בהודו לפני עשרות שנים, עם מספר מקרים יורד ל -42 עד שינה 2010.

אבל סטטיסטיקות נגיף וירוס הפראיות האלה כבר נסחרים למקרי פוליו חיסון מושרה עם שם שונים, שיתוק רפה חריף שאינו פוליו (NPAFP).

שוב, פשוט לשנות את השם של מחלה והיא נעלמת בזמן אחד את השני מופיע עם אותם הסימפטומים! נהדר עבור מסעות פרסום יחסי הציבור של תעשיית החיסונים למכור הזבל שלהם לעולם השלישי ומדינות מתפתחות.

במקרה שאתה תוהה למה בתקשורת הממוסדת עוזרת תעשיית התרופות להסתיר את הלכלוך הזה, מבין את התקשורת מהגינה על הסטטוס קוו, כמו גם המקור הגדול של הכנסות מפרסום מתעשיית התרופות.

מקורות נוספים:

NaturalNews.com/035627

TOP

Oral Polio Vaccine to Be Given In Southern Israel

By Chana Ya’ar

First Publish: 6/30/2013, 3:56 PM

The Health Minister has decided to administer an advanced form of the oral polio vaccine to 150,000 children in southern Israel following a 3-day visit from World Health Organization officials. The vaccine is administered in oral drops, not an injection form.

They and an official from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control were in Israel to see what the Jewish State is doing to prevent the possible spread of poliomyelitis – a disease once considered “dead.”

TOP

From the British Medical Journal:

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3037 (Published 16 May 2013)

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f3037
  1. Peter Doshi, postdoctoral fellow

Author Affiliations

  1. pdoshi@post.harvard.edu

The CDC pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.” But Peter Doshi argues that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities,1 precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.2 Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.

Now we are all “at risk” of serious complications

Influenza vaccine production has grown parallel to increases in the perceived need for the vaccine. In the US, the first recommendations for annual influenza vaccination were made in 1960 (table1).⇓ Through the 1990s, the key objective of this policy was to reduce excess mortality. Because most of influenza deaths occurred in the …

[wpex Read more]

Vaccines Sold by Marketing Fear of Disease: BMJ Report

by Heidi Stevenson

The British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the world’s most highly revered scientific medical publications, has published an article that condemns influenza vaccines and their marketing. The last sentence reads:

It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.[1]

Influenza vaccines don’t work as advertised. Nonetheless, they’re heavily marketed by governmental agencies through one consistent tactic: fear. Dr. Doshi  describes how influenza vaccinations are sold:

[I]nfluenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives.

In other words, he’s saying that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which supposedly exists for the benefit of the people’s health, is selling influenza vaccines by trying to scare people into it. It’s pure fear mongering and as we’ll see later, outright lies, to market flu vaccines. He goes on to state that looking through the CDC’s vaccine-marketing lens gives the impression that:

… the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities, precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.

Dr. Doshi is telling us that a combination of fear mongering and force are now being used to compel people to accept forced drugging by vaccination. Then, he states:

Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims.

The science supporting influenza vaccines is poor. Surely the CDC must know this. After all, it’s their job to know! So, the fact that they use junk science to support a massive program of vaccination clearly demonstrates an utter lack of faith towards the people. There can be no explanation for this dereliction of duty other than having sold out to the manufacturers and the medical system itself.

By the way, those quotes all comes from the first paragraph of Dr. Doshi’s report. Because they’re all provocative statements, it’s imperative that he support them—and that he does, with clarity and force.

Who’s at risk?

When the flu vaccine was originally recommended in the United States in 1960, only adults age 65 or older were considered at risk if they got the flu. Now, the CDC calls for everyone age 6 months or more is considered “at risk”. If the CDC is believed, then the entire population is now as weak as only those over 65 were about 50 years ago.

Does the influenza vaccine save lives?

The CDC wants us all to believe that flu vaccines save lives. However, as Dr. Doshi points out, the evidence does not support the claim. The so-called evidence cited by the CDC consistently contains flaws so severe that they should be discounted completely. He points out one study that appears to show a huge improvement in the odds of death from influenza. But, the study was done outside the influenza season, a time that he refers to as, “when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit.” Even the authors found the results implausible, stating that their result:

… is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect”.

Dr. Doshi points out that this same bias is present in many studies. Further, he points out that the CDC itself acknowledges this particular bias in studies. Of course, they buried the admission deep inside a 68 page document:

These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.[2]

This point is only one flaw in the studies cited by the CDC. Also significant is that the CDC completely ignores studies that do not support their chosen vaccination program. They do not admit that the evidence simply does not support their claim that lives are saved.

Is the flu vaccine safe?

The CDC claims that the influenza vaccine is safe. The reality has proven to be the complete opposite. The National Institutes for Health (NIH) actively promoted a video by their director, Anthony S. Fauci, in which he claims:

[T]he track record [of the H1N1 vaccine] for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event.

This same swine flu vaccine resulted in these massive adverse effects:

  • It was suspended by Australia in children under 5 years because of febrile convulsions. 1 in 110 children were affected.
  • It caused narcolepsy, a life-devastating neurological illness, in hundreds of adolescents in Europe. 1 in 55,000 adolescents lost their futures to narcolepsy as a direct result of this vaccine.[3]
  • Just recently, the UK has admitted that it caused narcolepsy.[4]

Yet the CDC continues claiming that these vaccines are safe!

Have influenza vaccines reduced mortality?

Vaccine-choice advocates have been pointing out that vaccination has not affected mortality rates from other diseases. Dr. Doshi makes exactly the same point about influenza vaccines, and provides a graph that clearly illustrates the point.

As you can see, it’s obvious that any benefit has been, at best, minimal, making a mockery of the CDC’s claims that thousands die from influenza every year.

Flu-Mortality-1930-Present

 

 

 

How much flu is genuine influenza?

Dr. Doshi is particularly troubled by the abuse of terminology. He states:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza.

He focuses on the distinction between real influenza and influenza-like illness. People often say that they have “the flu”, when they really don’t. Doctors often diagnose “the flu” when their patients don’t have it.

The fact is that most cases of “flu” aren’t. They’re actually influenza-like diseases, and there are many of them.

Influenza-Positive-or-NegativeThis graph documents how few people who’ve been diagnosed with influenza actually have it. This is one of the sneakiest tricks used by the CDC, NIH, and such agencies all over the world.

They give the impression that influenza is a far more common disease than it is. That, in turn, is used to drum up yet more fear to sell vaccines.

Is this a legitimate review?

With so much junk science being passed off for the purpose of selling products, it’s always a fair question to ask if the authors are legit. In this case, of course, the question is a bit different. Why would this author write this paper?

Dr. Peter Doshi is a post-doctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, which is generally considered to be one of the world’s finest. His career is ahead of him, but this paper may have derailed it. We’ve seen what’s been done to the career of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was already a world-renowned researcher with impeccable credentials. Dr. Doshi cannot be unaware of that, so the only conclusion to be drawn is that he feels conscience-bound to tell the truth and to inform people of the fact that influenza vaccines are both dangerous and, if not entirely ineffective, certainly they provide only minuscule benefit.

Dr. Doshi has eviscerated both the claims in support of influenza vaccination and the inherent character of our health regulatory agencies. So, will we see any change in the health regulation agencies’ push to vaccinate every human and animal on the face of the earth?

Not a chance. The CDC and virtually all the other so-called health agencies ceased to be protectors of people’s health decades ago, and likely never were. They are nothing but a marketing front for Big Pharma and Big Medicine.

Sources:

  1. Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing diseaseBritish Medical Journal; Peter Doshi; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3037.
  2. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010.
  3. Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Narcolepsy in Thousands: BMJ Claim
  4. U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy [/wpex]

TOP

U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy

September 24, 2013 | By

Evidence linking GlaxoSmithKline’s ($GSK) swine flu vaccine to narcolepsy has mounted this year, with new findings from Finland, Sweden and the U.K. emerging. Now, having previously knocked back compensation claims, the data has prompted the U.K. government to accept the link.

The U-turn comes 7 months after a paper published in the British Medical Journal found a link between GSK’s vaccine, Pandemrix, and increased risk of narcolepsy in English children. Data from the English children added to evidence from Finland and France. The U.K. study is one of several published in 2013 that has strengthened the link between the vaccine and narcolepsy. [wpex Read more]

Having turned down compensation claims last year, the U.K. government has reversed its position in response to these new papers. In a letter seen by the Guardian, U.K. welfare minister Iain Duncan Smith wrote: “It has been accepted that, on the balance of probability, vaccination has contributed to … disablement.” The newspaper expects Duncan Smith to make an official announcement next month.

Parents who believe their children developed narcolepsy as a result of the vaccine can apply for statutory compensation, a £120,000 ($192,000) tax-free lump sum for anyone with a ‘severe’ disability. Families may also seek compensation through the courts. Peter Todd of the law firm Hodge, Jones and Allen is preparing a case for some of the 100 people reportedly affected in Britain, and believes damages could reach £1 million ($625,000) per person.

GSK has an indemnity clause in its contract, Todd said, so the government will pay out if the case is successful. The government could also be hit with hefty legal fees. “Some of these multiparty actions cost endless millions. You can imagine the number of experts involved. We fill up the court when we turn up with these cases,” Todd said.

