At least 40 Children Paralyzed After Receiving New Meningitis Vaccine

By CHRISTINA ENGLAND | VACTRUTH | JANUARY 7, 2013

On December 20, 2012, a vaccination tragedy hit the small village of Gouro, located in northern Chad, Africa. According to the newspaper La Voix, out of five hundred children who received the new meningitis vaccine MenAfriVac, at least 40 of them between the ages of 7 and 18 have become paralyzed. Those children also suffered hallucinations and convulsions.

Since this report, the true extent of this tragedy is coming to light, as parents of these vaccinated children have reported yet more injuries. The authorities in the area are shaken, as citizens set fire to a sanitary administration vehicle in a demonstration of their frustration and anger at the government’s negligence.[1]

“We wish that our children would get their health back,” shared the parent of a sick child.

THE MENAFRIVAC VACCINE

MenAfriVac is a new vaccine manufactured by Serum Institute of India Limited. According to The Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP), it is the first vaccine to gain approval to travel outside the cold chain, meaning that the vaccine can be transported without refrigeration or ice packs for up to four days:

“The meningitis A vaccine known as MenAfriVac®, created to meet the needs of Africa’s meningitis belt, can now be kept in a controlled temperature chain (CTC) at temperatures of up to 40°C for up to four days, a decision that could help increase campaign efficiency and coverage and save funds normally spent maintaining the challenging cold chain during the “last mile” of vaccine delivery.” [2]

The data on the MenAfriVac vaccine is further backed by the World Health Organization’s website [3] and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website. [4]

So, why does this information differ vastly from the information given on the manufacturer’s website? Serum Institute of India Ltd. stated under the section marked STORAGE:

“MenAfriVac should be stored and transported between 2-8ºC. Protect from light. The diluent should be stored at 25°C. It is recommended to protect the reconstituted vaccine from direct sunlight. Do not exceed the expiry date stated on the external packaging.” [5]

 THE STORY FROM INSIDE AFRICA

Mr. M., the cousin of two of the vaccine-injured children, who currently remain critically ill and hospitalized, explained that many of the children reacted within 24 hours of receiving the vaccine. He said that at first the children vomited and complained of headaches, before falling to the floor with uncontrollable convulsions while bent over with saliva coming from their mouths.

He shared that on December 26, 2012,  the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Security visited Gouro, bringing with them two Members of Parliament. He said that after some discussion, they decided to evacuate approximately 50 paralyzed children to a hospital over three hundred miles away in N’Djamena, the capital city of Chad.

He added that the government responded to the tragedy by paying the parents money in a desperate bid to silence them, further stating that many of the parents are traumatized and confused.

As reported in La Voix, according to a member of the medical staff, as well as a comment from Dr. Daugla Oumagoum Moto, the director of the Center of International Health Support (CSSI), the reactions that these children have suffered are not typical of this type of vaccine against meningitis, which they say are normally fever, vomiting, and headaches, not the adverse reactions experienced by the hospitalized children.

A HEARTFELT PLEA FOR HELP

Fearing for their children’s present and future health, parents of these vaccine-injured children have begun asking questions, such as:

1. Was this a faulty batch of vaccines?

2. Did the vaccinators inadvertently vaccinate using an unsafe product?

3. Was the product out of refrigeration too long?

4. Were the vaccinators fully trained?

This recently vaccinated child is being attended to after becoming paralyzed.

Mr. M. believes the children were left far too long without care and attention. He told me that, despite the state of the vulnerable children and many parents begging for help, the regional authorities failed to respond on time. The children were not seen by the only doctor in the region until a full week after their injuries!

He stated via email:

“In addition, the government and the media have gone silent about the tragedy, while there are still facts requiring clarification whatever contingencies. All this disturbs us and makes us fear the worst effects for the future. For the not knowing of what is going on behind the scenes of the Minister of Health or elsewhere (WHO, UNICEF).  As parents our priorities is that how to tell our children, it is very sad that entire city is paralyzed. We are begging our government act quickly as possible to save our children but it is too slow and lack of motivation. Therefore we call assistance for everyone in the world to intervene.” (his exact words from an email)

President Idriss Deby Itno announced at the beginning of the campaign that the vaccine was safe, secure, and would protect citizens against meningitis for ten years. [6]

Gavi Alliance, a major financial partner in the project, which cost $571 million, stated:

“If all of this works like we think it is going to work, then we are going to eliminate these epidemics. Stop. Period,’ said Marc LaForce, Director of the Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP), a joint project involving PATH and WHO which developed MenAfriVac in less than ten years.” [7]

Both of these organizations appear to have been silent since the tragedy.

CONCLUSION

La Voix initially reported the incident. If you want to see an enlarged version of the newspaper clipping, click on the photo.

