A Chinese court has fined GlaxoSmithKline nearly $500 million for bribery. It would seem that wherever GSK is, there we will also find instances of corruption of the very worst kind.
According to The New York Times, “Chinese authorities accused Glaxo of bribing hospitals and doctors, channeling illicit kickbacks through travel agencies and pharmaceutical industry associations — a scheme that brought the company higher drug prices and illegal revenue of more than $150 million. In a rare move, authorities also prosecuted the foreign-born executive who ran Glaxo’s Chinese unit.
After a one-day trial held in secrecy, the court sentenced Glaxo’s British former country manager, Mark Reilly, and four other company managers to potential prison terms of up to four years. The sentences were suspended, allowing the defendants to avoid incarceration if they stay out of trouble, according to Xinhua. The verdict indicated that Mr. Reilly could be promptly deported. The report said they had pleaded guilty and would not appeal.”
For further details about the case, read the full New York Times article here.
What a pity that the corrupt company managers weren’t sent to prison. It would certainly be nothing less than they deserve. Such people truly are the scum of the earth. GlaxoSmithKline seems to have a penchant for employing the scum of the earth. Funny, that. Surely it could have nothing to do with company practices ;)
Child regresses after vaccination
Take a minute to follow this link to CNN iReport and see the striking difference in behaviour in this child after vaccination. Come up with a feasible explanation in your own mind as to what else could have gone on with this child to cause him to lose eye contact and to start flapping his arms.
“Pharmaceutical companies wooed academic leaders, ghostwrote articles, suppressed damaging health data and lavished doctors with gifts to make prescribing powerful psychotropic drugs to children a blockbuster profit center, a trail of lawsuits over the past two decades shows,” according to The Denver Post.
Since 2008, pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay more than $13 billion to resolve U.S. Department of Justice allegations of fraudulent marketing practices. Among the cases:
• Eli Lilly distributed videotapes to doctors titled “The Myth of Diabetes” when marketing its antipsychotic Zyprexa, despite being aware of studies showing those taking the drug had a higher rate of diabetes, government investigators say. The government accused the company of pressing doctors to prescribe Zyprexa to children and collected a $1.4 billion fine.
• Pfizer, which paid a $2.3 billion fine to settle a whistle-blower lawsuit, hired 250 child psychiatrists to help market its antipsychotic Geodon despite there being no approved pediatric use for the drug from the FDA. As part of the settlement, Pfizer denied any wrongdoing.
• AstraZeneca paid a fine of $520 million to resolve allegations that it promoted the antipsychotic Seroquel to treat aggression, sleeplessness, anxiety and depression when the FDA had approved the drug only to treat schizophrenia and, later, bipolar mania. Government investigators said the company targeted child physicians.
• Johnson & Johnson targeted what it called key opinion leaders to help promote the use of anti-psychotic Risperdal in children, the government alleged in another lawsuit that resulted in a $2.2 billion fine to resolve criminal and civil allegations.
Read the full Denver Post article here. It is an excellent piece and mentions GlaxoSmithKline whistleblower, Greg Thorpe.
Pharmaceutical companies truly are the lowest of the low
Meanwhile, on the 2nd of September, GlaxoSmithKline released 45 litres of concentrated live polio virus solution into the water in Belgium. Oh, a round of applause for you, GSK. Well done! Such care and attention shown! Original press release here.
What else could we expect from GSK? It seems that they don’t have the regard for human life that they should.
Back in 2012, the Buenos Aires Herald reported that GlaxoSmithKline Argentina Laboratories Company was fined 400,000 pesos after 14 babies died in illegal vaccine trials. To put that fine in perspective, at this present time, one Australian dollar will buy 7.51 Argentine pesos. In other words, a 400,000 peso fine for 14 lives is nothing! A slap on the wrist, and then it’s business as usual for these apparent low lives. As far as I’m concerned, they are the scum of the earth. There’s little to convince me otherwise.
So let me get this straight. They killed babies in a trial in an attempt to create a product that will go on to injure more people. Brilliant.
We now know that the CDC whistleblower is William Thompson. There has been a report that Thompson was seen being escorted from the CDC campus on the 21st of August.
