Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:43 pm



'Public schools have financial incentive to diagnose your children with ADHD and ADD: In 1991, eligibility rules for federal education grants were changed to provide schools with $400 in annual grant money for each child diagnosed with ADHD. As a result, the number of ADHD cases soared. Today more than 7,000,000 children have been labeled and registered as permanent patients of the school system. Ten to twelve percent of all boys between the ages of 6 and 14 in the United States have been diagnosed as having ADHD.'
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:54 pm

“Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise”  
~Benjamin Franklin


“Physical fitness is not only one of the most important keys to a healthy body, it is the basis of dynamic and creative intellectual activity.”  
~John F. Kennedy


“The greatest wealth is Health.”  
~Unknown


“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”  
~Hippocrates


“Just because you’re not sick doesn’t mean you’re healthy”  
~Author Unknown


“Those who think they have no time for exercise will sooner or later have to find time for illness.” 
~Edward Stanley


“Health is a state of complete harmony of the body, mind and spirit. When one is free from physical disabilities and mental distractions, the gates of the soul open.”  
~B.K.S. Iyengar


“The best and most efficient pharmacy is within your own system.”  
~Robert C. Peale


“Health is not simply the absence of sickness.”  
~Hannah Green


"The best doctor gives the least medicine." 
~Benjamin Franklin


“The doctor of the future will no longer treat the human frame with drugs, but rather will cure and prevent disease with nutrition.”  
~Thomas Edison


“True healthcare reform starts in your kitchen, not in Washington”  
~Anonymous


“To keep the body in good health is a duty, for otherwise we shall not be able to trim the lamp of wisdom, and keep our mind strong and clear. Water surrounds the lotus flower, but does not wet its petals.”  
~Buddha


“He who takes medicine and neglects to diet wastes the skill of his doctors.”  
~Chinese Proverb


“By cleansing your body on a regular basis and eliminating as many toxins as possible from your environment, your body can begin to heal itself, prevent disease, and become stronger and more resilient than you ever dreamed possible!”  
~Dr. Edward Group III
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:55 pm

Justice for my husband – sent mad by routine vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur



Malcolm in Hospital in Copenhagen


In April 2011, my husband, veteran BBC correspondent Malcolm Brabant, received a  yellow fever vaccination in order to go on assignment to Africa.


Within hours, he was severely ill. He developed a very high fever and a severe PSYCHOSIS.


My husband has spent months on end in locked-up psychiatric hospitals because of this one little prick in his left arm.


The name of the vaccine is  Stamaril and it is manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, one of the world’s largest vaccine-manufacturers.




Trine Villemann, journalist and author and married to Malcolm Brabant.


My name is  Trine Villemann. I have been married to Malcolm for nearly 17 years. I am a journalist and an author.


Shortly after my husband fell so catastrophically ill, I notified Sanofi Pasteur of his  severe adverse event to their vaccine. Their repsonse was that there was no link between my husband’s sudden madness  and the Stamaril vaccine.


Sanofi Pasteur claims that they have investigated the  batch of vaccines, my husband’s jab came from,  but they are refusing to share the findings of their investigation. Therefore, we do not know how Sanofi Pasteur has reached  the conclusion that my husband’s high fever and severe psychosis was not caused by their vaccine.


I am convinced that  Sanofi Pasteuer’s yellow fever vaccine DID cause  my husband’s severe psychosis. There is no other explanation for his sudden, catastrophic illness.


Before the vaccine, he was a strong, healthy and happy human being with no history of any mental illness. After receiving Sanofi Pasteur’s vaccine, he became so insane, that we had to lock him up.


We have waited for more than two years for Sanofi Pasteur to do the right thing.


I am now starting a campaign for justice for my husband. He was badly injured by Sanofi  Pasteur’s vaccine and our family has suffered a great deal since, not least our son, Lukas, who was 12 years old, when this disaster struck.


In this blog, I will update you on news about our campaign and my husband.


I will also share some of the information I have gathered over the past two years about Sanofi Pasteur and the safety of their vaccines.


And I will share with you stories about other people, who have suffered mental problems after receiving the yellow fever vaccine.


Please check back regularly for campaign updates and ideas on how you can help us.  If you haven’t done so already, please sign our online petition, like the campaign on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.


It happened to my husband. It  can happen to you!
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:03 pm

World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome




Dr. Waney Squier. Copyright Photo by Les Wilson. Photo courtesy of Daily Mail.

Health Impact News Editor Comments



The medical theory of “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS) is quickly losing credibility, with many doctors, scientists, and attorneys now speaking out against SBS and the fact that innocent parents have been falsely accused of child abuse. Courts are now re-trying some cases based on testimonies from these doctors and professionals, and some cases have recently been over-turned.