This tragedy raises many unanswered questions. Why were 500 children vaccinated in a region that has only one doctor, who was unable to provide advice or treatment for adverse events until one week later? Why did the manufacturer of MenAfriVac specifically advise that the product should be stored and transported at much lower temperatures than The Meningitis Project claimed? Why were the parents of these vaccine-injured children paid hush money?

Why are vaccines being pushed so strongly in a country which lacks clean drinking water and basic sanitation services? UNICEF blames Chad’s recurrent outbreaks of disease, including meningitis, on this vital, common-sense need. [8] Why have major organizations spent $571 million on a vaccination project, when wells to provide access to clean drinking water have been constructed for less than $3,000 by the International Committee of the Red Cross? [9]

How can at least 40 children become paralyzed after receiving a vaccine, and no news organizations provide coverage of this disturbing situation? The media has gone completely silent. There appear to be no reports of this incident on any government website. The only available information, apart from this one newspaper report, appears to be buried on a small blog titled Le blog de Makaila, which has been reporting regular updates on the situation. [10]

Where are statements from the involved organizations – WHO, GAVI, PATH, UNICEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?  Why has this vaccination program not been suspended? What are these organizations going to do about the atrocity that has happened in Gouro?

References

  1. Wigne, Danzabe and Byakzahbo, Anrde. “Numerous Children of Gouro Hospitalized After a Vaccination Campaign to Control Meningitis.” La Voix.
  2. http://www.meningvax.org/files/PressReleasePATH_WHO_MVP-14Nov2012.En.pdf
  3. http://www.who.int/immunization/newsroom/menafrivac_20121114/en/index.html
  4. http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2013/01/Saving-Time-amp-Lives-Meningitis-A-Vaccine-Breaks-the-Cold-Chain-Barrier?p=1
  5. http://www.seruminstitute.com/content/products/product_menafrivac.htm
  6. http://www.presidencetchad.org/affichage_news.php?id=192&titre=%20Campagne%20de%20vaccination%20contre%20la%20m%E9ningite%20de%20souche%20%AB%20A%20%BB
  7. http://www.gavialliance.org/support/nvs/meningitis-a/
  8. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/chad_61754.html
  9. http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/feature/2007/chad-stories-200307.htm
  10. http://makaila.over-blog.com/article-campagne-de-vaccination-contre-la-meningite-tourne-au-drame-a-gouro-113690954.html

Reduce Two Leading Childhood Diseases by 50% or More without Vaccines

By JEFFREY J. AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | JANUARY 4, 2012

It’s not black magic or some out-of-date belief—just good old-fashioned common sense.

Better hygiene, sanitation, and organic food are the foundations for good health. But to what degree could one of those elements (hygiene, for example) have an effect on decreasing a disease? I think finding the answer to this question and considering the evidence is valuable for parents who are considering vaccinating their children.

Why?

Mainstream health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and other such agencies in the United States use emotionally charged language to declare that vaccines—not better sanitation or hygiene— saved the world from deadly diseases.

It is for this reason that I must warn you: Those who push vaccines often trivialize or underestimate the information I am going to share with you. It completely destroys what they have been told for many years.

If you’re interested in learning more, read on.

The Gold Standard

The big secret vaccine peddlers avoid like the plague is, one amazingly simple act reduced two diseases by 50% or more. The most vital point to remember: The decrease in morbidity of—or the rate of incidence of a disease—those affected by the diseases had nothing to do with vaccines!

To get our answer, we turn to Karachi, Pakistan.

In 2002, a randomized controlled trial (a gold standard of scientific research) was performed by Dr. Stephen P. Luby in Karachi, Pakistan. The goal of the study was to assess the impact of hand washing and bathing with soap in settings where infectious diseases are leading causes of childhood disease and death. [1–3]

It is known as the Karachi Health Soap Study.

It’s noteworthy to keep in mind that the variable studied was hand washing—not improved sanitation (waste water treatment), clean drinking water, better food or storage, or even vaccines. In Karachi, sewage contaminates the drinking water and feces contaminates the environment. This is what makes the study so radically powerful!

If you want to see an overview of what was done, read on.

The Power of Simplicity and Education

Here are the some relevant facts you should know about the Karachi Health Soap Study[3]:

  • 25 neighborhoods were either given an antibacterial soap (containing 1.2% triclocarban) or plain soap.
  • 11 neighborhoods were the control. In other words, no hygiene promotion occurred, and no soap was dispensed in these neighborhoods.
  • Both the antibacterial soap and plain soap looked and smelled identical.
  • Both types of soap were packaged identically in generic white wrappers. Neither the fieldworkers nor the families knew whether the soaps were antibacterial or plain.
  • Fieldworkers reviewed with the families the health problems that resulted from contaminated hands and provided them with specific hand-washing instructions.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged households to wash their hands after defecation, after cleaning an infant who had defecated, before preparing food, before eating, and before feeding infants.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged participants to bathe once a day with soap and water.