Journalist Celia Farber reported yesterday that the story was briefly posted by CNN, and then pulled.
“CNN is now overtly complicit in the mainstream media blackout of thedeveloping storyof CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who stepped forward and revealed that he had partaken in cooking data attempting to minimize the truth about the toxicity of the MMR vaccine in infants and the increased risk of developing autism.
As of late last night, the article had 45,232 views, 178 comments, and a staggering 17 thousand shares.
Over at Health Impact News they ask the pertinent questions, “Will other researchers who participated in this cover-up also come forward, such as Dr. DeStefano? What about directors at the CDC such as current Dr. Coleen Boyle who has testified under oath that no links between vaccines and autism existed? What about Julie Gerberding who was head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009 before she left to become president of Merck’s Vaccine division, a 5 billion dollar a year operation? How many lives have been ruined due to withholding and covering up this information?”
Dr Andrew Wakefield stated that, as a result of the whistleblower story being posted by the Autism Media Channel, “The Empire strikes back: autism media channel website and email addresses taken down.”
I will be interested to see how the story further unfolds. Stay tuned. In the meantime, may the force be with you.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has deliberately and wilfully concealed from the public the fact that boys who receive the MMR vaccine on time have a 340% increased risk of autism, compared with those receiving it later. No, that wasn’t a mistake – three-hundred and forty percent increased risk.
The CDC has known about this increased risk for the last 13 years. The CDC has deliberately withheld this vital information from a trusting public since 2001. How many children have sustained injury from the MMR in the meantime? How many preventable cases of autism have been diagnosed in that time?
A senior government scientist has now broken 13 years of silence on the fraud perpetuated by the CDC. “I’m completely ashamed of what I did,” he says.
The figures were made public on the 10th of August, and this video was released only hours ago.
I wonder what cock-and-bull story the CDC will manufacture in an attempt to hide their deception. No doubt we can expect to have a fudged, high-profile study released, showing the opposite of what the scientist revealed. Or we’ll hear another story about Dr Andrew Wakefield, fabricated in an attempt to discredit him. Or there’ll be some new and completely ridiculous Upworthy story that people will share willy-nilly on facebook, whilst having done exactly zero research of their own into any subject related to vaccination. Just keep on parroting the party line, people. The pharmaceutical companies count on you doing just that, and they adore you for it.
As Dr Wakefield says, “You see, vile as the crimes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler were, these men were not hypocrites, their motives ambiguous, or their rhetoric glazed with apparent caring and compassion. These men were not entrusted with the welfare of their victims, their mottos did not include the words “to save lives and protect”. They were not running a mandatory program disguised as caring.”
Does the CDC actually stand for Cunningly Deceptive Con-Artists? There’s little to convince me otherwise.
The Federal Vaccine Court ruled that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine triggered brain damage in the little boy featured in the video below.
This NBC news story isn’t new, but definitely worth a look for those who’ve not yet seen it.
It takes less than two minutes to view. That’s all it takes to see the reality of what can occur.
Here’s a little background on Dr Andrew Mouldon, whom you see in the news piece.
“My Bachelors degree was in Biological Psychology. I graduated valedictorian with an 88% cumulative average from Nipissing University, North Bay Ontario, Canada, in my core area of specialty. My Masters degree was in Child Development with my main thesis in language and neurocognitive development in children and adolescents (Laurentian University). My Undergraduate course grades in Brain and Behavior (98%) and Neurobiology (94%) were straight “A’s”. I achieved a similar level of academic success during the Masters and PhD degrees.
Through my extensive research and my work throughout the years, I have discovered that vaccinations are causing impaired blood flow (ischemia) to brain and body from clinically silent to death. These are strokes – across the board for all of us. I have reason to believe that all are being affected and all vaccinations ARE causing the overwhelming rise in autism, specific learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, sudden infant death, gulf war syndrome, dementia, seizure disorders, some cancers it would appear, and much much more.