The medical profession is fighting back. The reasons are quite obvious. To admit that the theory behind SBS is false, would open the door to major litigation, as the theory has been used to convict thousands of parents of child abuse, and to perhaps remove tens of thousands of children from their homes and families. There is also massive federal funding available to seize these children, making them an asset to the state.


So the apparent strategy of the medical profession is to attack those doctors now testifying against SBS on behalf of innocent parents, destroying their credibility and license to practice. Without their expert testimony, it will be much more difficult to fight false SBS convictions.


The latest effort along that front is the action the British General Medical Council has taken against world renowned pediatric neuropathologist Dr. Waney Squier, who has now had her career effectively destroyed for testifying to the truth.


World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome

by Christina England

Health Impact News


On Friday, March 11, 2016, the General Medical Council (GMC) found UK pediatric neuropathologist and expert defense witness, Dr. Waney Squier, guilty of “misleading her peers, being irresponsible, dishonest and bringing the reputation of the medical profession into disrepute.”

In a nutshell, she was found guilty of disagreeing with the medical establishment over the “science” behind diagnosing shaken baby syndrome, and speaking out on behalf of innocent parents.


Considered to be the country’s leading scientist in the field of pediatric neuropathology, Dr. Squier has worked as a consultant at the John Radcliffe Hospital for 32 years. Until 15 years ago, she vehemently supported and adhered to the mainstream belief that when a medical professional suspects that an infant has been violently shaken, they must examine the baby for the “triad” of injuries believed to be associated with shaken baby syndrome (SBS).


However, after studying and examining the scientific underpinnings of what is only, after all, a theory, Dr. Squier began to develop doubts which led her to express her ever-increasing scientific skepticism.


Other Professionals Agree with Dr. Squier – Consider SBS Theory “Junk Science”


Over the years, a growing number of professionals have turned their back on the original SBS theories in favor of science. Experts now believe that there are a range of other conditions and circumstances that can cause the triad of injuries to occur.


Explaining why the original SBS hypothesis is out of date and currently viewed as junk science by a growing number of professionals, Dr. Uscinski, a neurosurgeon based out of Maryland, tells Health Impact News:


The proffered ‘science’ by the advocates of the hypothesis of shaking is anything but simple, and actually defies the very principles of Newtonian physics also articulated by Newton in his ‘Principia,’ the cardinal one being the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, or simply put ‘f = ma.’

This has been demonstrated experimentally on more than one occasion, and one does not require any more than a high school education in basic physics to understand this concept, and it is also known that one year of such basic physics (including the principles of Newtonian physics) is a prerequisite for entry into medical school, so it is not beyond Prof. Squiers realm of expertise.

Moreover, the observation of one simple act performed with infants of every culture around the globe, this being the method of picking up a tiny infant weeks or months old from the supine position, is significant here. This is simply that the individual doing the lifting carefully places a hand behind the infant’s head and neck. Again, this is done universally, and is a human instinct.

Why do we do this? We do this for the simple reason that the human infant neck musculature, ligamentous, and bone structure is insufficient to support the infant head for about the first four months of life.

If one were to shake such an infant vigorously it is clear that the damage would be to the neck, not the head.

Bearing this in mind, we have to ask ourselves why it is that the majority of SBS cases that are being examined in court today show no evidence of any neck or back trauma to the child.


Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer states:


Shaken baby syndrome is not a medical diagnosis to be treated but, almost uniquely, it a doctor’s opinion that a crime has been committed. I have represented a number of people who have been sentenced to death based on this ‘theory’ although increasingly the evidence suggests that it is unscientific nonsense. Justice demands that a doctor who honestly holds views supported by scientific evidence be permitted to give testimony that challenges the hypotheses of others.

Setting aside the devastating personal impact on Dr. Squier, Smith continues:


I am most troubled by the effect of this process on the delivery of justice in this country and around the world. Hundreds if not thousands of parents or carers have been condemned, or lost custody of their children, when the medical profession has diagnosed a crime. Today, unqualified though they may be, the panel announced that the GMC will brook no scientific dissent.

This is absolutely true and if the decision of the GMC is to strike Dr. Squier’s name off the medical register, thus making her unable to practice medicine. The world will have lost a wonderful scientist and advocate for parents. Sadly, this will leave many parents without a defense expert and potentially facing years in prison for a crime they did not commit.


Are the General Medical Council Members Qualified to Rule on SBS, or Was This Simply a “Witch Hunt”?


As letters of support flood into the GMC from professionals around the world, the consensus is that Dr. Squier’s case is little more than a witch hunt designed to destroy an excellent professional’s credibility whilst continuing to promote the out-of-date theories and junk science that currently exists.