– read the Guardian article

– check out Forbestake

Related Articles:

Study links GSK’s swine flu vaccine to narcolepsy in adults

U.K. too finds link to GSK’s Pandemrix, narcolepsy

EMA: ‘Insufficient’ link between narcolepsy and GSK flu vaccine

WHO urges investigation into link between flu shots, narcolepsy

Read more: U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy – FierceVaccines http://www.fiercevaccines.com/story/uk-gov-makes-u-turn-link-between-gsk-vaccine-and-narcolepsy/2013-09-24#ixzz2gd1b3Bsy

Subscribe at FierceVaccines

[/wpex]

TOP

8 Damn Good Reasons Not to Get the Flu Shot

Are you thinking about getting the flu vaccine?Every year the mainstream media war drum beats for you to get vaccinated against the flu. They rarely discuss anything but the benefits of the vaccine.

Why?

Maybe it is because many people are already skeptical about the flu vaccine.

I’m going to be very up front with you here. You rarely hear about the adverse reactions or about the toxic chemicals being injected into you. My goal is to get you to investigate vaccines more closely. Here are eight reasons to question the flu shot.

Let’s begin…

REASON #1: NEUROTOXIC INGREDIENTS

A common urban myth is that the mercury has been taken out of vaccines. This is not true.

Several of the flu vaccines contain a neurotoxic ingredient called thimerosal (mercury). Each one of the flu vaccines listed below contains 25 micrograms of mercury. [1] The vaccines are:

  • Afluria CSL (Limited for Merck)
  • FluLaval (GlaxoSmithKline)
  • Fluvirin (Novartis)
  • Fluzone (Sanofi Pasteur)

Keep in mind you are being told conflicting stories.

After parents and scientists discovered that mercury was present in the vaccines, they had concerns about the substance causing neurological problems in children.

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control have told you mercury in the vaccines isn’t bad for us, but as a precaution, it will be taken out of the vaccines.

Now the same organizations are telling parents if mercury isn’t kept it in the vaccines, millions will suffer. Why? Removing the mercury from vaccines would cause a major disruption in the manufacturing and supply of vaccines.[2] [wpex Read more]

Much of the evidence on the toxicity of thimerosal was swept under the rug at a secret meeting held by the Centers for Disease Control in Simpsonwood, Georgia. I’d like to invite you to read a few quotes from the meeting. I think you will see why the Centers for Disease Control wants to keep the lid on thimerosal.

Here are three important quotes from the Simpsonwood Document:

…the number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” – Dr. William Weil, American Academy of Pediatrics. Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000

“Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” – Dr. Robert Johnson, Immunologist, University of Colorado, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000

But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say…My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” – Dr. John Clements, World Health Organization, Simpsonwood, GA, June 7, 2000 [3]

We at VacTruth encourage you to investigate what is being injected into your child.

 

REASON #2: 4250% INCREASE IN FETAL DEATHS REPORTED

Speaking of mercury being unsafe — if you’re pregnant, beware of doctors using aggressive fear tactics pushing you to get vaccinated. Here’s why…

On September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published a study by Dr. Gary Goldman reporting a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. [4]

That year the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had recommended the double-dosing pregnant mothers with two flu shots spiked with mercury.

In his abstract, Goldman said:

“The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.” [4]

How can injecting these filthy vaccines into pregnant mothers be remotely safe?

 

REASON #3: VACCINE-INDUCED NARCOLEPSY

Do you recall the vaccine-frenzied media telling us to get our flu shots during the H1N1 pandemic? What they didn’t tell you are the possible long-term side effects of those vaccines that are now being revealed.

Recent news about the flu vaccine suspects one of the experimental vaccines causing narcolepsy in about 800 European children. [5]

Specifically, two studies in Finland directly point the finger at the vaccine. [6, 7]

The conclusion of one study states:

“We observed a 17-fold increase in the annual incidence of narcolepsy in 2010 as compared to previous years in children aged under 17 years of age. A common feature in the history of our 54 newly diagnosed childhood narcoleptic patients was that 50 children had received an adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine (Pandemrix) within 8 months before the onset of symptoms. In most cases, the development of symptoms was fast. We consider it likely that Pandemrix vaccination contributed to the increased incidence of narcolepsy in Finland…” [7]

The children’s misfortune is they now have to deal with an illness that all but destroys their once normal life. Do you think the pharmaceutical companies will take any responsibility?

 

REASON #4: “THEY ARE PROTECTED” … FROM YOU!

I’m not sure about other countries, but in the United States, if your child is harmed by a vaccine, there is little action you can take legally.

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed was to protect pharmaceutical companies from anyone claiming a vaccine injured their child. Under this law, no parent can sue a vaccine manufacturer. [8]

If you decide to vaccinate your children, you do so at your own risk. No vaccine manufacturer is liable for your child’s vaccine-related injury or death from a recommended vaccine, regardless if the FDA or CDC helped get an untested flu vaccine approved.

 

REASON #5: IF YOU GET VACCINATED, YOU SHED THE VIRUS

If getting injected with neurotoxins or suffering from narcolepsy isn’t enough, expect to shed the flu virus and likely infect others if you decide to get the nasal spray vaccine.

Information from the Centers for Disease Control website indicates “that both children and adults vaccinated with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses.” [9]

In one study of children in a daycare setting, 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains for an average of 7.5 days. [9]

 

REASON #6: IF YOU GET THE FLU VACCINE, EXPECT TO GET THE FLU

This might be a shock to you – if you investigate the vaccine carefully enough, you’ll discover that getting vaccinated can actually predispose you to getting the flu!

One particular study surprised researchers when they discovered “a significant positive association between the seasonal influenza vaccine and lab confirmed H1N1 was observed.” [10]

As anecdotal evidence, you may or may not have seen what happened to television host Piers Morgan. If you didn’t, here is the condensed version.

Piers Morgan went on the Dr. Oz television show to get injected with the toxic flu vaccine in front of a live audience. Days later he came down with the flu. [11]

Did the flu vaccine cause him to get the flu? You can decide for yourself on this one.

 

REASON #7: EVERY YEAR THE EXPERTS GUESS

Do you know how the flu strain is picked to put into the vaccine every year? The “experts” guess.

Every year, the influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected through calculations about what flu viruses are most likely to cause illness in the coming season. The FDA, acting in concert with the CDC, decides what vaccine strains for influenza vaccines to be sold in the U.S. [12]

What happens if the virus mutates or the “experts” guess incorrectly? Please see Reason #1…

 

REASON #8: THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL’S RECIPE FOR GENERATING FEAR

Many people believe the Centers for Disease Control is beyond using propaganda ploys. You might get a different impression from the information I’m about to share with you. It may seem as if the CDC fears you into getting vaccinated, much like doctors do.

What do I mean and where is this recipe?

Some years ago, the associate director for communications for the national immunization program, Glen Nowak, made a presentation entitled Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis.

I am going to include the entire “recipe” so you can see the complexity of the propaganda being regularly used on you to get vaccinated.

The slide on page 27 of the presentation reads:

“Recipe” that Fosters Higher Interest and Demand for Influenza Vaccine

1. Influenza’s arrival coincides with immunization “season” (i.e., when people can take action)

2. Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are:

–Associated with severe illness and/or outcomes

–Occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors)

–In cities and communities with significant media outlets (e.g., daily newspapers, major TV stations)

3. Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)–and urge influenza vaccination.

4. The combination of ‘2’ and ‘3’ result in:

A. Significant media interest and attention

B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)

C. Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people–helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.

6. Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)

7. References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza– along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.” [13]

The message is extremely familiar. You see it played out every year on the news channels. To be clear, what you just read is a recipe to sell more of Big Pharma’s toxic vaccines.

 

References

1. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm

2. http://vactruth.com/2012/12/23/mercury-in-vaccines/

3. http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html

4. http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.abstract?rss=1

5. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-narcolepsy…

6. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033536#close

7. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033723

8. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

9. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/laiv-shed.htm

10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001885

11. http://www.infowars.com/piers-morgan-falls-ill-days-after-receiving-flu-vaccine/

12. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm

13. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/2004flunowak

– See more at: http://vactruth.com/2013/02/01/8-damn-good-reasons/#sthash.dPNPNdNp.dpuf

[/wpex]

TOP

What The Cancer Industry Does Not Want You To Know About Chemotherapy and Radiation

October 21, 2013 by DAVE MIHALOVIC

They tell us chemotherapy saves lives, boosts long-term survival rates and does not damage healthy cells. All these statements by the cancer industry are false. Poison kills indiscriminately– always has and always will. While damaging healthy cells, chemotherapy also triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumour growth and resistance to further treatment. That’s right…chemotherapy will actually boost cancer growth and cancer treatment is the leading cause of secondary cancers.[wpex Read more]

cancer_industry

Vaccines, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics and therapies, dentistry, psychiatry and practically all medical research is an industry and driver of corporate profits. The cancer industry is particularly ironic because the products that cause many cancers are made by divisions of the same multi-national corporations whose subsidiaries make the scanners and equipment that is used to diagnose cancers, the drugs used in chemotherapy and those given to prevent the cancer returning.

In what reality do we live in when cut, poison and burn are the only ways acceptable to treat cancer?

The cancer industry destroys or marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented, expensive, and toxic remedies that do more harm than good.

No chemotherapy drug has ever actually cured or resolved the underlying causes of cancer. Even what mainstream medicine considers “successful” chemotherapy treatments are only managing symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other precious physiological functions in patients that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.

Chemotherapy and Radiation May Kill Cancer, But They Also Kill You

Chemotherapy has a number of post-treatment adverse effects. Most chemotherapeutic agents do enter the brain and they can directly and indirectly produce a number of acute and delayed changes to the central nervous system. These effects can last for years, then dissipate, or, when they occur in young children, can ripple into adulthood.