The brain and nervous system is wired in a very specific format. Functions are localized to specific areas. Having studied brain and behavior, neurosciences, clinical neuropsychology, child neurodevelopment, functional brain imaging, clinical neurology, clinical neuropsychiatry, clinical medicine, immunology, hematology, tests and measurement, and understanding the tools and assumptions and techniques of mainstream medicine, I fell in the unique position of having being able to see clinical medicine problems, from a multitude of simultaneous areas of expertise and scientific knowledge. Relative to the human brain, I understood “rules and laws” of brain function relative to brain damage and the mechanisms of medical physiology that can uniquely cause unique patterns of brain damage in ways that my clinical skills could detect, that mainstream neuroimaging cannot. The initial “aha” moment was in 2001.”
The above was an excerpt from an interview with the doctor, which you can read in full here. He delves further into what has formed his views, and expands on the subjects of autism, aluminium, blood flow etc. It’s all quite interesting, indeed.
Dr Moulden unfortunately passed away suddenly in November, 2013.
Dr Andrew J. Wakefield, an academic gastroenterologist, was part of a team at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London.
Wakefield once said, “I have lost my job, my career and my country”. Why, to this day, is his work perceived by some as being discredited?
In his own words, “On February 28, 1998, twelve colleagues and I published a case series paper in The Lancet, a respected medical journal, as an “Early Report”. The paper described the clinical findings in 12 children with an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) occurring in association with a mild-to-moderate inflammation of the large intestine (colitis). This was accompanied by swelling of the lymph glands in the intestinal lining (lymphoid nodular hyperplasia), predominantly in the last part of the small intestine (terminal ileum). Contemporaneously, parents of 9 children associated onset of symptoms with measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) exposure, 8 of whom were reported on in the original paper. The significance of these findings has been overshadowed by misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and a concerted, systematic effort to discredit the work. This effort, and specifically the complaint of a freelance journalist and an intense political desire to subvert enquiry into issues of vaccine safety and legal redress for vaccine damage, culminated in the longest running and most expensive fitness to practice case ever to come before the United Kingdom’s medical regulator, the General Medical Council. At this point, the guilty verdict is in. Now, and only now, with all of the contemporaneous documentation available, is it timely to review both the original paper and its legacy.” So wrote Dr Wakefield in Callous Disregard, published in 2011.
The General Medical Council found that Wakefield had shown a “callous disregard” for the children involved in his research. Was this the case? Take two and a half minutes to see what the parents of the children say about Wakefield and his colleagues. Alternatively, read the transcript below.
An Open Letter
To Whom It May Concern
We are writing to you as parents of the children who, because of their symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease and associated autism, were seen at the Royal Free Hospital Paediatric Gastroenterology Unit by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Simon Murch with the involvement of Dr Andrew Wakefield on the research side of their investigations. Our children became the subjects of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998.
We know these three doctors are being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) on the basis of allegations made to them by a freelance reporter. Among the many allegations made are the suggestions that the doctors acted inappropriately regarding our children, that Dr. Wakefield ‘solicited them for research purposes’ and that our children had not been referred in the usual way by their own GPs. It is also claimed that our children were given unnecessary and invasive investigations for the purpose of research, and not in their interest.
We know this was not so. All of our children were referred to Professor Walker-Smith in the proper way in order that their severe, long-standing and distressing gastroenterological symptoms could be fully investigated and treated by the foremost paediatric gastroenterologists in the UK. Many of us had been to several other doctors in our quest to get help for our children but not until we saw Professor Walker-Smith and his colleagues were full investigations undertaken.
We were all treated with utmost professionalism and respect by all three of these doctors. Throughout our children’s care at the Royal Free Hospital we were kept fully informed about the investigations recommended and the treatment plans which evolved. All of the investigations were carried out without distress to our children, many of whom made great improvements on treatment so that for the first time in years they were finally pain free.
We have been following the GMC hearings with distress as we, the parents, have had no opportunity to refute these allegations. For the most part we have been excluded from giving evidence to support these doctors whom we all hold in very high regard. It is for this reason we are writing to the GMC and to all concerned to be absolutely clear that the complaint that is being brought against these three caring and compassionate physicians does not in any way reflect our perception of the treatment offered to our sick children at the Royal Free. We are appalled that these doctors have been the subject of this protracted enquiry in the absence of any complaint from any parent about any of the children who were reported in the Lancet paper.