Here’s what happened next…

Dramatic Decrease in Diseases

Remember my warning in the beginning of the article about the information being dismissed? As you will see, the results are very dramatic.

As noted by the study, in the first 6 months not much change or variation (only 6%) was noted between the different groups. In the graph below, the biggest change came in the second half of the year.

karachi-statistics

The results of the study were analyzed after 51 weeks.

  • Primary diarrhea outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 47% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
    • Plain soap: 52% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
  • Primary respiratory outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 45% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group
    • Plain soap: 50% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group

It is essential to reemphasize, the World Health Organization lists pneumonia (lower-respiratory infection) and diarrhea as the number 1 and number 2 diseases, which kill more than 3.5 million children worldwide each year. [3–5]

This seems to be in harmony with the principle that Antoine Bechamp—and even Weston Price—wrote about many years ago: The health of the host is everything. The disease is nothing. [6]

Considering that the people in the Karachi study drank the same water, ate the same foods, had the same indoor plumbing (or lack thereof), etc., a significant question has to be asked. If simple hand washing can decrease the morbidity of diarrhea and pneumonia by 50% or more, what happens when better sanitation facilities, food storage, and quality of food are introduced?

Even more important, I’d think there would be comparative data on the effectiveness of hand washing and vaccines. But if that were to happen—given the safety track record of soap versus vaccines—the entire vaccine program would receive a severe death blow.

What we know is when the standard of living increases, mortality and morbidity rates fall.

As an example, mortality rates (not morbidity) in the United States decreased prior to the introduction of vaccines (notice there was not a vaccine for scarlet fever).

united-states-mortality-rates

What could cause such an intense drop in mortality rates? It obviously wasn’t the vaccines. If vaccines caused a 50% drop in morbidity or mortality rate of a disease within a 6-month period, the media would broadcast it all over the news, singing the praises and benefits of getting injected.

The irony of this study is that the Centers for Disease Control provided some funding and reviewed the data. Here’s an excerpt from the study:

The balance of the funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Inclusion of soap trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services. These data were presented in part at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, GA, USA, in February, 2004. [3]

So, now you know that some people at the Centers for Disease Control know. But here’s the clincher.

Vaccine Pushers

The Centers for Disease Control recommend the following vaccines in the United States to prevent the very same diseases discussed above.

For diarrhea: RotaTeq® (RV5) and Rotarix® (RV1). [7]

For pneumonia: Pneumococcal, haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis (whooping cough), varicella (chickenpox), measles, and influenza (flu) vaccine. [8]

Does the Centers for Disease Control mention washing hands as a means of prevention? Sure—in passing.

They say something to the effect that good hygiene is important, but is not enough to control the spread of the disease. They recommend vaccines.

handwashing-karachi-e1356757852356Then again, you might want to consider why the CDC is so adamant about recommending vaccines. For example, this is from an article on Mercola.com:

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned millions of dollars as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine … The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine— effectively, to vote himself rich. [9]

Could the deep ties to the pharmaceutical companies be the reason the CDC puts more emphasis on vaccines? Considering the evidence presented in the Karachi Health Soap Study, which would you choose—better hygiene or a vaccine?

Conclusion

What’s the moral of the story?

The data revealed by Stephen P. Luby in the Karachi Health Soap Study is nothing short of spectacular. Children who washed their hands and skin with plain soap had 52% less diarrhea and 50% less pneumonia. Good hygiene has a significant impact on decreasing disease, and I think it is something we take for granted in the United States.

Please remember this point: If better nutrition and sanitation were added as components of this or a future study, I suspect that Karachi, Pakistan, would see a more dramatic drop in diseases, much like in the United States—and I would highly encourage such efforts.

Just imagine the implications of a comparative study being performed between hygiene practices and vaccines for decreasing disease. What do you think the outcome would be? My money would be on hygiene practices being the clear winner.

Here’s the shocking reality.

You hold in your hands the real power and master key to good health. It doesn’t come through the tip of a needle.

References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_evidence
  3. Luby, Stephen P., Mubina Agboatwalla, Daniel R. Feikin, John Painter, Ward Billhimer, Arshad Altaf, and Robert M. Hoekstra.“Effect of Handwashing on Child Health: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” The Lancet 366, no. 9481 (July 16, 2005): 225–233. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66912-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023513
  4. WHO Pneumonia Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs331/en/
  5. WHO Diarrhoeal Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/
  6. http://www.naturalnews.com/030384_Louis_Pasteur_disease.html
  7. http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/about/prevention.html
  8. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Pneumonia/
  9. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/vaccine-doctor-given-at-least-30-million-dollars-to-push-vaccines.aspx

Mercury is not out of vaccines and neither are the conflict of interest or the cover-up

By JENNIFER HUTCHINSON | VACTRUTH | DECEMBER 26, 2012

We know that mercury is a toxin. We know that it was removed from most vaccines more than a decade ago. End of story, right? Wrong. The debate has resurfaced. If the AAP and the WHO have their way and can successfully influence the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), some vaccines will still contain thimerosal.