The long-term survival rates of chemotherapy patients are grossly exaggerated because most of these patients end up dying of diseases unrelated to the original cancer itself, but instead related to the treatment.

Chemotherapy drugs (especially alkylating agents) are known to cause other cancers including leukemia many of these drugs fall into this class. Alkylating agents directly damage DNA of all cells. These agents are not phase-specific; in other words, they work in all phases of the cell cycle. Because these drugs damage DNA, they can cause long-term damage to the bone marrow and consequently affect long-term immunity. With these drugs, the risk for a second cancer develops slowly over time but their diagnosis is inevitable. Studies have shown that the risk begins to rise about two years after treatment, is highest about five to 10 years after treatment. It’s the reason most chemotherapy patients die 10-15 years after treatment.

Radiation therapy can also increase the risk of developing cancer in most people. The types of cancers linked to radiation therapy are vast, but primarily consist of leukemia and sarcomas. These cases typically develop a few years after radiation exposure with the peak of risk being about five to nine years after exposure. Again, most patients that pursue radiation therapy develop secondary cancers related to treatment and not as a consequence of the original cancer. Radiation-induced cancers have exploded in the past two decades ever since radiation has proliferated as a treatment, usually secondary to chemotherapy.

Some other cancer risks are tied to radiation therapy, as well. Solid tumors can develop at or near the site of the radiation exposure even 10 or more years after the radiation therapy. These risks seem to be greatest in certain areas of the body, such as the breast and the thyroid. In some of these cases, your age at the time of radiation treatment plays a role. For example, younger breast cancer patients are more likely to develop a second cancer from radiation therapy than older breast cancer patients.

 

Doctors Speak Out About The Cancer Industry

Dr. Robert Atkins, MD, of Atkins Diet fame once announced there are several cures for cancer, but there’s no money in them. They’re natural, effective, and inexpensive, no expensive drugs are involved but they require quite a lot of self-discipline from patients. It costs millions to fund research and clinical trials needed to produce a new cancer drug that can be patented and sold. Often these drugs create more illness. It has been said that the key to success in the health business is to pull off the trick of making people patients for life. Consider how many people who registered a couple of abnormal blood pressure readings have been kept on medication until the medication killed them, when a quick fix course of drugs supported by major changes of diet and lifestyle would have returned their physical condition to an unmedicated healthy state.

According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”

Dr. Glenn Warner, who died in 2000, was one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in the United States. He used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. On the treatment of cancer in this country he said: “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”

Dr. Alan C. Nixon, past president of the American Chemical Society writes, “As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, “…if I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”

Dr. Allen Levin stated: “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” In his book, The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop, Dick Richards cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actually died from conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them.

How Chemotherapy Actually Boosts Cancer Growth

 

Researchers tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.

Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.

The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.

“The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.

The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.

In cancer treatment, tumours often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

Rates of tumour cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics,” wrote the team.

The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.

Patients with incurable cancers are promised much greater access to the latest drugs which could offer them extra months or years of life, however many doctors have been urged to be more cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as chemotherapy can often do more harm than good, advice supported by Nelson’s study.

90% of Patients Who Receive Chemotherapy Suffer Fatal Effects

The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in ten patients who received chemotherapy towards the end of life suffered potentially fatal effects from the drugs, and treatment was “inappropriate” in nearly a fifth of cases.

Globally, almost 90% of patients who are administered chemotherapy die within 15 years of treatment either from secondary cancers, or a compromised immunity as a direct consequence of the treatment. Chemotherapy and radiation combined are the leading cause of secondary cancer worldwide.

There has been a 68% increase in the use of chemotherapy drugs since 2003 and despite the massive increase in the incidence of cancer since then; the risk factors (according to the cancer industry) for primary and secondary cancers are still related to tobacco, alcohol, occupational exposures and genetic determinants. Cancer treatment or diagnostics is never mentioned as a cause of any primary or secondary cancers.

Cancer is a leading cause of disease worldwide and if recent trends in major cancers are seen globally in the future, the burden of cancer will increase to 22 million new cases each year by 2030. This represents an increase of 75% compared with 2008

More than half of all cancer patients suffer significant treatment-related toxicity. Treatment can also result in life-threatening infections or patients may simply die of their cancer.

When asked about how to improve a patient’s response and outcome, Nelson replied “alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy.”

But small doses of poison are still poison.

The bottom line is that chemotherapy destroys virtually all cells and systems before getting to the actual cancer. This means your central nervous system, organ systems and your immune system (to name just a few) are all compromised even years after the treatment has subsided. Forget about cancer killing you because chemotherapy will do a much better job in the long term.

Chemotherapy causes healthy brain cells to die off long after treatment has ended and may be one of the underlying biological causes of the cognitive side effects — or “chemo brain” — that many cancer patients experience.

Conventional cancer treatment is a massive and expensive fraud–a non-treatment that sickens and kills more people than it ever “cures.” It can never cure anything because it poisons the body which only causes more disease in the future.

The question [of whether or not chemotherapy really extends life, ed.] can probably no longer be answered. In clinical studies the manufacturers always compare their new drugs with older cellular poisons. There are no control groups that are given no treatment at all.

In order to be allowed onto the market, it suffices to achieve a “statistically significant” advantage in one small group of hand- picked test subjects vs. those treated with some already approved cellular poison.

Sources:

natureasia.com

cancerdecisions.com

cancerresearchuk.org

cancertruth.net

rochester.edu

douglassreport.com

sciencedaily.com

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

Chemotherapy Does More Harm Than Good, Study Suggests

[/wpex]

TOP

Top seven natural cures for cancer that got buried by the FDA, AMA, CDC

Sunday, October 27, 2013 by: S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) How do you keep the spread of cancer “growing”? Bury the cure. How do you keep 1.5 million Americans “infested” yearly with mutated cells that multiply uncontrollably? You breed cancer in food and medicine. How many years ago did America start this evil strategy to make people sick and deny them the cure? Nearly 100 years. Where did it all really start? The American Medical Association (AMA) and a man named Morris Fishbein, who single-handedly removed nutrition from medical schools in the U.S. and installed a fake seal of approval for harmful lab-made drugs that made cancer worse. What else did Fishbein do? (http://www.v1.thehealingjournal.com) [wpex Read more]

Just in case you “doubters” and skeptics want some concrete proof, some evidence to take with you on your journey NOT to get cancer, here are some historical, proven facts to help you understand WHY you need to go 100% organic and research and use natural remedies, to build your immunity to disease with superfoods, herbs, tinctures and organic supplements. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

Let’s begin this journey of truth and the not-so-healthy history of medicine in this bold country we call the “Land of the Free.” Let’s begin with the TOP SEVEN CURES for cancer that mainstream media will never admit to, because their advertising money comes from Big Pharma, the GMO Agriculture giants (Monsanto/Dupont/Bayer/Dow Chemical/etc.) and the lobbyists and politicians who make their money off of stocks in cancer therapies that don’t work:

1. The AMA once paid a cancer virus researcher $250K to retire in Mexico and stop working on natural cures:

(http://www.naturalnews.com)

2. Burzynski documentary reveals true agenda of FDA and cancer industry to destroy cancer cures that really work:

(http://www.naturalnews.com)

3. ‘Dying to Have Known’ documentary features Gerson Therapy natural cancer cure:

(http://www.naturalnews.com)

4. Harry Hoxsey: Guilty of Curing Cancer with Herbs:

(http://www.naturalnews.com)

5. Magic mushrooms could treat depression, but clinical trials unnecessarily delayed by drug laws:

(http://www.naturalnews.com)

6. Marijuana – A cure for cancer?

(http://www.naturalnews.com)

7. Beat cancer with 35% hydrogen peroxide!

(http://www.naturalnews.com)

Pay it forward 100 years

Nearly 100 years ago, the AMA began removing nutritional education from medical schools in America. Medical doctors would no longer understand anything about using food as medicine (or be allowed to suggest it), and all mid-wives, Native American herbalists and natural healers would be referred to in medical journals as “quacks.” The Western Medicine philosophy would soon come to be that no food in the world could ever heal a human being or cure any disease or disorder; in fact, only pharmaceuticals and vaccines would ever be able to make that claim (legally) and get away with it, whether in peer reviews, medical and science journals (JAMA), scientific “studies” or labeled as such on products. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

Currently, it is illegal for any food, herb, tincture or superfood product to say that it cures anything, yet medications advertised on TV since 1997 can say they treat all kinds of diseases and disorders, even though the side effects are horrendous, some of the time including internal bleeding and suicide. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

Mother Nature, on the other hand, has a CURE for everything and also offers prevention and immunity for everything under the sun. Nutritionists and Naturopathic Physicians will tell you all day that organic fruits and vegetables are the key to healing and living a healthy life. A plant-based diet can heal nearly any health problem, and the body is like a machine that fires “on all cylinders” when given the correct fuel. Take this knowledge and be on your way to health freedom and natural living, where you have lots of energy, rarely ever get sick, can think critically all the time, can be spiritual and independent and take care of your family! Follow Natural News and track the truth. Learn and grow from it. Don’t eat cancer. Don’t drink cancer. Be organic. (http://programs.webseed.com)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.v1.thehealingjournal.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

[/wpex]

TOP

Could 89% of Landmark Cancer Research Be Untruthful?

Friday, April 12th 2013 at 5:00 am

Written By:

Eleni Roumeliotou

Could 89% of Landmark Cancer Research Be Untruthful?