It becomes apparent that the information we’ve been presented with by the media over the years bears little relation to the truth.
Wakefield’s “mistake” was in trying to do a thorough investigation into the health problems the children had, and in daring to (sensibly) suggest that parents should consider getting measles, mumps and rubella vaccines separately until appropriate MMR safety studies were done. His goose was cooked when he questioned government policy.
Myths surrounding the Wakefield case
Wakefield examines these myths in Callous Disregard.
The Lancet paper was funded by the Legal Aid Board (LAB)
False – Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. A LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This latter study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent.
My involvement as a medical expert was kept “secret”
False – at least 1 year before publication, I informed my senior co-authors, the head of the department, the dean of the medical school, and the CEO of the hospital. This fact was also reported in the national press 15 months prior to publication.
Children were “sourced” by lawyers to sue vaccine manufacturers
False – Children were referred, evaluated, and investigated on the basis of their clinical symptoms alone, following referral from the child’s physician.
Children were litigants
False – at the time of their referral to the Royal Free, the time material to their inclusion in The Lancet paper, none of the children were litigants.
I had an undisclosed conflict of interest
False – The Lancet‘s disclosure policy at the time was followed to the letter. Documentary evidence confirms that the editorial staff of The Lancet was fully aware that I was working as an expert on MMR litigation well in advance of the paper’s publication.
Did not have ethics committee (EC) approval
False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval, detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies, was covered by the necessary EC approval.
I “fixed” data and misreported clinical findings
False – There is absolutely no basis in fact for this claim and it has been exposed as false.
Findings have not been independently replicated
False – The key findings of lymphoid nodular hyperplasia (LNH) and colitis in ASD children have been independently confirmed in five different countries.
Has been retracted by most of the authors
False – 11 of the 13 authors issued a retraction of the interpretation that MMR is a possible trigger for syndrome described. This remains a possibility and a possibility cannot be retracted.
The work is discredited
False – Those attempting to discredit the work have relied upon the myths above. The findings described in the paper are novel and important.
Parents rally in support of Wakefield, above
I think it’s important for people to read what Wakefield writes under the heading Diligent Science. It really does hit home as to the degree of injustice perpetuated against him.
“The quest for precision can become a hostage to fortune, as the microscopic analysis of The Lancet children’s tissues was to prove. There are few people in the world with Professor Walker-Smith’s knowledge of the microscopic appearances of the inflammatory disease of the intestine in children. So it was that, in the absence of a paediatric pathologist expert in this field at the Royal Free, Professor Walker-Smith conducted a weekly review of his patients’ tissues and identified the fact that disease was being missed in some children. In order to reduce this risk and to standardise the reporting of the ASD children’s biopsies, all tissues were subsequently examined by a single senior pathologist with expertise in bowel disease. His findings were recorded on a specially designed chart to document specific features of tissue damage. This record formed the basis of what was subsequently reported in The Lancet. Few case series go to this level of precision.
In the hands of someone determined to discredit the work, however, discrepancies between the clinical report (which may have come, for example, from a pathologist with an interest in brain disease or gynaecological pathology) and the standardised expert analysis were falsely reported in the national media as “fixing” of the data. I was specifically accused of this, although I had no part in scoring the reviews. It is notable that despite 5 years of the investigation by the GMC, no charge of scientific fraud has been made against any of the defendants. The allegation of fraud was made by the same freelance journalist who had actually also initiated the GMC inquiry, continuing his litany of false allegations. There is no evidence that the data had been “fixed” as was alleged, and the newspaper in question has failed to produce any, despite a request to do so from the Press Complaints Commission. Paradoxically, the price paid for diligent science has been a headline proclaiming fraud. In my opinion, the intended goal – to reinforce the false belief that the work is discredited – has been achieved.”
This is Brian Deer, the journalist who initiated the GMC investigation. I personally think he’s an utter grub. Yes, I believe him to be a grub without a conscience.
And I do so enjoy seeing this image of him
Yes, Brian, who is pulling your strings. And what happened to your conscience? Can it be bought? I wonder how you look at yourself in the mirror each day.