One professional, Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff, a UCLA graduate with 40 years of history as an emergency room physician, commented on the fact that the adjudicating panel consisted of a retired RAF officer, a retired policeman and a retired community psychiatrist. He tells Health Impact News:


The use of the 3 non-medical people in this case to adjudicate this case would be not much better than 3 monkeys listening to a lecture about the neuropathophysiology of the human brain, with and without injury, and hitting a button to convict when the talking stops, AS directed by their handlers. The GMC and MPTS should be ashamed of themselves for creating this biased and ignorant panel, with no understanding of the issues; most likely a fraudulent set-up to destroy one of Britain’s, and the world’s, greatest assets in the fight against false accusations, and world leader in her field, by any standard applied.

This is the most base act in this arena that is possible (the destruction of brilliance), perpetrated by people (the medical accusers) trapped in their own misbeliefs and past misdiagnoses, not much better than witch hunters, whose professional lives, if the truth were to emerge, would be covered with the tears and pain of destroyed families they have destroyed with their false accusations, arrogance, narcissism, delusions of grandeur, and sociopathic impacts on the falsely accused families of this small world we live in.

It seems clear that the unqualified members of the MPTS panel could not have written the decision, so who did? The real purpose of this injustice it seems, is an attempt to maintain the status quo, by the handlers, for reasons that are primarily self preservation for the accuser’s past sins.. so many sins… so many families and innocent children damaged by this extraordinarily unscientific process.

Furthermore in a letter written to the GMC in support of Dr. Squier, Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff, wrote:


The attacks on those bringing and shining light onto alternative etiologies of the findings misused to misdiagnose abuse, is a response to a threat to establishment thinking and the establishment itself. The challenges to existing dogma come from many quarters now and from many medical specialists with more knowledge and academic standing than the establishment MDs. The challengers have brought forth alternative thinking about the etiology of the findings misused to diagnose abuse. This strategy of falsely accusing highly respected, leaders in their field who do not agree with their now doubtful, if not unproven, or false hypothesis, is not new.

To those with limited or essentially no knowledge of the deep nuances of child abuse pediatrics, the beliefs of the establishment would be, to start, assumed to be true. The alliance of the child abuse establishment’s medical providers, the prosecutors of child abuse, the special units of police assigned to these matters, is both massive and powerful. The establishment predictably is taken seriously by almost everyone. In the 45 years since the early pediatrician created hypotheses that lie at the core of the fund of knowledge of child abuse pediatrics, hypotheses which were never true, went unchallenged for years. So long a period, that there was enough time to give both the doctors and the theories unwarranted credulity within the legal paradigm, where results of past cases is given weight. In retrospect, these hypotheses, representing evolving science, were never subject to any testing that followed a valid scientific methodology. Anecdotal evidence, low grade observations studies, and a definitively unscientific belief structure, have been, and are, offered as validation for their unproven hypotheses to this day.

Dr
. Michael Powers, QC, a foremost expert in medico-legal issues writes:


Without intending any disrespect, the GMC tribunal – made up of a retired RAF officer, a retired policeman and a retired community psychiatrist – is not qualified to understand the complex pathology of the developing brain. It is therefore sad, but not surprising, that they have reached the wrong conclusion. The proper forum for debating these issues is the international neuroscience community.

Supreme Irony: Dr. Squire to Receive “Champion of Justice Award” from 69 Organizations Around the World


Dr. John Plunkett, who has pioneered vital work on the validity of shaken baby syndrome in the United States states:


It is a supreme irony that the Innocence Network will give Dr. Squier the 2016 ‘Champion of Justice Award’ at the meeting in San Antonio on April 8. This is a group of 69 organizations from around the world including the UK. There have been at least 300 exonerations of those wrongly convicted of serious crimes, including some people for whom Dr. Squier has been an important expert. How is it that the Innocence Network can give this award to Dr. Squier if the GMC has correctly characterized her behavior as dishonest and worthy of sanction? (Source.)

Parents Exonerated from Crimes they did not Commit Speak Out


Through the tireless efforts of Dr. Squier, scores of innocent parents have been able to keep their children and avoid lengthy prison sentences. Last night, one shocked mother of a prisoner awaiting appeal told Health Impact News that:


My son’s solicitors were going to use her if he gets an appeal. It looks like that will go out the window now.

And another devastated mother, Dr. Bergina Brickhouse who had used Dr. Squier in her case, wrote:


If it were not for Dr. Squier’s intelligent research and unwavering commitment to truth, my family and I would have been left at the mercy of ignorant medical staff that did not conduct a thorough investigation of my son’s case.  I am forever grateful for her and my heart aches at the injustice she is enduring.