The UNEP, as part of an effort to reduce mercury exposure, is considering banning thimerosal worldwide. The AAP and the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization are asking the UN to reconsider. Their statements are included in the online version of the January issue of Pediatrics. Although you can’t read the article without purchasing it, you can see a summary of the recommendations on the WHO’s website. [1]

THE AAP AND THE WHO’S “RATIONALE”

According to the AAP, multi-dose vials that contain thimerosal are used for vaccines in developing countries where money and other resources are scant. The thimerosal prevents contamination. Louis Z. Cooper, MD, says, “As many as 84 million children globally are dependent on vaccines whose safe distribution requires availability of thimerosal as a preservative.” In the United States, only one childhood vaccine (influenza) contains thimerosal, and several others have “trace amounts.” [2]

That last statement comes directly from the AAP website. However, according to the CDC chart of vaccine ingredients, thimerosal is in more than one childhood vaccine: the Td (Decavac) and Flulaval (with no mention of multi-dose vials for either); the Meningococcal MPSVR Menomune and Fluzone (multi-dose vials only); trace amounts in the DT (Sanofi), DTaP (Tripedia), and Td (Mass Biologics), with no mention of multi-dose vials; and Fluvirin (multi-dose vials, trace only in prefilled syringes). [3]

The WHO has tried to tell other countries that the amount of mercury is “extremely small,” and if disposed of properly the release of mercury is minimal. The organization cites numerous problems involved in removing thimerosal from all vaccines (making them all single-dose), from affecting “the quality, safety, and efficacy of vaccines” to—obviously—finding an alternative preservative. Then, there are the issues of manufacturing, storage, waste disposal, supply interruption, unavailability of some vaccines, and “a high risk of serious disruption to routine immunization programs and mass immunization campaigns … with a predictable and sizable increase in mortality, for exceedingly limited environmental benefit.” [4]

For an excellent rebuttal of all the WHO’s arguments, see the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs website. [5]

LET’S KEEP MERCURY

Here are some proposed reasons not to include thimerosal in the global mercury ban.

Multi-dose vials (which must contain thimerosal) are cheaper and easier to produce, not to mention much faster in case of a pandemic. And thimerosal is safe. Although research has shown serious neurotoxic effects from methyl mercury, there is no such evidence for ethyl mercury, its organic counterpart. [6]

A huge part of the pro-thimerosal side is based on the conclusion that it should have never been banned in the first place. It was banned in the early 2000s because of public pressure and a few researchers who asked if the amount contained in vaccines fell within the safe level. Basically, the decision was made to err on the side of caution and “do no harm” until further studies could be conducted to prove its safety. [7] Since then, as the argument goes, overwhelming evidence has shown that thimerosal is not harmful. [8] “At the time,” Walter Orenstein, MD, says, “we just didn’t know what the toxic effects might be or might not be, and one of our concerns was, what if we did the studies and three years later found there was harm?” [9] And Dr. Offit’s two cents worth—or should I say “millions of dollars worth?”: It was “a mistake” to remove thimerosal from vaccines. “To make the same mistake now, with the information we have now, it could result in thousands of deaths.” [10]

LET’S GET RID OF MERCURY

Here are some reasons to include thimerosal in the ban.

The Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs disputes the proof that thimerosal is safe and says it’s an “injustice” to use it in developing countries when it’s not used in developed countries. [11]

Eric Uram, executive director of SafeMinds, believes the practice is “egregious, offensive, and unacceptable.” However, he says health officials in several countries he has communicated with are hesitant to speak up because the WHO says thimerosal is safe. [12]

Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, puts it this way: “If unused vials of thimerosal-containing vaccines must be disposed of as hazardous waste because of the mercury content, then why is the AAP strongly advocating that thimerosal-containing vaccines continue to be injected into children’s bodies?” The FDA and EPA “have not rescinded the 1999 directive to the pharmaceutical industry to take thimerosal out of childhood vaccines.” [13]

LET’S LOOK AT SAFETY—OR LACK THEREOF

Those who want to keep thimerosal in vaccines cite multiple studies proving its safety. One is a 2002 NIAID-funded University of Rochester study claiming that the amount of ethyl mercury in vaccine falls below the safe level. Lead investigator Michael E. Pichichero, MD, said that it’s eliminated from the blood much faster than once thought. So, “by the time a child receives another round of vaccines containing mercury, virtually all of the compound from the previous doses has been eliminated.” [14]

Notice those words, “virtually all of.” What about the part that remains? The part that crosses the blood-brain barrier? Has anyone measured those levels? Is ANY mercury of ANY kind safe in the brain? Has anyone looked at the levels of mercury in the brains and bodies of children with autism? Has anybody looked at the cumulative effects of all the mercury in the dozens of vaccines injected into our children?