The last years several different studies investigating the objectivity of scientific research have shown that this quality of science may be seriously compromised by industrial funding. In fact, it looks like the scientific literature is contaminated with a growing number of tainted studies, which may reach 89%, the results of which are not reproducible by any means. This means that to an extent, we have based our healthcare and clinical guidelines on fake studies that reported untruthful results in order to accommodate the interests of industrial corporations.

Cancer is a major killer in US. The American Cancer Society reports that in 2012, more than half a million Americans died from cancer, while more than 1.6 million new cases were diagnosed. Given the seriousness of these statistics and the necessity of evidence-based medicine, it would make sense to trust that honest, objective research is tirelessly trying to find the best cancer therapies out there. In March 2012, Nature, the famous high-impact factor scientific journal, published a shocking study. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis double checked the results of 53 landmark studies in cancer research, but they were only able to reproduce the published results in 11% of them. [wpex Read more]

 

There are two very worrying points here. First of all, the cross-checked studies were published in high-impact factor journals and secondly, they have served as the basis for the “state of the art” cancer therapies that millions of people are receiving this very moment. Unfortunately, the authors were not able to disclose these fake studies, because when they contacted the original authors and asked for details of the experiments, they had to sign an agreement that they would not disclose their findings or sources. This shows that the scientists, who published the tainted research, were all along, fully aware of the discrepancies of their articles and criminally conscious of the fact that they were misleading the medical and public opinion.

The connection and support that many scientists enjoy from big pharmaceutical companies seems to be the core of this problem.  Exposing such connections should be enough to either limit this situation or at least put the credibility of the study in question. However, most people involved in such interactions try to hide them as much as possible. While all authors are gently encouraged to sign the conflict of interest and funding statements prior to publication of their work, data show that only a small percentage of scientists publishing research on anticancer targeted therapies disclose potential sources of bias. A study from the University of Michigan has found that only 29% of cancer studies report conflict of interest.

This situation is certainly not limited to the area of cancer research.  In fact, clinical guidelines may be severely biased as well. While very few authors of clinical practice guidelines declare conflict of interest, a big percentage of those who do, have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry that may range from consultancy, equity/stock ownership to old-fashioned research support. These reports paint a disturbing picture indeed and suggest that there is good chance that the greatest part of the clinical healthcare and medical system has slowly been established on corrupted foundations.


References

Clinical Trial Results Under the Rug Cartoon (Drug Discovery & Development)

Pharmaceutical company asks FDA to withdraw approval for its own drugs since agency is too corrupt to protect public safety on its own

Sunday, October 06, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A major manufacturer of antibiotic and arsenical chicken feed drugs has voluntarily requested that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdraw approval for some of the combination varieties that the company has stopped manufacturing in recent years. In alleged compliance with the FDA’s Judicious Use of Antimicrobials plan for improving the safety of factory animal feed, Phibro Animal Health Corporation decided to pull the drugs in response to escalating scrutiny of their combined effects on animal health and food quality, despite no real formative mandates from the FDA. [wpex Read more]

World Poultry reports that Phibro, of its own volition, recently petitioned the FDA to withdraw approval for both New Animal Drug Application (NADA) 098-371, which includes the use of nicarbazin, penicillin and roxarsone in a three-way, combination drug Type C used in animal feed for broiler chickens, and NADA 098-374, which includes nicarbazin and penicillin in a two-way, combination drug Type C used in similar feeding protocols. Both combination drugs have been approved and on the market for more than 40 years.

But the rise of deadly “superbugs,” or mutated pathogens that no longer respond to standard treatments, has been staggering throughout the past decade, prompting many to call for moratoriums on the use of all antibiotics and arsenicals in animal feed. Dozens of public advocacy groups, including the Alliance for Natural Health USA and the Cornucopia Institute, have pleaded with the FDA to initiate strict bans on such drugs for the safety of the public and the health of factory farm animals.

Instead, the FDA decided to issue a non-binding guidance for drug companies to voluntarily withdraw antibiotics and arsenicals from animal feed, a definitive non-move that many prominent media outlets have repeatedly lambasted as useless. But now that the market is dictating that people no longer want to buy meat that contains antibiotics and arsenic, it appears as though some such drugs are being phased out voluntarily, no thanks to the FDA. In fact, Phibro’s recent action in requesting that the FDA withdraw approval for its own drugs suggests that even some drug companies might be starting to have more sense than the FDA.

Drug companies continue to regulate themselves while FDA plays pretend

Or are they? According to a recent contribution posted at the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard blog, Phibro apparently still plans to continue producing penicillin and other drugs for factory animal feed — the company has simply switched its drug configurations around to make it seem like it is complying with the FDA’s spineless guidelines for voluntary removal of antibiotics, which further proves the uselessness of the initiative.

“In addition to the two approvals that Phibro just withdrew for penicillin combined with non-antibiotic drugs in feed, the company also has another feed approval for penicillin used by itself for growth promotion in pigs and turkeys, along with chickens,” writes Avinash Kar for Switchboard. “So Phibro is keeping open the option to sell penicillin for growth promotion in an even wider range of species while withdrawing combination approvals it was not even using.”

In other words, the FDA’s suggested guidelines for reducing and eliminating antibiotics likely did not even play a role in Phibro’s recent decision, despite what the agency is now claiming. Rather, Phibro has always been in charge of steering its own ship, with the FDA simply posing as pseudo-captain to appease the masses.

“For FDA’s plan to have any impact it has to change how antibiotics are used not just how they are labeled, and this action does not meet that goal,” adds Kar.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.worldpoultry.net

http://switchboard.nrdc.org

http://www.theatlantic.com [/wpex]

TOP

This is health care in America: Nursing home patient left to burn up and die by medical staff

Tuesday, October 08, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) You wouldn’t think such things could happen in America, but with today’s heavily regulated medical industry, which has left hospitals and nursing facilities chronically short of help and undertrained, you can expect such incidents to climb.

According to CBSChicago, Michael Lewis, a patient rehabilitating at the Lake Shore Healthcare and Rehabilitation Centre, was coming close to the end of his stay recently when something tragic happened. [wpex Read more]

“He burned to death,” says his sister, Lisa Couch. Literally. “He sustained burns from mid-thigh up to the eyebrows.”

Clinic personnel inadequately trained and did the wrong things

The disturbing video footage shot by the rehab center’s security cam is here.

The footage, which is disturbing, “shows Lewis on the patio, a designated smoking area, when the lighter in his pocket suddenly catches his shirt on fire. Residents try, but fail, to put out the flames. Lewis then frantically pushes himself back inside to get help,” CBSChicago reported.

As you can see in the video, there was no one outside to keep an eye on the patients there.

“The horror, to think my brother is on fire and no one is there?” Couch says.

As you watch the video, you can see frantic rehab center workers inside of the building. Eventually, staff members spray Lewis with a nearby fire extinguisher – which was exactly the wrong thing to do, according to state nursing home regulators – then he is pushed back outside, where his body continues to smolder and where he sat, motionless, covered in foam.

“Doesn’t look like they were trying to take care of Michael,” his sister says.

Dr. Stanley Zydlo, an emergency response expert, watched the video and says there were numerous additional problems.

“There didn’t seem to be anybody in control as to who was to do what,” Zydlo told CBSChicago. He added that Lewis – or anyone whose clothing is on fire – should have used a blanket to cover himself immediately, in order to choke off the oxygen feeding the flames. Afterward, someone should have made sure Lewis had an adequate airway to breath, as breathing in flames often can cause an airway to swell shut. No one was doing much of anything, however.

It took more than five minutes for a worker in blue scrubs to even bring Lewis some oxygen.

“We don’t see anybody evaluating him or doing CPR for him,” Zydlo said.

As noted on the security cam, no one was performing potentially life-saving CPR on Lewis. That didn’t happen until EMS crews from the Chicago Fire Department arrived on the scene, but by then, critical moments had elapsed.

When they found him, Lewis was in cardiac arrest. It took a total of 10 minutes after the flames engulfed him until CPR was initiated. But it didn’t do much good.

Rules, regulations will only make things worse

In an interview with CBSChicago, Zydlo says someone should have put damp sheets on Lewis.

“The burn process is progressive unless you cool it down,” he said. “It will continue.”

Not surprising, officials and healthcare workers at the rehab facility refused to discussed Lewis’ death. Instead, they cited privacy laws in a statement explaining why no one could – or would be – commenting.

State regulators reportedly went on to cite the facility for failing to adequately train staff in emergency procedures.

“There was no one there to help him,” said Couch, sadly, adding that she has filed a wrongful death suit against Lakeshore HealthCare and Rehabilitation Centre.

Because the incredible regulatory burdens placed on healthcare facilities – even before Obamacare’s provisions require workers to comply with hundreds more – these kinds of things are happening. Anyone who believes such gross mistakes will only improve under a wave of new rules and mandates is fooling himself.

Sources:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com

http://chicago.cbslocal.com

http://www.nydailynews.com [/wpex]

TOP

The Unfolding Healthcare Holocaust

(Before It’s News)

Dave Hodges The Common Sense Show

Yes, We can Murder youThis article is not just about Obamacare costs and quality of treatment, it is about the  healthcare holocaust which commenced on October 1, 2013. Obamacare, or dare I say, Obamacide, represents the biggest threat to the well-being and longevity for you and your loved ones.