Being found guilty of a crime that you did not commit can lead to extremely tragic consequences, as more and more parents are left desperate, frightened and alone with no one to turn to. Only recently, we saw two parents take their own lives after being falsely accused of killing their children and facing life sentences as child murderers for a crime they did not commit. Listen to this broadcast for details.


For more information on SBS read Dr. Gabaeff’s paper titled:

Exploring the controversy in child abuse pediatrics and false accusations of abuse

avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:15 pm




Former Salesman For Vaccine Maker Merck & Co. Wouldn't Vaccinate His Son
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:16 pm

Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time. Conscientious objectors to vaccination should stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defence of their conviction. - Mahatma Gandhi
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:25 pm

The Polio Vaccine Cancer Cover-up





The polio vaccines developed in the 1950s by Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin allegedly eradicated one of the most feared diseases of the 20th century. The media hailed the success of these vaccines as a modern day miracle. However, the polio story has a much darker side that has mostly been kept a secret.


Both Sabin’s live virus vaccine given orally and Salk’s inactivated virus vaccine given by injection were far from perfect. In fact, in 1955 the vaccine used in Berkley, California infected some 200 children, leaving several dead and many paralyzed. Yet this incident proved minor compared to what was later discovered.


In order to grow large quantities of the poliovirus, scientists needed to use Rhesus monkey kidney cells, which carried many different viruses. As a result, their polio vaccine became contaminated with a cancer-causing virus carried by these monkeys. This vaccine was given to almost 100 million people.


The virus found in this particular polio vaccine was SV40, or simian virus. It is present in human tumors, and research has established it to be a contributing factor in the rise of many types of cancer, including mesothelioma, bone, and brain cancer.


When the government became aware of this, it was downplayed for fear the public would stop accepting vaccination.




Can the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Be Trusted?


At one point, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admitted on its website that the polio vaccine had been contaminated. They later removed this information. (View a snapshot of this removed page at the link below.)


The original report disclosed that more than 98 million Americans received the contaminated vaccine between 1955 and 1963, and explained that SV40 could lead to certain types of cancer. Later this admission was downplayed to state that there was no proof the virus caused the cancers, and since not all doses of the vaccine were contaminated, an estimated 10 to 30 million Americans were all who were at risk.


The CDC repeatedly referred to studies done by two scientists which concluded that SV40 did not cause cancer in humans, only in lab animals.


Contaminated Vaccine Knowingly Dispensed to the Public


In 1959, Dr. Bernice Eddy of the National Institutes of Health discovered that the monkey kidney cells used to grow the poliovirus caused cancerous tumors when injected into hamsters. After reporting these findings, Eddy was excused from her job and assigned a new position. Not long after, the pharmaceutical company Merck made the same discovery.


In 1960, Merck scientists Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Dr. Benjamin Sweet (the Merck scientists who named the SV40 virus), published findings concluding that the polio vaccine was indeed contaminated with the SV40 virus. Hilleman later admitted (back then on tape) that Merck knew the vaccines were contaminated and continued to dispense them to the public anyway.
Subsequent in vitro studies in the 1960s demonstrated that SV40 caused brain tumors in animals and transformed normal human tissue into cancerous tissue. It was obvious that governing authorities wanted to keep this information under wraps, and so the SV40 scandal disappeared from the public eye for years.


An Old Scandal Rears Its Ugly Head


In the 1990s, a young Italian pathologist named Dr. Michelle Carbone discovered a link between mesothelioma and certain brain, bone, and lymphatic cancers, and the SV40 virus. He tested lung tissue from cancer patients, which revealed the presence of the SV40 virus, and every single one of the hamsters tested with the virus developed mesothelioma and died within seven months.


Carbone published his findings in 1994 in a leading cancer research journal. For the first time, hard evidence showed (and was made public) that the SV40 could cause cancer in humans, and the long forgotten scandal of the 1960s awakened from its slumber.


In 1996, in an attempt to refute Carbone’s research, Dr. Howard Strickler and Dr. Keerti Shah responded with reports saying they could not detect SV40 in human tumors. Interestingly, Merck and Pfizer were paying Shah at the time for consulting, specifically on SV40. Strickler and Shah also both performed their research in pharmaceutical sponsored laboratories.


Later, in 2003, Shah testified before Congress that Strickler compromised a study by interfering with its controls. Strickler had conflicts of interest as he was a consultant/advisory board member for Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.


Supposed Regulations Do Not Solve the Problem


After numerous studies showing SV40 was cancer causing, weak regulations were put into place. Shockingly, the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did not order a recall of any of the contaminated polio vaccines. They continued to distribute contaminated vaccines to an unsuspecting public until 1963. Finally, new federal regulations were put in place that required vaccines to be tested for SV40.