Most arguments claim that, while there are known neurological side effects connected with methyl mercury, ethyl mercury is safe. That is simply not true. The damage has been documented in study after study. [15, 16] Thimerosal proponents conveniently ignore these studies.

In July 2001, in a presentation to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee, Dr. George Lucier concluded that ethyl mercury is a neurotoxin and “should be considered equipotent to methyl mercury as a developmental neurotoxin.” [17]

The House Government Reform Committee, under Rep. Dan Burton’s oversight, conducted a three-year investigation of mercury. During a 2002 session, David Baskin, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery and Anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, stated that ethyl mercury penetrates cells better than methyl mercury, so their concentration in the cells is probably more pronounced than methyl mercury. Also cited in the hearing report is a 1985 Archives of Toxicology study showing that ethyl mercury was more toxic in rats than methyl mercury. [18]

All studies aside, perhaps the strongest evidence comes from the transcript of the secret Simpsonwood meeting held in June 2000. The meeting, which was not announced publicly, consisted of 52 attendees. They included representatives from the CDC, FDA, and WHO, as well as major vaccine manufacturers. Participants were instructed not to copy or leave with any documents. Tom Verstraeten, a CDC epidemiologist, had analyzed over 100,000 children’s medical records, and he believed thimerosal was to blame for the “dramatic” increase in autism. The data, which spoke for itself, was received with comments like “You can play with this all you want,” but the results “are statistically significant,” and “I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.” [19]

THE COVER-UP

Next came the cover-up [20], triggered by concern over how the truth would “affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line.”

Dr. Bob Chen, CDC head of vaccine safety: “given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let’s say, less responsible hands.”

Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccines advisor: the study “should not have been done at all” and the results “will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. The research results have to be handled.”

Dr. Robert Brent, Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, Delaware: “We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits. This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country.”

Dr. Marie McCormick, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee’s chair: “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure.

Verstraeten went to work for GlaxoSmithKline and published his study in 2003 with “reworked” data that showed no link between thimerosal and autism.

Dr. Samuel Katz turned out to be a paid consultant for many vaccine manufacturers. He also shares a patent with Merck on a measles vaccine.

The CDC “lost” the data on the 100,000 children.

The IOM was instructed by the CDC to produce a study showing no connection between thimerosal and brain disorders, saying that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation.” No further research necessary. According to chief staffer Kathleen Stratton, that was the result “Walt [Dr. Walter Orenstein] wants.” And the study was done exactly as ordered.

Vaccine manufacturers got help from the CDC, who allowed them to continue using thimerosal in some vaccines and to buy and ship them to developing countries.

Lawmakers also got help—in the form of huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies. One example is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. After receiving $873,000, he started trying to protect manufacturers from liability. To quote his legislative assistant: “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business …”

Note: You can read Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s article, “Deadly Immunity,” published by Rolling Stone (July 14, 2005) in its entirety online. It raises a lot of questions that need to be answered and tells many truths that need to be told. You have to subscribe to Rolling Stone to read it, but if you Google the title, you’ll find it like I did. And before anyone raises this question, I’ll put it to rest. Rolling Stone NEVER retracted Kennedy’s article. Read the statement on their website. [21] You can also see the entire Simpsonwood transcript online. [22]

THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

So, here we have proof that thimerosal is not safe. Proof that has been ignored and covered up for years. A very profitable cover-up. Then, we have the American Academy of Pediatrics publish a statement filled with dozens of reasons why thimerosal should remain in vaccines. How it’s safe and necessary. How children will die needlessly if it is included in the UN ban. As if that’s all not reprehensible enough, the AAP has the gall to tell us, as they’ve done time and time again, that the authors of the Pediatrics article have reported no conflicts of interest. [23]

Let’s look at the writers.

Louis Z. Cooper, MD, is a former AAP president and a trustee of the Sabin Vaccine Institute. [24] Sabin’s mission, in part, is “to reduce needless human suffering from vaccine-preventable diseases by developing new vaccines” and to advocate for “increased use of existing vaccines.” [25]

Samuel Katz, MD, known as “a vaccine ambassador” by Dartmouth University, [26], has been awarded Sabin’s Gold Medal. [27]

Katherine King, PhD, is a research associate at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto where she works at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Program. [28]

Walter A. Orenstein, MD, has helped lead the CDC’s National Immunization Program for 30 years and served as the liaison member to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee for more than 14 years. He has also been a CDC liaison to the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases and a consultant to the WHO. [29]

Question for the AAP: Define “conflict of interest.”