Rule for Thee but Not for Me

One of the most incredulous aspects of Obamacare enforced, mandatory compliance is that the mandatory provision does not include the legislators who imposed this monstrosity upon us, namely, the Congress. Obamacare is going to prove so substandard that even Obama and his family want nothing to do with it. Are you mad yet? Well, we are just getting started.

The corporate friends of the President, such as the employees at General Electric, McDonalds, several labor unions, SEIU, the thugs at ACORN and over 1,300 big contributors to the Democratic party will not be forced to participate. The agency which will enforce the penalty phase of Obamacare, the IRS, was recently issued an exemption from participating as well. In short, if your corporation donated heavily to Obama’s re-election campaign, an exemption to the mandatory phase of Obamacare has been issued. For everyone else, tough luck, you will be participating in a system which will no doubt hasten the demise of yourself as well as tens of millions of other Americans.

Obamacare mandates the imposition of 19 new taxes which have never existed before including the tax on a home sale which really has nothing to do with healthcare. And if you use an indoor tanning booth, expect to pay a 10% tax.

Obama Said “You Can Keep Your Plan”

There have already been over five million policy cancellationsObama told America that we could keep our presentmedical plan. That was a lie.

There have already been over five million policy cancellations because employers will not conform to the excessive dictates of Obamacare. The estimates are that at least 16 million Americans will lose their healthcare because of the excessive demands placed upon employers and their health care coverage regulations.[wpex Read more]

Obama Said “You Will Save Money On My Plan”

If you think Obamacare is expensive just waitUnder Department of Health and Human Services poverty level guidelines, if you’re a single earning worker making $44,680, or a couple earning a mere $60,520, or a family of four earning a modest income of $92,200, Obama eliminates your subsidy from the government for lower health costs. I do not mean to speak down to anyone, but do you realize that a couple making $60,520 per year is the equivalent of two fast food jobs? These are very modest incomes and the cost aspect of Obamacare should be raising red flags for all middle class income families.

The Kaiser Foundation published an ObamaCare Cost Calculator which will help you and your family calculate your costs, after subsidies. Please be aware this is a basic estimate for the cost of a “Silver plan” (the second tier plan, as opposed to the basic “Bronze plan” on the Exchange). Please also note that the total cost is greatly affected by a “regional cost factor” (increasing or decreasing the premium by as much as 20%). There are indeed separate plans, consisting of Bronze, Silver, Gold and something called the Cadillac plan. However, there is an absence of information about what each level of the Obamacare plan entails in terms of cost and treatment. One thing is clear, when the health plan is divided up into differing levels of care and cost, there is indeed a problem because it is apparent that people will not be treated equally under Obamacare.

For a family of four with two dependent children and a $100,000 income, Obamacare insurance costs are nearly $10,000 per year. Such a family could have expected to pay about $500 per month under existing plans such as United Health Care. Under Obamacare, the cost more than doubled.

For the same family listed above making $150,000 per year, they will pay almost $14,000 per year or 350% more than they would expect to pay in today’s health insurance market. This is obviously why the corporate friends of Obama are seeking exemptions from participation. And for those who seek their own exemption through non-participation, they will be fined 2.5% of gross adjusted income and the amount will increase with each successive year that they refuse to participate.

England’s NHS System Is Obamacare’s Model

obama-final-solutionIn England, Granny must die to save the state money. These words ring true as Dr. Patrick Pullicino discovered that there are approximately 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in a hospital or under NHS care. Around 29% of that number, or about 130,000, were euthanized patients who were on the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).Communist ObamaCare

The Pullicino findings are bolstered by the newly discovered heinous compensation practices from the NHS with regard to the LCP. The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing terminally-ill patients on a controversial “pathway” to death, as this fact has not been publicly disclosed.

The undeniable fact is that the British NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage and they wish to free up beds. However, the main motivation for this attack upon humanity is that they are making money by eliminating the lives of the elderly in Britain.

Pullicino states that NHS doctors have turned the use of a controversial death pathway into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly. Pullicino has extensively researched the issue and asserts that elderly patients, who could live longer, are prematurely placed on the LCP and it has now become an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway. On average, patients submitting to LCP die within 33 hours.

For the Seventy-two trusts to receive compensation for euthanizing the elderly, the trust must respond to such questions as how many people had died on the LCP over the past three years and how much money received in that period was attached to goals involving the premature deaths of the elderly.

A staggering 62% of the trusts admitted that they had received, or will receive, cash rewards for meeting targets (i.e., killing old people) associated with the implementation of the LCP. The other 38% seem to enjoy killing for just the sport of it, as they admitted that they had adopted the LCP without receiving any payments from NHS. This is hell on earth.

 Obamacare Death Panels

Planned-GrandParenthood-ObamacareOne would think that the Globalists would be ecstatic with the murder of over 50 million fetuses in the last 40 years in the United States. There seems to be a Planned Parenthood abortion factory on every corner attempting to abort every baby that they can get their hands on, but the Eugenics crowd at the United Nations are not satisfied. They want even more death and destruction as they are demanding an even greater reduction in population from an increasing number of segments in our population.

A top Democrat strategist, Steven Rattner, who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he calls for death panels and that the implementation of these panels are inevitable. Of course, Rattner’s comments have been totally ignored by the corporate-controlled media. As was the case with the LPC of the NHC, Rattner supports the rationing of health care for elderly patients, while unequivocally stating that  “We need death panels.” Rattner also serves on the board the New America Foundation, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting rationed healthcare. Clearly, this is an Agenda 21 population reduction program. Similar systems exist in many countries, including Australia and New Zealand, where their governments have decided to ration care to the elderly.

The President’s position on denial of care is abundantly clear as his health care reform encourages rationing healthcare by levying a tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans in an attempt to push as many Americans as possible into Obamacare. Additionally, Obamacare calls for the appointment of a small contingent to make decisions on elderly care following the full implementation.

Obamacare is modeled after England’s NHC, only with even more denials of care through >age-related treatment exclusions. The NHC is the unquestionable blueprint for Obamacare. However, we do not yet have a complete picture because Obamacare is still holding back many of the details of age-related exclusion.

pelosi-have-to-pass-it-ObamacareWe passed it Nancy and we are still waiting to see what all is in this healthcare plan.

Ezekiel Emanuel (MD) President Obama’s Special Adviser for Health Policy, coincidentally, the brother of Rahm Emanuel), wrote an article in The Lancet (January 2009) entitled, Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Emanuel proposes an ethical basis for rationing healthcare resources based upon age. He calls it the “complete lives system”.

In the article, Emanuel expresses the notion that all lives do not have a fundamentally equal value. Dr. Emanuel states that the state has the right and the mandated obligation which espouses the Eugenics belief that certain members of society are more valuable and should be saved at the expense of less valuable individuals. The obvious implication is that the state will decide which people will be condemned to death. Emanuel proposes that the very young and people 75 years of age and over, should not be given life-saving treatments, only comfort care. These statements speak to the likely implementation of post-birth abortion (murder) and physician assisted suicide. Emanuel is one of the front men for Obamacare and his words are to be taken seriously.

Dr. Suzanne Allenis the present head of emergency services at the Johnson City Medical Center in Tennessee. Allen toldSnopes that ”Oh, yes. We are seeing cutbacks throughout the services we provide. For example, we are now having to deal with patients who would normally receive dialysis that can no longer be accepted. In the past, there was always automatic approval under Medicare for anyone who needed dialysis, not anymore.” So, what will be their outcome? “They will die soon without dialysis,” she stated. In the no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by locally administered Ethics Panels. In the Snopes interview Dr. Allen added that “These Panels will determine whether a patient receives medical treatment or not.”  Most Americans are in a great deal of trouble.

Conclusion

It turns out that Sarah Palin was correct, there are indeed death panels in Obamacare. We are in the midst of the implementation of these heinous practices across the nation.

In short, the elderly have a duty to die and to die inexpensively. As the Agenda 21 watchdogs have repeatedly reported, Obama represents global interests that want 90% of us dead. Through the use of abortion, contraception and elderly genocide, can there be any question that our population is being targeted for a British style elderly genocide? I propose that we oppose Obamacare with every means available. Much of the foundations of representative government has been destroyed. However, in this instance we may wish to pursue making our Congress feel the extreme heat of our wrath, for it is not hyperbole to state that Obamacare is genocidal and we have entered a period of an extreme healthcare holocaust.[/wpex]

TOP

mail-Online-NewsTop doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year

  • Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
  • Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’
  • Pensioner admitted to hospital given treatment by doctor on weekend shift

By Steve Doughty

NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.

He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.

It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.

He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.

Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.

He said this showed that claims they had hours or days left are ‘palpably false’. 

In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift. [wpex Read more]

Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the LCP.

‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance,’ he said.

‘His seizures came under control and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family,’ he said.

Professor Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

Distressing: The professor has claimed an approved technique of looking after the terminally ill is not being used in all hospitals

He said: ‘The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.

‘Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.

‘Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.

‘Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically.

This determination in the LCP leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The personal views of the physician or other medical team members of perceived quality of life or low likelihood of a good outcome are probably central in putting a patient on the LCP.’

He added: ‘If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths.’

The LCP was developed in the North West during the 1990s and recommended to hospitals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2004.

Medical criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway were voiced nearly three years ago.

Experts including Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, and Dr Peter Hargreaves, palliative care consultant at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, Surrey, warned of ‘backdoor euthanasia’ and the risk that economic factors were being brought into the treatment of vulnerable patients.

In the example of the 71-year-old, Professor Pullicino revealed he had given the patient another 14 months of life by demanding the man be removed from the LCP.