In Science for Sale (published 2014) by David L. Lewis, PhD, we read that “Behind the scenes, Parliament was dealing with a critical loss of confidence in the MMR vaccine. From 1988 to 1992, SmithKlineBeecham marketed the MMR vaccine, Pluserix, in Great Britain. It was withdrawn because the mumps component caused outbreaks of asceptic (viral) meningitis. Because meningitis involves brain inflammation, the MMR vaccine had already been implicated in the United States as a possible factor in causing autism. At a press conference when the Lancet article was published, Wakefield was asked about the MMR vaccine controversy. He recommended that concerned parents talk with their pediatricians about having their children vaccinated with the single measles vaccine, which was available in Great Britain at the time. Reacting to parents, shifting to the single measles vaccine, the British Government withdrew it.
…Then we see the government prosecutors arranging to have their expert pediatric gastroenterologist, Professor Ian Booth, conduct a highly questionable analysis of the Lancet children’s routine pathology reports, which made it appear that Wakefield exaggerated information in the grading sheets provided by one of his senior coauthors, Dr Paul Dhillon, who was a world-reknowned expert in examining colon biopsies.
Finally, we see the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which is sponsored by manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, publishing Booth’s analysis just as the GMC hearings end. While the BMJ claims that the source of this analysis is an award-winning investigative reporter, Brian Deer, I discovered that the actual source was the GMC’s solicitors acting on behalf of the British government”.
I wonder if this might possibly be Brian Deer’s favourite song?
Andrew Wakefield tells it as it is
“The damage done to my reputation and to that of my colleagues as well as the personal price for pursuing a valid scientific question while putting the patients’ interests above all others is trivial compared with the impact of these falsehoods on the children’s access to appropriate and necessary care. My experience serves as a cynical example to discourage others. As a consequence, many physicians in the United Kingdom and United States will not risk providing the care that is due to these children. There is a pervasive and openly stated bias against funding and publication of this work, and I have been excluded from presenting at meetings on the instructions of the sponsoring pharmaceutical company. This episode in medical history has been an effective exercise in public relations and selling newspapers. But it will fail – it will fail because nature cannot be deceived.”
Dr Wakefield will have his day. Meanwhile, those of us with eyes to see can clearly see the truth. And we will never stop speaking up about it.
On the 25th of June, NBC reported that “Iowa State University laboratory manager Dong-Pyou Han has confessed to spiking samples of rabbit blood with human antibodies to make an experimental HIV vaccine appear to have great promise. Responding to a major case of research misconduct, federal prosecutors have taken the rare step of filing charges against a scientist after he admitted falsifying data that led to millions in grants and hopes of a breakthrough in AIDS vaccine research.
Han was indicted last week on four counts of making false statements, each of which carries up to five years in prison.
“It’s an important case because it is extremely rare for scientists found to have committed fraud to be held accountable by the actual criminal justice system,” said Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which tracks research misconduct.“
“PHILADELPHIA (CN) – Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is “far less effective” than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of “questionable efficacy,” flooding and monopolizing the market, a primary caregiver claims in a federal antitrust class action. Alabama-based Chatom Primary Care sued Merck on Monday, the week after the unsealing of a False Claims Act complaint two relators filed in 2010.
Those relators, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, were Merck virologists who claim in their unsealed complaint that they “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.” Krahling and Wlochowski claimed Merck’s scheme caused the United States to pay “hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization.”
Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly, according to the complaint. That’s why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states.
Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that “did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life … virus neutralization in vaccinated people,” according to the complaint. Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred “with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck’s senior management.”
Only the truly foolish would believe that these are the only two instances of dishonest manipulation of vaccine science
Pharmaceutical companies will do anything to bolster their coffers. We often hear from people that “There’s no money in vaccination”. The profit may not be up there with that raked in by some other misery-causing pharmaceutical products, but $36 billion a year can hardly be called “no money”. Make no mistake – this is big business.
Someone once told me that vaccines are free, and told me that I was a liar for saying pharmaceutical companies make money from them. Yes, some people truly are that thick and blinkered. I daresay that person will be the first in line to roll up their sleeve for the 200 new vaccines that are in the pipeline at the moment. No matter what it is, just stick it in because the government tells you to.