These new regulations required a waiting period of 14 days to see if the virus was growing before making the vaccine. However, it was later discovered that a slower growing form of the virus, which took 19 days to appear, could have been in the approved vaccines. Therefore, millions more people potentially received contaminated vaccine all the way through the 1990s because of these inadequate testing guidelines.


Cancer has risen exponentially since the 1960s, and by 2002 there were 61 reports from 49 different laboratories across the world suggesting an increased incidence of certain cancers caused by SV40.  The British journal The Lancet revealed SV40 was responsible for over 25,000 cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma each year. By 2003, 60 more labs had been identified which demonstrated a connection to the SV40 virus and cancer.


Dr. Randy Tent, DC, ND, PhD, a highly renowned alternative doctor, reported at a health conference in 2013 that “one out of 200 people will have cancer directly caused by SV40.”


Even Though Some Things Never Change, YOU Can


The response of the CDC to the SV40 scandal mimics their current denial of the autism-vaccine link. It appears the CDC selectively chooses which science they would like to follow when it comes to their covert vaccine agenda. Most often their “science” of choice comes from pharmaceutical sponsored laboratories, despite the presence of unbiased research proving that many vaccines are not safe.


Most people have received several doses of the polio vaccine throughout their life. With cancer affecting so many, and vaccines distributed so widespread, one must consider vaccines as a contributing factor, especially since they contain known carcinogens and cancer-causing viruses.
Regular cancer prevention needs to include detoxification from heavy metals and other carcinogens. When it comes to vaccines, do your own research. Read all vaccine package inserts and don’t just blindly trust doctors (who have to follow FDA rules) and government agencies such as the CDC whose track record is suspect when it comes to protecting the public.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:27 pm

California Mandatory Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Celebrities Speak Out




Waking Times



The national debate over vaccine safety and childhood vaccination exemptions gained further attention this week as California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill to restrict exemptions for childhood vaccinations required to attend school in California. A Miami area Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson (D), has proposed a similar legislation at the national level, furthering the push to force medical treatments with recognized and unrecognized risks on healthy people. This type of force led the actor Jim Carrey to call Governor Brown’s actions “fascist” in his social media tweet.


Vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that there is some level of risk of adverse effects from using their shots, while the amount of risk involved has been widely debated, with the vast majority of adverse reactions to vaccines either never reported or never recognized, due to the reporting and association bias created by medical claims that vaccines are safe and that the adverse events must be due to some other cause (without investigation or proof obtained to support that assertion). Despite the obstacles to reporting and having a vaccine injury acknowledged, there are many cases of payouts from the Federal Government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and thousands of parents who report they have no doubt that their children were harmed, sometimes severely, by routine vaccinations. The law which established the compensation program was designed in part to protect vaccine manufacturers and medical institutions from legal liability and financial repercussions for harm occurring due to vaccinations.


There are also conflicting research studies and epidemiological analyses being presented to back the arguments presented by vaccine defenders and vaccine critics. With so many vaccinations being given and so many additional environmental hazards that children are exposed to it is hard to design research that can truly ascertain the effects of individual vaccines and of cumulative exposure to vaccines. Results that have suggested a possible link between vaccines and health issues such as autism and allergies have been ignored or discounted by those defending vaccine safety, citing study design weaknesses or differing results presented by industry-linked studies. Unfortunately, few people have the expertise or understanding to thoroughly analyze research and discern the weaknesses in a study or detect methods used to manipulate data to alter the statistical significance of correlations and effects that appear. Many people claim that the science behind vaccine safety and efficacy is clear, but from a true scientific perspective of careful investigation this is a gross misstatement. The evidence that has accumulated showing that there are serious risks involved with carrying out vaccinations is hard to refute, so those defending coercive vaccination laws routinely ignore the evidence and refuse to publicly debate knowledgeable vaccine critics.


One major element of the arguments used to defend vaccines is the claim that they have been a major public health advance, which reportedly brought an end to epidemics of polio and smallpox. Many people take those assumptions for granted, without realizing that there was never any controlled scientific research done which confirms those claims. Infectious illness epidemics follow patterns and cycles where they appear and dissipate with or without medical intervention. Historically, vaccines were introduced to the population mass when the diseases were already naturally dissipating, and it has even been suggested by some researchers that vaccines help perpetuate epidemics further by creating cases of an illness generated by exposure to the microbe in the shots.