“DO MORE HARM”

The House Government Reform Committee’s report of its mercury investigation ended with this statement: “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism epidemic. … This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin.” The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act out of “institutional malfeasance for self-protection” and “misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.” [30]

Orenstein actually raised an excellent point when he asked, “[W]hat if we did the studies and three years later found there was harm?” [31] What if they did studies on any other vaccine ingredient and three years later found there was harm? Or what if they did studies on the combination of some of the ingredients—even two—and three years later found there was harm? Or what if they did studies on giving multiple vaccines at the same time and three years later found there was harm? That is why they haven’t and won’t do the studies. Or if they do, they will lie about their findings. Because they KNOW what they will find. Harm.

SIGN THE PETITION TO BAN MERCURY IN VACCINES

You can help by signing SafeMind’s petition to Rep. Darrell Issa, which requests:

The AAP must reverse support for unrestricted use of mercury in vaccines. To prevent injecting mercury (thimerosal) into pregnant women, infants and children around the world by supporting a global phase-out of mercury from all medical, pharmaceutical and personal care products. The second most toxic element on Earth has no place in 21st century medicine. [32]

References

1. www.who.int/wer/2012/wer8721.pdf

2. http://aapnews.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/12/17/aapnews.20121217-1

3. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

4. www.who.int/wer/2012/wer8721.pdf

5. http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/120720_CoMeD…

6. www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/Vaccines/36480

7. www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112750163/thimerosal-vaccine-preservative-safety-ban-121812/

8. www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/health/experts-say-thimerosal-ban…

9. www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112750163/thimerosal-vaccine-preservative-safety-ban-121812/

10. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/12/17/banning-vaccine-preservative-would-hurt-kids-in-poor-nations-experts

11. www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/health/experts-say-thimerosal-ban-would…

12. www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112750163/thimerosal-vaccine-preservative-safety-ban-121812/

13. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/12/17/banning-vaccine-preservative-would-hurt-kids-in-poor-nations-experts

14. www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=160

15. www.healingpediatrics.com/articles/James_neurotoxicity.pdf

16. http://abcmt.org/A%20Novel%20Form%20of%20Mecury%20Poisoning.pdf

17. http://vaccines.procon.org/sourcefiles/Burton_Report.pdf

18. http://vaccines.procon.org/sourcefiles/Burton_Report.pdf

19. www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

20. www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

21. www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/deadly-immunity-20110209

22. www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf

23. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/12/12/peds.2012-2262.full.pdf+html

24. www.immunizationinfo.org/about-nnii/steering-committee/louis-z-cooper-md

25. www.sabin.org

26. http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/summer09/html/alumni_album.php

27. www.sabin.org/updates/pressreleases/samuel-l-katz-md-receive-2003-sabin-gold-medal

28. www.primr.org/Conferences.aspx?id=15814

29. www.vaccines.emory.edu/scientists/orenstein_bio.shtml

30. http://vaccines.procon.org/sourcefiles/Burton_Report.pdf

31. www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112750163/thimerosal-vaccine-preservative-safety-ban-121812/

32. www.change.org/organizations/safeminds

U.S. Government gave $5.7 Billion Given to Vaccine Manufacturers in 2011

By JEFFRY JOHN AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | DECEMBER 1, 2012

In 2011, the US Federal government awarded 6 pharmaceutical corporations over 5.7 Billion to manufacture children’s vaccines alone.

According to information on the Centers for Disease Control and Federal Business Opportunities websites, the contracts were for the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. [1,2]

The VFC program purchases the vaccines from the vaccine manufacturer. The vaccines are then distributed to state health departments and territorial public health agencies. In turn, children who couldn’t normally afford vaccines are supposed be injected at no cost. [3]

Many vaccine supporters use examples like the VFC program as indisputable proof of kindness on the part of the government and pharmaceutical companies.  I think most parents have heard how generous, caring, and loving they are, haven’t you?

I’d like for you to consider an alternative motive when looking at the contract amounts: a corporate agenda.

Before we get into the individual contract numbers and the corporations who received the money, I’d like to take a moment and share these 4 facts with you:

  • Pharmaceutical companies care about profits and shareholders, not your children.[4]
  • Since 1989, pharmaceutical companies have paid only 2.3 billion dollars for vaccine injuries. Given the total lifetime care of a vaccine-injured child, many parents believe this figure should be substantially higher.[5]
  • The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Vaccine manufacturers (and doctors!) are given complete immunity from any legal liability if your child is harmed by their vaccine(s). No other industry enjoys this level of protection from a product that could injure a child! [6]
  • Some of the same pharmaceutical companies listed below have been charged with criminal acts by the Department of Justice.[7]

Click on the image to enlarge.

Contracts and Following the Money

As much as we like to believe we can get something for nothing from Uncle Sam, it’s just not true. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It is simple cause and effect.

While we may never have an opportunity to see into pharma’s accounting books, it is an important step in following the money and seeing who benefits. Here is the contract information I promised earlier in the article.