That figure of 200 comes directly from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. Apparently, a quarter of these vaccines are for supposed protection against life-threatening illnesses. See the list here.
Among the vaccines in the pipeline is one for multiple sclerosis. Is this some kind of sick joke? Sick being the operative word. If anyone cares to check out the Database of Adverse Event Notifications at the Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration site, they can see for themselves instances of multiple sclerosis that have been directly caused by vaccination. Find the TGA here, type DAEN into the search box and go looking.
So they are developing a vaccine to prevent a disease that has been caused, in some instances, by a vaccine? Unbelievable.
Science for Sale
By the by, I have in my possession Science for Sale by whistleblower, David Lewis. I’m very much looking forward to reading it.
“When Speaker Newt Gingrich greeted Dr. David Lewis in his office overlooking the National Mall, he looked at Dr. Lewis and said: “You know you’re going to be fired for this, don’t you?” “I know,” Dr. Lewis replied, “I just hope to stay out of prison.” Gingrich had just read Dr. Lewis’s commentary in Nature, titled “EPA Science: Casualty of Election Politics.” Three years later, and thirty years after Dr. Lewis began working at EPA, he was back in Washington to receive a Science Achievement Award from Administrator Carol Browner for his second article in Nature. By then, EPA had transferred Dr. Lewis to the University of Georgia to await termination—the Agency’s only scientist to ever be lead author on papers published in Nature and Lancet.
The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices. Organizations dealing with scientific integrity are designed only to weed out those who commit fraud behind the backs of the institutions where they work. The greatest threat of all is the purposeful corruption of the scientific enterprise by the institutions themselves. The science they create is often only an illusion, designed to deceive; and the scientists they destroy to protect that illusion are often our best. This book is about both, beginning with Dr. Lewis’s experience, and ending with the story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.”
There’s an interview with David Lewis here, if anyone would care to listen.
In the two instances of corruption I’ve mentioned today, rabbit antibodies were used. And we are certainly dumb bunnies if we, without question, let our bodies be corrupted with products foisted upon us by governments that rely on pharmaceutical companies for their information.
On Tuesday, Dr Oz was hauled before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance.
Oooh, what a very naughty man he’s been. He had the audacity to express his enthusiasm for certain natural health products on his television show. Products such as green coffee beans.
According to CNN, “Oz told the panel that he does use “flowery language” to describe certain products on his show but added he believes in them so much he has given them to his family.”
During the CNN voice-over we hear that “Oz conceded that often times the claims he makes about some products wouldn’t withstand the scrutiny of the Food and Drug Administration.”
Oh, the same Food and Drug Administration that approved Vioxx? Vioxx that killed thousands of people? The same FDA that has first approved every recalled drug? The same FDA that actually deemed Gardasil to be fit for use? Oh, yes! I have so much faith that the FDA knows what is good for us. Pfffttttttt.
“The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier. One in every five drugs approved ends up causing serious harm,1 while one in ten provide substantial benefit compared to existing, established drugs. This is the opposite of what people want or expect from the FDA.
Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. Deaths and hospitalizations from over-dosing, errors, or recreational drug use would increase this total. American patients also suffer from about 80 million mild side effects a year, such as aches and pains, digestive discomforts, sleepiness or mild dizziness.
The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulation, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths. New FDA policies are likely to increase the epidemic of harms. This will increase costs for insurers but increase revenues for providers.”
Read again these words from the CNN voice-over: “Oz conceded that often times the claims he makes about some products wouldn’t withstand the scrutiny of the Food and Drug Administration”.
The products that Dr Oz was speaking glowingly of on his program don’t actually have to be approved by the FDA, as such products are considered supplements.
As far as I’m concerned, that works in favour of such products, and not against them. Give me green coffee beans over a “safe” FDA-approved product, any day of the week.
I feel that the words “scrutiny of the FDA” are a joke. Do those words belong in a sentence together? Do believe me when I say that I am slighting the FDA and not CNN.