Most modern polio cases, for example, are triggered by the vaccination for polio, with many cases of polio type illness and paralysis occurring after vaccination but being given a different diagnostic name. Deaths and injuries due to polio or a polio equivalent are still occurring but are getting renamed in order to perpetuate the illusion that vaccines successfully eradicated polio and to hide the reality that these deaths and illnesses are currently being triggered by the vaccine exposure. This occurs even as the public has not been told that doctors successfully treated polio with IV vitamin C in the 1940s. In fact, complications occurring from illnesses such as measles and polio and influenza are known to be strongly correlated with malnutrition. Provide proper nutrition and people are much less likely to fall ill when exposed to microbial illness agents and less likely to have any complications if they do get sick. Since the science is pretty clear on that, why isn’t there a government push to make sure children get enough nutrients to prevent illness? It is well documented that a majority of the population have nutritional deficiencies, and supplementing needed nutrients would be an obvious measure to prevent illnesses, yet the public health authorities are ignoring this issue while focusing on forcing people to take injections that carry risks and cannot create a healthy immune system.


Herd immunity is another plank in the foundation of arguments for forced vaccination, yet it too is an idea based upon false assumptions and deception. As immunologist Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych states “Although the evidence for vaccination-based herd immunity is yet to materialize, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just a single publication by Poland & Jacobson (1994) reports on 18 different measles outbreaks throughout North America, occurring in school populations with very-high vaccination coverage for measles (71% to 99.8%). In these outbreaks, vaccinated children constituted 30% to 100% of measles cases. Many more similar outbreaks, occurring after 1994, can be found by searching epidemiologic literature. The herd-immunity concept is based on a faulty assumption that vaccination elicits in an individual a state equivalent to bona fide immunity (life-long resistance to viral infection). As with any garbage in-garbage out type of theory, the expectations of the herd-immunity theory are bound to fail in the real world.”


The basic theory underlying vaccination is to foster a specific type of immune system response in the presence of a particular pathogen. That type of immune triggering is just one facet of how our immune system is designed to manage and protect against harmful organisms. Thus, the full natural immune response is not what vaccines are leading the immune system to exhibit. By promoting a limited and imbalanced immune response, vaccines may actually foster greater vulnerability to infection when future exposures to pathogens occur. The form of immunity that is fostered by vaccines is a weaker or more limited immunity than naturally obtained immunity – this is why people are told they need “booster” shots, as the previous shots don’t really provide strong, lasting immunity. The best way to build immunity is to have a healthy balanced immune system and have natural exposure to a pathogen while you are in that healthy state. Then, your body will respond properly so that you don’t become ill and you are now protected against that organism if there is a future exposure. Vaccines cannot create a healthy, balanced immune system – they can only trigger an imbalanced and limited form of immune system response. When this occurs, you may only have mild symptoms or no symptoms of an illness, even though the pathogen is now chronically present in your body because your body failed to launch a full, balanced immune response. This can lead to chronic weaknesses in the immune system and autoimmune illnesses. Researchers have found a pattern of hyperimmune antibody response to the measles virus strain from vaccines in autistic children, suggesting that the vaccination leads to an imbalanced reaction to the viral material that inhibits the body’s ability to effectively neutralize an infection, with resulting complications associated with the virus and the abnormal immune system activity.


There are many studies showing evidence supporting the hypothesis that vaccines are often fostering imbalances in the immune system. Even in the latest research by those studying proposed HIV vaccines, it is admitted that the effects of vaccines can be a “double-edged sword.” While attempting to trick the immune system to respond to injected microbial materials may appear to foster some form of immunity, the risk of adverse systemic effects occurring as a result of this attempt to outsmart the natural intelligence of our body and its immune function is quite significant. Since vaccines can only stimulate the body to apply a portion of its own intelligence to neutralize a pathogen, our body is able to perform that job just as well or better without vaccines. The idea that we need vaccines to prevent illnesses is a form of delusion, as when we are healthy in our immune function and are exposed to a pathogen we won’t get the illness, regardless of whether or not we were previously vaccinated for the illness. Rather than trying to stimulate an imbalanced immune response to several specific pathogens out of thousands that we could possibly encounter, why not focus on building a healthy body and balanced immune functioning so that we will properly handle any potential threat that the mind-body system may encounter?
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:35 pm

What the News Isn’t Saying About Vaccine-Autism Studies


Sharyl Attkisson

A new study [published in April] found no link between vaccines and autism. It instantly made headlines on TV news and popular media everywhere. Many billed it as the final word, “once again,” disproving the notion that vaccines could have anything to do with autism.

What you didn’t learn on the news was that the study was from a consulting firm that lists major vaccine makers among its clients: The Lewin Group.

That potential conflict of interest was not disclosed in the paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine; the study authors simply declare “The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence.”

(As an aside, according to OpenSecrets.org, The Lewin Group’s parent company, UnitedHealth Group, is a key government partner in Obamacare. Its subsidiary QSSI was given the contract to build the federal government’s HealthCare.gov website. One of its top executives and his family are top Obama donors.)