Company

Contract

Amount

Sanofi Pasteur 200-2011-38199 $1,142,400,000.00 [10]
GlaxoSmithKline 200-2011-38201 $786,456,400.00 [11]
Merck 200-2011-38200 $1,704,454,000.00 [12]
Novartis 200-2011-38204 $451,660,000.00 [13]
Pfizer 200-2011-38203 $1,652,570,000.00 [14]
MassBiologics 200-2011-38202 $11,250,000.00 [15]

Total

 $5,748,790,400.00

Are we sure there isn’t some type of corporate agenda?

Read on.

But Vaccine Companies Don’t Make That Much Money, Do They?

It’s a good question to keep asking – and I don’t think it will be solved here.

We may never know the exact amount they profit from vaccines, yet looking into contract amounts is an important step in following the money and seeing who benefits. Look at this important information.

Overall Cost

For example, the World Health Organization website discusses what factors go into establishing vaccine prices. One of the more repeated points you see is:

Vaccine production costs have a significant fixed cost component, reaching up to 90 percent of total costs. These costs include research and development (R&D), quality control and quality assurance, selling and distribution overhead, and the construction and maintenance of production facilities.” [16]

Let’s assume nothing changes over time – such as increased efficiency in research and development, manufacturing, vaccine tax, etc. – the remaining 10 percent is profit for the pharmaceutical companies.

If we estimate a 10 percent profit from 5.7 billion dollars, this leaves the corporations with an average of 100 million dollars per company.

I have to ask you this question, “Is $100,000,000 a lot of money to you?”

Keep in mind, this is only for the federal Vaccines For Children (VFC) program. The total amount is likely much higher.

Also, do you remember Public Law 99-660 mentioned above? No corporation, corporate executive, board member, doctor, state or local health official can be held responsible for a vaccine injuring your child. Thus, Big Pharma’s profits from manufacturing vaccines are very safe.

Well played, Big Pharma.

Here’s the Bottom Line: Pharma Gets a Free Meal Ticket

What is really happening is the US Federal government has given the corporations a guaranteed paycheck through the contracts. It makes perfect sense why the federal health agencies would keep demanding more vaccinations – they get more money!

Take the example of the former head of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Julie Gerberding. She helped promote the highly controversial Gardasil vaccine while she served in her government post. After she finished working for the CDC, she was made President of the Vaccine Division for Merck Pharmaceuticals.

To illustrate my point, I created a simple summary of one way money pours into the pharmaceutical company’s coffers.

 

Click on the image to enlarge.

When government money is given to corporations, we have to start looking at the individual humans who serve them.

Here’s one perspective from a legendary American trial lawyer, Gerry Spence, as he describes corporations as:

“… not a human being. It is not a group of human beings. Remember that. It is a fictional structure. A form – a nonliving, nonbreathing, nonhuman form – an invisible form…I have heard many a corporate executive argue that he has no loyalty to his employees, to his customers, or to his country. His loyalty, all of it, is to the profit of his shareholders.”[8,9]

Indeed, the love of money (greed) is a very common human attribute and becomes a problem as in the case of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

They were charged by the Department of Justice with payments to influence government officials. In turn, Pfizer was ‘fined’ 40 million dollars.

Put in context, it is about 2.5 percent of the grant money given to them by the CDC for making vaccines. [7] It’s a pity that laws passed by the same politicians are not overturned when this type of tomfoolery is uncovered.

But that game is well-understood by Pharma, is it not?

Conclusion

If your child is harmed by vaccines, you should know your hands are legally tied.

Through public law, these corporations have been made too big to fail, just like the banks. They make a hefty profit from government contracts. It’s a guaranteed paycheck for them – there is no incentive to change the process.

We must remember the pharmaceutical companies are in business to make profits and ensure shareholder value. I recently shared a graphic on the VacTruth.com Facebook page which sums up how I feel, “The pharmaceutical industry does not create cures, they create customers.

Tip for Readers

If you want to look up the award amounts for yourself, follow these 3 easy steps.

  1. Go to https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=list&tab=archives
  2. Copy and Paste one of the contract numbers listed above (Ex. “200-2011-38199”) into the “Keyword / Solicitation #” field.
  3. In the “Posted Date” field, make sure the ‘blank’ value is selected. It is above the “Today”.  You should get a result similar to what is

References

1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/acip-list.htm

2.  https://www.fbo.gov/

3.  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html

http://www.novartis.com/about-novartis/our-mission/index.shtml

Part of a mission statement from one pharmaceutical company states, “We also want to provide a shareholder return that reflects outstanding performance and to adequately reward those who invest ideas and work in our company.

This language is not uncommon in corporate mission statements – even for pharmaceutical companies.

5. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#claimscompensated

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

7. http://vactruth.com/2012/08/28/pharma-admits-to-bribes/

8. Spence, Gerry. (1995). How to Argue and Win Every Time. St. Martin’s Press. Pg 270.

9. Ilbid., Pg 281.

10. Contract Award for Sanofi Pasteur

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=9c6e25873f0cdaa9220b6f9a4d3f59e0

11. Contract Award for GlaxoSmithKline

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8d9318e0064e03d202bd4e82201fba56&tab=core&_cview=0

12. Contract Award for Merck

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0f96e01f7c99849184ebae2280d47cf&tab=core&_cview=0

13. Contract Award for Novartis

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c4bfebe64d04bd0a9342fd51d736fd77&tab=core&_cview=0

14. Contract Award for Pfizer

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=81727165b87a75be1ed4d24b292e3fda&tab=core&tabmode=list&=

15. Contract Award for Mass Biologics

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bb75e52010be266964a8992c2d21c43c&tab=core&_cview=0

16. http://www.who.int/immunization_financing/options/en/briefcase_vacproduction.pdf

World Health Organization: Cell Phones cause Cancer

While some media have tried to reduce the scope of the latest confirmation, the results of the studies on the frequent and prolonged use of cell phones is very clear.

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 1, 2011

The radiation emitted by cell phones causes cancer. Many studies have shown it and today it was time to the first global organization, the WHO, to accept that fact. The World Health Organization now includes radiation emitted by cell phones as a “cancer risk” and places it next to lead, combustion gases and chloroform due to the level of risk.

Prior to the announcement made today, the WHO had assured users, without giving the proper analysis to previous studies, that there were no risks associated with the use of mobile phones. But this time, the most recent study presented evidence so clear and undeniable, that the organization had to issue a statement accepting that the continuous radiation of mobile phones has everything to do with the development of brain cancers.

The latest analysis included 31 scientists from 14 countries including the United States, which decided to participate after scientists reviewed the results of previous studies and realized the magnitude of the problem. “The team found sufficient evidence to classify the personal exposure as” possibly carcinogenic to humans. ”

What this means is that at this point there have not been conducted enough long term studies done to reach a clear conclusion about the safety of cell phone radiation, but there is enough data to show a possible connection which users should be alerted about.

“The biggest problem we have is we know that most environmental factors require several decades of study before we can see the consequences,” said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

According to the study, the radiation emitted by cell phones is called non-ionizing. This means that radiation has an effect like a low-power microwave and not as an X-ray, which exposes people to high concentrations of radiation for a short period of time.

“What phone radiation does in the simplest terms is similar to what happens to food in the microwave; essentially it cooks the brain. Thus, besides leading to development of cancer and tumors, it could create a whole bunch of other negative effects on the cognitive function of memory, because the temporal lobes are exactly where we put the cell phones.”

After the findings in recent studies, calls for caution on the use of cellular phones aren’t scarce, just as it has happened other times, but not many people have given the required attention and continue to use cell phones.

The study about the consequences of cell phone use has produced results that are similar to those that show the malignity of tobacco, for example. In addition to the latest analysis, the European Environment Agency made and continues to perform studies that show that the risk posed by the use of cell phones could be as great as that of smoking. In both cases the health of the user and those who are around is directly and negatively affected. These studies also compared the effects of radiation exposure to other elements such as asbestos and leaded gasoline. In the United States, the director of a cancer research institute at the University of Pittsburgh, expressed concern and urged employees to limit cell phone use.
“When we look at the development of cancer – particularly brain cancer – it is known that it takes much time to develop. I think it’s a good idea to give the audience a kind of warning that prolonged exposure to cell phone radiation could cause cancer, “said Dr. Henry Lai, a research and professor in bioengineering at the University of Washington. Dr. Lai has studied radiation for over 30 years.

The results of the largest international study on cell phone use and its relation to cancer development was initiated in 2010. The main result of the study showed that when participants used a cell phone for 10 years or more, they have double the chance to get cerebral glioma, which is a type of tumor. Despite this result, neither health authorities nor the universities have conducted studies to determine the effects of cellphone use in children, which is the population group with the largest increase in the use of cell phones. In theory, children’s brains would be even more affected by cellphone radiation due to the fact their skulls are not fully developed, which could contribute to a greater cerebral tissue exposure to radiation.

“The skulls of children and the scalp are thinner. So the radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain of children and young adults. Their cells divide more rapidly, so the impact of radiation can be much higher. ” read a statement issues by Black Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

Although some cell phone manufacturers have warned consumers about the consequences of excessive use of phones and how they should be away from the body when not in use, the reality is that technological progress in our society makes it almost impossible to stop using cell phones or keep them away from the body. More and more companies create applications and programs and people become more and more dependent on the cellular phones and wireless networks, so the trend is that people continue to use mobile phones. Therefore, the warnings of manufacturers of mobile homes on the risk that they pose are as laughable as those of cigarette manufacturers about how smoking is hazardous to health. Both industries know about the harm, but still continue to produce cigarettes and mobiles.

With the number of mobile subscriptions reaching five billion worldwide, it is not difficult to visualize the cancer pandemic that humanity will face in a few years.