Professor Pullicino said the patient was an Italian who spoke poor English, but was living with a ‘supportive wife and daughter’. He had a history of cerebral haemorrhage and subsequent seizures.

Professor Pullicino said: ‘I found him deeply unresponsive on a Monday morning and was told he had been put on the LCP. He was on morphine via a syringe driver.’ He added: ‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance.’

The patient’s extra 14 months of life came at considerable cost to the NHS and the taxpayer, Professor Pullicino indicated.

He said he needed extensive support with wheelchair, ramps and nursing.

After 14 months the patient was admitted to a different hospital with pneumonia and put on the LCP. The man died five hours later.

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘The Liverpool Care Pathway is not euthanasia and we do not recognise these figures. The pathway is recommended by NICE and has overwhelming support from clinicians – at home and abroad – including the Royal College of Physicians.

‘A patient’s condition is monitored at least every four hours and, if a patient improves, they are taken off the Liverpool Care Pathway and given whatever treatments best suit their new needs.’[/wpex]

TOP

The-Human-life-review

Liverpool Care Pathway: The Road to Backdoor Euthanasia

2013 Winter
Written by Wesley J. Smith
Several years ago, bureaucrats at the United Kingdom’s National Health Service—a socialized system in which hospitals are funded and operated by the state—reacted to legitimate and widespread complaints from family members that their loved ones were dying in agony in NHS hospitals.In response, well-meaning pain-control experts created a protocol—known as the Liverpool Care Pathway—which, among other provisions, informed doctors when to apply a legitimate medical palliative intervention known as palliative sedation. The protocol was recommended for adoption by the National Institute on Clinical Excellence (NICE)—the NHS’s rationing and quality oversight board—and there you go; problem solved.1Except it wasn’t. Indeed, as so often happens in centralized systems, the bureaucratic remedy for one problem led to even worse trouble down the line. The LCP’s palliative sedation protocol has, in practice, too often been applied as “terminal sedation”—a form of backdoor euthanasia. Understanding how and why that happened serves as an important cautionary tale about potent dangers of centralized healthcare.

“Palliative” Versus “Terminal” Sedation

In order to understand what went so badly wrong in the implementation of the LCP—and why it is important—we must first detail the crucial moral and factual distinctions between the legitimate pain-controlling medical treatment known as palliative sedation (PS) and a slow-motion method of euthanasia sometimes called “terminal sedation” (TS). The two are too often conflated, particularly by euthanasia advocates seeking to blur moral distinctions and definitions. [wpex Read more]

A very good article published in the Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy clearly distinguishes between sedation applied to control pain and sedation used as a method of killing.2 First, author Michael P. Hahn, a respiratory therapist with Loma Linda University, notes that palliative sedation applies the least amount of sedative to obtain the needed relief:

Ideally, the level of palliative sedation is provided in a fashion that is titrated to a minimal level that permits the patient to tolerate unbearable symptoms, yet the patient can continue to periodically communicate.3

PS employs varying degrees of sedation and time under that sedation level, depending on the circumstances:

The three most common levels of providing PS include mild, intermediate, and deep. When mild sedation is used, the patient is awake and the level of consciousness is lowered to a somnolent state, with verbal or nonverbal communication still possible. With intermediate sedation, the patient is asleep or stuporous and can still be awakened to communicate briefly. The third level is deep sedation, which refers to the patient being near or in complete unconsciousness and does not communicate verbally or nonverbally. Besides regulating the degree of sedation, palliative sedation may also be provided intermittently or continuously.4

In other words, palliative sedation is a medical treatment applied when necessary to relieve intense suffering; it offers individualized relief from pain and suffering (caused by conditions such as severe agitation) as the situation may warrant. It is not directed at ending the patient’s life. Death is not the goal. If the patient dies, it is usually from the underlying condition or as an unwanted side effect, which can happen with any medical treatment. In other words, PS is no more euthanasia if a patient dies from complications than if a patient dies during heart surgery.

In contrast, terminal sedation intends to kill by putting the person into a permanent artificial coma and withholding food and fluids. TS-caused deaths usually are caused by dehydration over a period of about two weeks. In this sense, Hahn notes, palliative sedation and terminal sedation are mirror opposites (my emphasis below):

Palliative sedation is not a euphemism that is morally equivalent to euthanasia, nor is it “slow euthanasia” [e.g., terminal sedation], or physician-assisted suicide (PAS). There is a sharp distinction between euthanasia and PS or PAS and PS, the distinction between the three can be ascertained by recognizing the primary intention and outcome of each measure. Although PAS and euthanasia are intended to relieve suffering, it is accomplished by causing death, whereas PS is provided in a proportionate manner without an intention of causing death . . . .

Slow euthanasia and PAS specifically involve the intent to end life deliberately with lethal (nontherapeutic) doses of drugs, or with rapid administration of drugs, that exceed the amount needed to alleviate the symptoms. When death unintentionally occurs following a proportionate administration of drugs in PS, the patient dies from the underlying illness and the death certificate does not list the cause of death as “drug overdose.”5

The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization supports the application of palliative sedation in “rare” cases for “the limited number of imminently dying patients who have pain and suffering that is (a) unresponsive to other palliative interventions less suppressive of consciousness and (b) intolerable.” Again, the Position Statement of the NHPCO specifically notes that neither death nor unconsciousness is the goal of the intervention:

The goal of palliative sedation is to provide relief from symptoms that are otherwise intolerable and intractable. Since the goal is symptom relief (and not unconsciousness per se), sedation should be titrated to the minimum level of consciousness reduction necessary to render symptoms tolerable. For some patients, this may be total unconsciousness. For most, however, it will be less than total unconsciousness, allowing the patient to rest comfortably but to be aroused.6

In summary, while both palliative sedation and terminal sedation involve the use of consciousness-altering drugs, they are apples and oranges:

• PS is individualized and the level of sedation varied according to the patient’s present medical condition. In contrast, TS places the patient in a deep artificial coma until death.

• The purpose of PS is to treat the patient’s pain and symptoms while simultaneously offering the best possible quality of life, whereas the explicit goal of TS is making the patient dead.

• Patients who die while undergoing PS usually expire from their underlying physical condition, whereas most patients undergoing TS die of dehydration. (Hence, Hahn’s use of the term “slow euthanasia.”)

• PS is a legitimate and ethical medical treatment. TS is slow euthanasia, which is not legal or ethical in most countries.

With the above in mind, we now turn to the Liverpool Care Pathway and what went wrong.

The Liverpool Care Pathway Only Authorized Palliative Sedation

It is clear from the terms of the policy that the LCP’s authors never intended it to become a form of terminal sedation. For example, an educational document prepared for healthcare professionals by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute (Liverpool)—under which auspices the Pathway was created—notes that the specific “aim” of the Pathway is to “improve care of the dying in the last hours or days of life.7 It also stated unequivocally that:

• “The LCP neither hastens nor postpones death;”

• “The LCP does not recommend the use of continuous deep sedation;”

• “The LCP does not preclude the use of artificial hydration;”

• “The LCP supports continuous reassessment.”8

It is also important to reiterate that the LCP was designed to be applied in a patient-specific and nuanced manner. Thus, as the educational document notes:

A blanket policy of clinically assisted (artificial) nutrition or of no clinically assisted (artificial) hydration is ethically indefensible and in the case of patients lacking capacity prohibited under the Mental Capacities Act (2005).9

Indeed, an early audit of 4000 dying patients found that only 4 percent needed deep levels of sedation to control pain and distressing symptoms at the very end of life.10

Backdoor Euthanasia

Alas, that is not how the LCP has been carried out in many NHS hospitals and nursing homes. The trouble began when NICE urged hospitals to adopt the Pathway as a means of caring for dying patients. Perhaps because it came to be perceived as a bureaucratic order rather than a guideline encouraging individualized patient care, deep sedation apparently came to be seen as the norm in some institutions—to the point that at least in some cases, the LCP became a means of backdoor euthanasia, threatening a full-blown medical scandal.

The serious problems with the Pathway first came to light in 2009 when the Telegraph published an open letter signed by palliative physicians and other pain-control experts. It complained that hospital personnel were applying the LCP in a “tick-box” manner that threatened the lives of patients who did not need sedation based on their medical conditions:

Just as, in the financial world, so-called algorithmic banking has caused problems by blindly following a computer model, so a similar tick-box approach to the management of death is causing a national crisis in care. The government is rolling out a new treatment pattern of palliative care into hospitals, nursing homes, and residential homes. It is based on experience in a Liverpool hospice. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death.