Conflicts of interest alone do not invalidate a study. But they serve as important context in the relentless effort by pharmaceutical interests and their government partners to discredit the many scientists and studies that have found possible vaccine-autism links.

Many Studies Suggest Possible Vaccine-Autism Links


When the popular press, bloggers and medical pundits uncritically promote a study like The Lewin Group’s, it must confound researchers like Lucija Tomljenovic, Catherine DeSoto, Robert Hitlan, Christopher Shaw, Helen Ratajczak, Boyd Haley, Carolyn Gallagher, Melody Goodman, M.I. Kawashti, O.R. Amin, N.G. Rowehy, T. Minami, Laura Hewitson, Brian Lopresti, Carol Stott, Scott Mason, Jaime Tomko, Bernard Rimland, Woody McGinnis, K. Shandley and D.W. Austin.

They are just a few of the many scientists whose peer-reviewed, published works have found possible links between vaccines and autism. But unlike The Lewin Group’s study, their research has not been endorsed and promoted by the government and, therefore, has not been widely reported in the media. In fact, news reports, blogs and “medical experts” routinely claim no such studies exist.

To be clear: no study to date conclusively proves or disproves a causal link between vaccines and autism and—despite the misreporting—none has claimed to do so. Each typically finds either (a) no association or (b) a possible association on a narrow vaccine-autism question. Taken as a whole, the research on both sides serves as a body of evidence.

The Astroturf Propaganda Campaign


It’s theoretically possible that all of the studies supporting a possible link between vaccines and autism are wrong. And, if the propagandists are to be believed, each of the researchers is an incompetent crank, quack, nut or fraud (and, of course, “anti-vaccine” for daring to dabble in research that attempts to solve the autism puzzle and leads to vaccine safety issues). The scientists and their research are “controversial,” simply because the propagandists declare them to be.

The disparaged scientists include well-published neurologists, pharmacists, epidemiologists, immunologists, PhD’s, chemists and microbiologists from places like Boston Children’s Hospital, Horizon Molecular Medicine at Georgia State University, University of British Columbia, City College of New York, Columbia University, Stony Brooke University Medical Center, University of Northern Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Al Azhar University of Cairo, Kinki University in Japan, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Poland, Department of Child Health Care, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University in China, Utah State University and many more.

Their work is, at best, ignored by the media; at worst, viciously attacked by the predictable flock of self-appointed expert “science” bloggers who often title their blogs with the word “science” or “skeptics” to confer an air of legitimacy.

This astroturf movement, in my opinion, includes but is not limited to: LeftBrainRightBrain, ScienceBlogs, NeuroSkeptic, ScienceBasedMedicine, LizDitz, ScienceBasedMedicine, CrooksandLiars, RespectfulInsolence, HealthNewsReview, SkepticalRaptor, Skepticblog, Skeptics.com, Wired, BrianDeer, SethMnookin, Orac, Every Child by Two, the vaccine industry supported American Academy of Pediatrics, and the government/corporate funded American Council on Science and Health (once called “Voodoo Science, Twisted Consumerism” by the watchdog Center for Science in the Public Interest).

This circle operates with the moral support of the vaccine industry and its government partners, citing one another’s flawed critiques as supposed proof that each study has been “debunked,” though the studies continue to appear in peer-reviewed, published journals and in the government’s own National Institutes of Health library.

“Weak,” “too small,” “haphazard,” “not replicated,” “junk science,” “flawed,” “unrelated,” declare the propagandists, without exception. Just as attackers spent years challenging any study that linked tobacco to lung cancer.

They know that reporters who don’t do their homework will conduct an Internet search, run across the blogs with science-y sounding names, and uncritically accept their word as if it’s fact and prevailing thought.

A Small Sampling


Many of the studies have common themes regarding a subset of susceptible children with immunity issues who, when faced with various vaccine challenges, end up with brain damage described as autism.

“Permanent brain damage” is an acknowledged, rare side effect of vaccines; there’s no dispute in that arena. The question is whether the specific form of autism brain injury after vaccination is in any way related to vaccination.

So what are a few of these published studies supporting a possible link between vaccines and autism?

As far back as 1998, a serology study by the College of Pharmacy at University of Michigan supported the hypothesis that an autoimmune response from the live measles virus in MMR vaccine “may play a causal role in autism.” (Nothing to see here, say the critics, that study is old.)

In 2002, a Utah State University study found that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR [vaccine], specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.” (“Flawed and non-replicable,” insist the propagandists.)

Also in 2002, the Autism Research Institute in San Diego looked at a combination of vaccine factors. Scientists found the mercury preservative thimerosal used in some vaccines (such as flu shots) could depress a baby’s immunity. That could make him susceptible to chronic measles infection of the gut when he gets MMR vaccine, which contains live measles virus. (The bloggers say it’s an old study, and that other studies contradict it.)