I notice that Dr Oz wasn’t hauled before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance in the wake of his discussing the flu shot on his program - even though the science clearly demonstrates that the flu shot would have to be given to 100 people in order to prevent one set of influenza symptoms. And bear in mind that the (very optimistic) figure is based on biased pharmaceutical company studies. Anyone can clearly see the truth of the matter when it comes to the flu shot. See the Cochrane Review of the flu shot here.
Some might remember that Piers Morgan was given a flu shot by Dr Oz on the show and became ill afterwards.
See Dr Oz giving Piers a flu vaccine here:
See Piers here, sick in the wake of his flu shot:
Why wasn’t Dr Oz hauled before the senate for giving flu vaccine advice that isn’t backed up by science?
As far as I’m concerned, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance are a bunch of hypocrites.
If you guessed that both were used as guinea pigs for vaccine testing, you would be correct.
They have also both been in the news in the last couple of days.
Saba Button was 11 months old in 2010 when she was given Fluvax, a Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) product. Fluvax had never been tested in children of her age group. Saba suffered “a hypoxic brain injury, kidney, liver and bone marrow failure. She can now no longer walk and talk and needs round-the-clock care.”
Unfortunately, Saba was not alone in reacting to Fluvax
So many children had adverse reactions, that the Department of Health moved to recall Fluvax and officially ban it from use in children aged under five. The recall came three days after Saba’s life was ruined for all time. The Dept of Health was well aware of problems with the vaccine before Saba’s vaccine-injury.
One would wonder how many children were actually given the banned shot, if 43 is the number of confirmed cases.
One of the children accidentally given the banned vaccine was Lachlan Neylan.
Lachlan’s parents, Stacey and Adrian Neylan, related in The Daily Telegraph that “Lachlan’s temperature soared and he began having fits within seven hours of receiving the injection. “He just collapsed and started to have seizures,” Mr Neylan said. “Doctors said they thought our son wouldn’t make it through the weekend. It was terrifying.” Mr Neylan said before the injection their son had been a “walking, talking toddler”, but after the injection “he was back to being a three month old; he couldn’t sit, walk, or use his arms”.
The Cochrane Collaboration Review clearly reveals just how ineffective the flu shot is
“There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”
The Cochrane Review, considered the “gold standard”, also indicates that “ In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”
Let that sink in for a moment. One hundred people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.
The review goes on to state, “Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products”. Read the previous and current reviews here.
The brainwashing is so complete today that when people become ill a couple of days after receiving a flu vaccine, they say things such as “Oh, but it would have been worse if I hadn’t had the vaccine”. What utter PIFFLE. In simple terms, in my opinion, the flu vaccine is a joke. Why is the medical community trying to pretend otherwise? Why is there such a “disconnect” between the studies, and the way the flu vaccine is pushed on the public by government and the media?
People want so much to believe what their doctor tells them, that they don’t wish to see the simple fact that they, too, are guinea pigs – “ A Health Department spokeswoman said drug companies were not required to complete clinical trials before supplying new vaccines because there was not enough time between selecting new flu strains and manufacturing the vaccine.”
Let us not forget two year old Ashley Epapara, who died 12 hours after her flu shot. What did she lose her life for? A vaccine that is known to be ineffective? As with any vaccine, there seems to be a deliberate withholding of information from parents – facts that would allow them to make informed choices about the health of their children. Ashley deserved better, and so did her poor parents. Pharmaceutical lobbyists have a lot to answer for.
It has come out in the news in the last couple of days that Saba Button’s parents have won their battle to gain compensation
I think this 2012 article goes some way to describing why they were successful. Perhaps the “unavoidably unsafe” product was actually deemed “avoidably unsafe”? ;)
“AUSTRALIAN drug giant CSL has admitted its vaccine production methods probably triggered seizures in children, in the first results from its two-year investigation into the Fluvax fits.
But CSL refused to say yesterday if it would pay compensation to the families of children hospitalised after being immunised with Fluvax, which has been banned for pediatric use after sending one in 100 children into febrile fits in 2010.
The preliminary results of CSL’s two-year investigation conclude that its manufacturing methods may have failed to fully split the viruses used to make flu vaccines.