This, the letter writers warned, had resulted in some patients who were not actively dying—a core requirement for application of the LCP—being sedated:

As a result, a nationwide wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients. Syringe drivers are being used to give continuous terminal sedation, without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong . . . . Experienced doctors know that sometimes, when all but essential drugs are stopped, “dying” patients get better.11

A concurrent Telegraph story reported that an alarming 16.5 percent of patients who died in 2007-08 expired while under “continuous deep sedation.” Tellingly, the Telegraph reported that twice as many patients in the U.K. died while under deep sedation as in the Netherlands—a country where terminal sedation sometimes serves as a substitute for active euthanasia.12 (It is worth noting that the use of TS as a means of euthanasia has increased in the Netherlands in the intervening years. A recent study found that 12.3 percent of Dutch deaths now result from sedation and dehydration—which is still below the rate in the UK!)13

Soon, disturbing stories in the press added credence to the open letter writers’ fears. Again, the Telegraph led the way, reporting Rosemary Munkenbeck’s claim that her father, hospitalized with a stroke, was quickly deprived of fluids and medications. She further claimed that doctors wanted to sedate him under the Pathway protocols until he died. The family refused, but not before Munkenbeck’s father went five days without sustenance.14

The Sunday Times of London soon reported another case, headlined, “Daughter Saves Mother, 80, Left by Doctors to Starve”:

An 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened. Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients. Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool Care Pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.15

Fenton lived to tell the tale. Not so 76-year-old Jack Jones. As reported by the Daily Mail, Jones was hospitalized in the belief that his previous cancer had recurred and was now terminal. The family claimed he was soon denied food and water and put into deep sedation. But his autopsy showed that he did not have cancer at all, but actually had a treatable infection. The hospice denied wrongdoing but paid £18,000 to Jones’s widow.16

As time progressed, it became abundantly clear that despite the LCP’s intent that the protocol not be applied in a blanket manner, precisely such unthinking applications were happening in actual clinical practice. Another story in the Telegraph reported that two-thirds of NHS hospitals were receiving financial incentives from the government to place patients on the LCP:

The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing terminally-ill patients on a controversial ‘pathway’ to death, it can be disclosed. The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the full scale of financial inducements for the first time. They suggest that about 85 per cent of trusts have now adopted the regime, which can involve the removal of hydration and nutrition from dying patients. More than six out of 10 of those trusts—just over half of the total—have received or are due to receive financial rewards for doing so amounting to at least £12million.

And the statistics show that the Pathway has indeed become backdoor euthanasia:

At many hospitals more than 50 per cent of all patients who died had been placed on the pathway and in one case the proportion of foreseeable deaths on the pathway was almost nine out of ten.17

Not only that, but the Telegraph published news that while some hospitals applied the LCP in a professional manner, others offered little training to staff and applied the protocol as a checklist item “to be done” to terminal patients.18 Clearly, this was not what the authors of the LCP had intended.

Bureaucratic “Death Targets”

This article cannot determine the full nature and extent of the problems with the LCP, a still unfolding story and the subject of multiple investigations and inquiries. But we can come to some preliminary conclusions as to why a clearly well-intentioned, appropriately defined, and medically ethical guidance instrument came to be used, at least in some cases, to kill.

The prime suspect seems to be the nature of bureaucracy. Jacqueline Laing, a senior lecturer in law at London Metropolitan University, points to the problem of “managerialized death targets” that were apparently established by the NHS’s centralized bureaucracy:

Part of the difficulty is that, where a patient is diagnosed as terminal and imminently dying, the combination of morphine and dehydration is likely to undermine a patient’s capacity. Persistent dehydration of even the fittest sedated patient will kill him. This was the problem with the Pathway from the very outset. It reversed the burden of proof, on the strength of a diagnosis that is not always certain, so that an increasingly incapacitated patient would have to speak on his own behalf in favour of water. Even assuming he was healthy enough, in an environment in which the Pathway is normal his pleas may not be heard.19

To put it another way, doctors applying the LCP ceased to treat patients as individuals, but instead yielded to bureaucratic imperatives—precisely the approach that the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute stated should not happen.

Laing also warned cogently that more trouble lay ahead unless medical personnel applied the LCP in a patient-specific manner:

Recent revelations of financial incentives and staggering compliance in rolling out the managerial programme radically alter the debate. Diagnostic concerns in the context of arguably self-fulfilling sedation-dehydration regimes and overarching financial and political pressure to implement the Pathway, suggest that the regime may have acquired a lethal power of its own. This lethal character is almost certainly one that exists independently of the best intentions of those who formulated or apply it. Some of history’s most important lessons highlight the problems of institu-tionalising programmes that invite homicide and reverse burdens of proof in ways that undermine the vulnerable.

In other words, the bureaucratic imperative transformed a benign and beneficial medical treatment into a method of intentionally causing death—without necessarily intending that lethal outcome.

The LCP and the Affordable Care Act

There is a warning here for the United States under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), by which the federal government centralized management of the American health-care system. While the ACA does not create a socialized system akin to the UK’s NHS, it does establish a centralized federal bureaucracy authorized to give incentives to doctors and medical institutions to follow pre-defined approaches of providing “excellence.” Indeed, many of the architects and implementers of the ACA have stated that they hope to emulate NICE-style cost containment/quality care methods—the very approach that subverted proper application of the LCP.

The greatest potential danger of managerializing healthcare (to borrow Laing’s term) may be posed by the soon-to-be-implemented Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is not a garden-variety “advisory” commission like so many seen in government these days. Rather, the unique “fast track authority” granted to IPAB authorizes it to impose its “recommendations” into law. Specifically:

• By January 15 each year, the Independent Payment Advisory Board must submit a proposal to Congress and the president for reaching Medicare savings targets in the coming year. The majority leaders in the House and Senate must introduce bills incorporating the board’s proposal the day they receive it.

• Congress cannot “consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report . . .  that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the board” if such changes fail to meet the board’s budgetary target.

• By April 1, the committees of jurisdiction must complete their consideration of the proposal. Any committee that fails to meet the deadline is barred from further considering the bill.

• The secretary of health and human services must implement the Independent Payment Advisory Board’s proposal, as passed by Congress and signed by the president, on August 15 of the year in which the proposal is submitted.

• If Congress does not pass the proposal or a substitute plan meeting the Independent Payment Advisory Board’s financial target before August/15, or if the president vetoes the proposal passed by Congress, the original Independent Payment Advisory Board recommendations automatically take effect.

Further demonstrating the Star Chamber-like powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, Congress cannot consider any bill or amendment that would repeal or change this fast-track congressional consideration process without a three-fifths vote (60) in the Senate. Not only that, but the implementation of the board’s remedy is exempted from administrative or judicial review.20

IPAB defenders claim that the IPAB’s iron fist is necessary to ensure cost containment. They also note that the board does not have a completely free hand. For example, as it pursues its mission of frugality, it is not currently allowed to recommend health care rationing, changes in Medicare benefits, or revision of eligibility standards.

That is hardly reassuring. Before IPAB is even up and running, powerful voices began calling for IPAB to be granted expanded powers—including explicit NICE-style powers of health care rationing. Thus, Christina D. Romer, former chairwoman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in the New York Times: “Once the payment advisory board has a track record . . . it could be empowered to suggest changes in benefits or in how Medicare services are provided—say, along the lines of successful demonstration projects.”21

Even more explicitly, former Obama Treasury Department adviser and New York Times columnist Steven Rattner wrote, “We need death panels,” urging that IPAB be transformed into a rationing board. “No one wants to lose an aging parent,” he wrote. But the cost of caring extensively for the elderly “imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear,” and so we too must jump into the rationing pool:

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life. At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.22

Similarly, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)—an explicit supporter of NICE-style health care rationing—has opined that “strengthening of IPAB is of critical importance.”23 Moreover, the NEJM has supported a system of rationing utilized by NICE based on the discriminatory quality of life year (QALY), which judges healthier, younger, and more able-bodied lives as having greater value than those on life’s edges. For example, an editorial favoring using QALYs in the context of the ACA argued:

As the country searches for ways to curb health care spending, consideration of the cost-effectiveness of health interventions will unavoidably be part of the health care debate, alongside considerations of possible payment- and delivery-system reforms. The use of explicit, standard metrics such as cost-per-QALY ratios has the advantage of transparency and can help direct our resources toward the greatest health gains.24

Such thinking demonstrates how centralized healthcare management practices unleash broad technocratic impulses. Rather than reinforcing standards of professional excellence in medicine, health care instead comes to be dominated by the bureaucratic imperatives, in turn leading to connect-the-dots medicine.

Indeed, because the Liverpool Care Pathway often has been perceived through a distorting bureaucratic prism, it has become a pronounced threat to the most weak and vulnerable patients precisely when they are at their most weak and vulnerable. We ignore that lesson in the United States at our own peril.

NOTES

1.  For more information on the National Institute on Health and Clinical Excellence, see http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/mcpcil/migrated-files/liverpool-care-pathway/updatedlcppdfs/What_is_the_LCP_-_Healthcare_Professionals_-_April_2010.pdf

2.  Michael P. Hahn, “Review of Palliative Sedation and Its Distinction From Euthanasia and Lethal Injection,” Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy. 2012; 26:30-39.

3.  Id., p. 31.

4.  Id.

5.  Id., pp. 36-37.

6.  Timothy W. Kirk, PhD, and Margaret M. Mahon, PhD, RN, FAAN, for the Palliative Sedation Task Force of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization Ethics Committee, “National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) Position Statement and Commentary on the Use of Palliative Sedation in Imminently Dying Terminally Ill Patients,” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Vol. 39 No. 5 May 2010, 914-923. http://www.nhpco.org/files/public/JPSM/NHPCO_Pall-Sedation-Ther_JPSM_May2010.pdf

7.  Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, “What is the Liverpool Pathway for the Dying Patient?: Information for Health Care Professionals,” April 2010, p. 2. http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/mcpcil/migrated-files/liverpool-care-pathway/updatedlcppdfs/What_is_the_LCP_-_Healthcare_Professionals_-_April_2010.pdf

8.  Id., p. 4.

9.  Id., p. 5.

10. Id., p. 8.

11. P.H. Millard et al., “A Group of Experts Who Care for the Terminally Ill Claim That Some Patients are Being Wrongly Judged as Close to Death,” Telegraph, September 3, 2009.