As a result, gene fragments and lipids from “inactivated virus” — as well as “residual whole virus or clusters of both” — may have created higher levels of immune-stimulating hormones, known as cytokines.
“CSL’s method of manufacture preserves more short gene fragments and lipids from the virus than other manufacturers,” the company stated.
The process, combined with the three new strains of seasonal and swine flu virus selected to make the 2010 version of Fluvax, “elicited an excessive immune response in some young children, triggering increased fever and fever-related convulsions”.
On the 6th June 2014, Perth Now News reported “In the claim the Button’s alleged Fluvax was defective after testing conducted by the company prior to April 2010 identified fever as a serious side effect of the 2010 batch.
However the company denied liability then filed a cross-claim against the State of WA and the Health Minister. In return the State of WA filed a defence to the cross claim denying any liability.
Settlement was reached between CSL, the State of WA and the family during recent mediation.”
Since writing about the Cochrane Collaboration Review, I have encountered news about a study published in April 2014. The study found that flu vaccines are, indeed, effective for small children. Is it just me, or does anyone else find this absolutely hilarious?
“The study was published April 21 in the journal Pediatrics. The research was funded by the Western Australia Department of Health, and the flu vaccine used in the study were provided by the companies Sanofi-Pasteur and CSL Biotherapies.
Four authors are members of the Vaccine Trials Group, which has received funding from vaccine manufacturers to conduct clinical trials not related to this study.
One of these authors, Peter Richmond, has also served on a CSL Ltd scientific advisory board regarding flu vaccines, received travel funds from Baxter and GlaxoSmithKline, and received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and CSL Ltd.
A fifth author is director of the Asia-Pacific Alliance for the Control of Influenza and previously the Australian Influenza Specialist Group, both independent, not-for-profit groups that have received funding from pharmaceutical companies. No other possible conflicts of interest were reported.”
One of the authors has served on a CSL board and received funding from CSL? Does this really pass for science today? Are we supposed to buy that? It’s given me a laugh for the day, in any case. Was there actually any hope whatsoever of it not being found effective? I would really like to know.
This article may be of interest to some. It points out that the Federal Government has been accused of making flawed decisions because of its overly “cosy” relationship with flu vaccine manufacturer CSL.
Illegal vaccine trials
On the 6th of June it was reported that “Scientists secretly vaccinated more than 2,000 children in religious-run homes in suspected illegal drug trials”.
“Old medical records show that 2,051 children and babies in Irish care homes were given a one-shot diphtheria vaccine for international drugs giant Burroughs Wellcome between 1930 and 1936.
There is no evidence that consent was ever sought, nor any records of how many may have died or suffered debilitating side-effects as a result.”
It would come as no suprise to most that GlaxoSmithKline was formerly known as Burroughs Wellcome. Even back then it appears that they had very questionable motives and methods.
“The scandal was revealed as Irish premier, Enda Kenny, ordered ministers to see whether there are more mass baby graves after the discovery that 800 infants may be buried in a septic tank outside a former mother and baby home in Tuam, Co. Galway.” Michael Dwyer, of Cork University’s School of History, found the child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of medical journal articles and archive files. He discovered that the trials were carried out before the vaccine was made available for commercial use in the UK.
Homes where children were secretly tested included Bessborough, in Co. Cork and Sean Ross Abbey in Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, both of which are at the centre of the mass baby graves scandal.
In case anyone missed the initial reporting of the heartbreaking story of the “mass baby graves scandal”, it was revealed on the 4th of June that 800 bodies of long-dead children were found dumped in a septic tank at a former home for unwed mothers. Locals suspect that the number of bodies in the mass grave, which will likely soon be excavated, may be even higher than 800. “God knows who else is in the grave,” one anonymous source told local media. “It’s been lying there for years, and no one knows the full extent of the total of bodies down there.”
“No one knows the full extent of the total of bodies”
Just as no one knows the full extent of the dumped bodies of those poor children, no one knows the true extent of vaccine-injured children today. And, more to the point, no one wants to know about them. They are dumped in the too-hard basket. Meanwhile, in my opinion, pharmaceutical companies get away with murder. You can take my last sentence in any way you see fit.