12. Kate Devlin, “Sentenced to Death on the NHS,” Telegraph, September 2, 2009.

13. Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., “Trends in end-of-life practices before and after the enactment of the euthanasia law in the Netherlands from 1990 to 2010: a repeated cross-sectional survey,” The Lancet, July 11, 2012 http://press.thelancet.com/netherlands_euthanasia.pdf

14. Chris Irvine and Kate Devlin, “Daughter Claims Father Wrongly Placed on Controversial NHS End of Life Scheme,” Telegraph, September 8, 2009.

15. Sarah-Kate Templeton, “Daughter Saves Mother, 80, Left by Doctors to Starve,” The Sunday Times, October 11, 2009. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/living/Health/article187212.ece

16. James Tozer, “My husband had beaten cancer, then doctors WRONGLY told him it had returned and sent him to a hospice who let him die,” Daily Mail, October 14, 2009. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1219853/My-husband-beaten-cancer-doctors-wrongly-told-returned-let-die.html

17. Laura Donnelly, “Half of Those on Liverpool Pathway Never Told,” Telegraph, December 1, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9716418/Half-of-those-on-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-never-told.html

18. John Bingham, “Hospitals Treating Liverpool Care Pathway as Just Another ‘Thing to Do,’” Telegraph, January 8, 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9788737/Hospitals-treating-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-as-just-another-thing-to-do.html

19. Jacqueline Laing, “A Lethal Power?” Legal World, November 23, 2012.

20. Affordable Care Act of 2010, Section 3403, http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

21. Christina D. Romer, “Only the First Step in Containing Health Costs,” New York Times, July 21, 2012.

22. Steven Rattner, “Beyond Obamacare,” New York Times, September 16, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?

mid=tw-share&_r=0

23. Henry J. Aaron, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board—Congress’s Good Deed,” New England Journal of Medicine, 364:2377-2379, June 23, 2011. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1105144

24. Peter J. Neumann et al., “Legislating Against the Use of Cost Effectiveness Information,” New England Journal of Medicine, 363:1495-1497, October 14, 2010. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1007168?viewType=Print

*     *     *     *     *

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute. He also consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His latest book is A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement (Encounter).[/wpex]
TOP

Report: Ebola Suspected In Europe: “Broken Through All Containment Efforts”

Mac Slavo April 20th, 2014
Though officials at the World Health Organization are feverishly working to stop the spread of the Ebola virus in what is now seven African nations, their efforts may be for naught. In Guinea, a hot spot for the deadly contagion, government health officials have said that the outbreak is nearly under control. Yet, Reuters reports that the government “planned to stop publicly releasing the death toll to avoid causing unnecessary panic.”

But panic may be in order.

Despite the best efforts of emergency health workers it appears that virus may have crossed out of Africa into Europe.

The outbreak of Ebola Virus in seven west African countries has broken through all containment efforts and is spreading like wildfire.  According to Christian Relief groups working in Guinea and Liberia, the number of confirmed infections jumped 15% in just the last 24 hours. In addition, 40 illegal alien migrant workers from the outbreak area, who came ashore in Pisa, Italy, are showing signs of Ebola infection and are being isolated in Pisa Italy because of fever and “conjunctivitis” (bloody around the eyes).  According to the World Health Organization, this strain of Ebola is entirely new and although it is close to the Zaire strain, it is different, thus accounting for false-negative test results . . . . . for weeks!

Those false-negative results meant people who were actually infected with Ebola, were returned to their families and neighborhoods to recover from what they believed was the Flu or a case of food poisoning, only to spread the Ebola further. 

The result has been a complete loss of containment of this Ebola outbreak.  

With the likely arrival of Ebola in Pisa, Italy, the European continent is now at severe risk.

Italian officials deny the reports, but alternative media in the country suggests this is the reason for a complete lock down of a hospital in Pisa, where it is believed to have infected some 40 individuals. Other reports trickling in from various sources like social media indicate the virus may have also appeared about 50 miles from Pisa in Tuscany, Italy.

Alarmingly, a story that appeared about the outbreak on national news wires was reportedly removed by the Italian government for “national security reasons,” suggesting that there is more to the reports than Italian officials are willing to express to the public at this time.

Though they have denied that the Pisa hospital was locked down due to Ebola, they seem to be bracing for the possibility of a severe epidemic in Rome and Milan.

(Google Translation via Italy’s Vnews24)

And ‘mystery about forty hypothetical cases of Ebola registered in our country. The virus is particularly common on the African continent – the cases “official” were recorded in Senegal, Mali and Ghana – may have arrived in Italy “thank you” to the massive exodus of immigrants to our shores. A first “bell” d ‘alarm was launched by Lampedusa. According to a report appeared in the network (and immediately removed for reasons of “national security”), in fact, April 16 would be recorded on an epidemic ‘island, never confirmed nor refuted by our Ministry of Health.

A new ”SOS” about the spread of the virus’ Ebola in the Bel Paese is, this time, from Tuscany. Means of dissemination of the news shock is always the network: blogs, social networks, websites dedicated highlighted the “Curious Case of St. Flushing,” reception center site in Pisa, closed to the public due to the presence, all ‘inside of it, forty non-EU nationals which are to some strange symptoms. Capuzzi Sandra, Councillor for Social Policies of the Municipality of Pisa, he would have dismissed the alarmism of his countrymen, by classifying the health status of the refugees in the structure in these terms: “They have just a little bit fever, caused by stressful travel conditions under which the children were subjected. “

Fear, meanwhile, remains. The forty possible carriers of the virus’ Ebola have been subjected to all the tests required in high-risk situations. The Italian population, however, does not feel the climate of reassurance that high institutional positions and subjected try to transmit information through various channels, official and unofficial. The tension increases, although the Ministry of Health said that, in the unlikely event of an outbreak, Rome and Milan would be ready to face the ‘epidemic.

According to Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian relief group actively working with hospitals and health officials in Guinea and Liberia, what makes Ebola so dangerous is that it can be transmitted through human contact and may take weeks before symptoms appear:

The initial Ebola outbreak in Guinea is believed to have started when hunters came in contact with infected fruit bats. The Ebola virus is spread between humans through direct contact. Once infected, it can take up to 21 days for symptoms to appear, which include high fever, headaches, and fatigue. At that point, the infected person is contagious.

With details lacking and health officials opting to keep reports of infections from the public, it is impossible to know exactly how far the virus has spread.

As noted above, this new strain was not identified immediately, thus blood tests of people showing possible symptoms may have shown false-negatives even though those individuals may have been carrying the virus. Once returned to the general population and assuming they did not contract the virus, it is certainly possible that it was then transmitted to others.

If Ebola has taken hold in Italy, then we can expect more reported cases all over the continent in coming weeks, with the real possibility that the virus could make its way to U.S. shores via hundreds of international flights arriving on a daily basis.

It’s understandable that government officials do not want to overreact and cause panic, especially insofar as global air travel is concerned, because doing so would lead to a lock down of airports worldwide.

The panic would be unprecedented.

As noted by Tess Pennington of Ready Nutrition, even if the public became aware that a pandemic was in progress, many would remain in denial about such a prospect and would remain oblivious to the long-term repercussions. She notes that the effects of a pandemic could be swift and drastic, leading to societal upheaval :

Understanding that our lives will change drastically if the population is faced with a pandemic and being prepared for this can help you make better choices toward the well being of your family. Some changes could be:

  • Shut downs of business commerce
  • Breakdown of our basic infrastructure: communications, mass transportation, supply chains
  • Payroll service interruptions
  • Staffing shortages in hospitals and medical clinics
  • Interruptions in public facilities – Schools, workplaces may close, and public gatherings such as sporting events or worship services may close temporarily.
  • Government mandated voluntary or involuntary home quarantine.

(Source: Pandemic Preparedness)

Given the continued spread of the virus to numerous countries in Africa, and now possibly Europe, we urge readers to remain vigilant and have, at the very least, their basic essentials in place.

This virus is incurable and is believed to have a mortality rate of up to 85% of those infected.

If it is spreading outside of Africa, then it is only a matter of time – perhaps several weeks – before it becomes apparent in developing nations.

These posted probabilities are in no way authoritative, and should be considered a “best guess” only.

Probabilities of unchecked infection at this point, based upon a method of travel, times and frequencies of airline flights to various cities, also including certain assumed volumes of “mixed maritime” traffic between north Africa and southern Europe –  the Probability that Ebola will strike is:

63% in Italy within 8 days
44% in Spain within 15 days
77% in Riyadh/Saudi within 21 days
40% in Libya within 25 days
29% in the US within 28 days
37% in Egypt within 33 days

By the time we get to 35 days, it can be in 25 countries on 4 continents.

(Source: TRN)

In the United States, the CDC has issued a travel alert to airlines and set up emergency quarantine stations at domestic airports, though there are no specific guidelines in place at this time according to BD Live:

The US is well prepared to handle infected patients on its soil with 20 CDC quarantine stations in place at US airports that are designed to deal with anyone who has symptoms of a wide range of infectious illnesses, including Ebola, according to spokeswoman Christine Pearson. Despite the outbreak, there are no special requests or guidelines to airlines about Ebola, though the CDC has issued a travel alert, she said.

“The time it takes to travel from rural Guinea to anywhere in the US is more than enough time to incubate the virus and be symptomatic,” Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Laurie Garrett said in New York.

If in the next month we see Ebola popping up in North America then we may have a serious problem on our hands.

This is a developing report and is in no way conclusive. Official statements from the WHO, CDC and European governments have yet to confirm Ebola’s crossover into Europe or the United States. Updates will be provided as details become available.

TOP