In 2006, a team of microbiologists in Cairo, Egypt concluded, “deficient immune response to measles, mumps and rubella vaccine antigens might be associated with autism, as a leading cause or a resulting event.”

A 2007 study found statistically significant evidence suggesting that boys who got the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine when it contained thimerosal were “more susceptible to developmental disability” than unvaccinated boys.

Similarly, a [url=http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/Hepatitis B Vaccination male neonates 1997-2002.pdf]5-year study [/url]of 79,000 children by the same institution found boys given Hepatitis B vaccine at birth had a three times increased risk for autism than boys vaccinated later or not at all. Nonwhite boys were at greatest risk. (“Weak study,” say the critics.)

A 2009 study in The Journal of Child Neurology found a major flaw in a widely-cited study that claimed no link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Their analysis found that “the original p value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.”

The researchers noted, “Like the link between aspirin and heart attack, even a small effect can have major health implications. If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs.”

(Critics: the study is not to be believed.)

A 2010 rat study by the Polish Academy of Sciences suggested “likely involvement” of thimerosal in vaccines (such as flu shots) “in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.” (The critics dismiss rat studies.)

In 2010, a pilot study in Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis found that infant monkeys given the 1990’s recommended pediatric vaccine regimen showed important brain changes warranting “additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function.”

A study from Japan’s Kinki University in 2010 supported “the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.”

A 2011 study from Australia’s Swinburne University supported the hypothesis that sensitivity to mercury, such as thimerosal in flu shots, may be a genetic risk factor for autism. (Critics call the study “strange” with “logical hurdles.”)

A Journal of Immunotoxicology review in 2011 by a former pharmaceutical company senior scientist concluded autism could result from more than one cause including encephalitis (brain damage) following vaccination. (Critics say she reviewed “debunked and fringe” science.)

In 2011, City University of New York correlated autism prevalence with increased childhood vaccine uptake. “Although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism,” said the study’s lead author. (To critics, it’s “junk science.”)

A [url=http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic 2011.pdf]University of British Columbia study[/url] in 2011 that found “the correlation between Aluminum [an adjuvant] in vaccines and [autism] may be causal.” (More “junk science,” say the propagandists.)

A 2011 rat study out of Warsaw, Poland found thimerosal in vaccines given at a young age could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders. (Proves nothing, say critics.)

A Chinese study in 2012 suggested that febrile seizures (an acknowledged side effect of some vaccines) and family history of neuropsychiatric disorders correlate with autistic regression.

A 2012 study from the Neurochemistry Research Marie Curie Chairs Program in Poland found that newborn exposure to vaccines with thimerosal (such as flu shots) might cause gluten-related brain injuries.

In 2013, neurosurgeons at the Methodist Neurological Institute found that children with mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal found in vaccines such as flu shots. (“Too small” of a study, say the critics.)

Then, there’s a 2004 Columbia University study presented at the Institute of Medicine. It found that mice predisposed for genetic autoimmune disorder developed autistic-like behavior after receiving mercury-containing vaccines. (Critics say that’s not proof, and the work was not replicable.)

There’s Dr. William Thompson, the current CDC senior scientist who has come forward with an extraordinary statement to say that he and his agency have engaged in long term efforts toobscure a study’s significant link between vaccines and autism, heightened in African Americans boys. (The CDC says the data changes made were for legitimate reasons.)

There’s the current CDC immunization safety director who acknowledged to me that it’s possible vaccines may rarely trigger autism in children who are biologically or genetically susceptible to vaccine injury.

There’s the case of Hannah Poling, in which the government secretly admitted multiple vaccines given in one day triggered her brain injuries, including autism, then paid a multi-million dollars settlement, and had the case sealed from the prying public eyes under a confidentiality order.

There was the former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, who stoked her peers’ ire by publicly stating that the vaccine-autism link was not a “myth” as so many tried to claim. She disclosed that her colleagues at the Institute of Medicine did not wish to investigate the possible link because they feared the impact it would have on the vaccination program.

There’s former CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, whose studies dispelled a vaccine autism link. He’s now a “most wanted fugitive” after being charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering for allegedly using CDC grants of tax dollars to buy a house and cars for himself.

And there are the former scientists from Merck, maker of the MMR vaccine in question, who have turned into whistleblowers and accuse their company of committing vaccine fraud.

The Spin


If you want to review research and evidence on the other side, a simple Internet search will easily turn up everything you want to know. Those studies always seem to get covered in the news. They somehow turn up first in Google search results, along with the reports and blogsdisparaging all opposing science and news reporting.

You might run across a February article in the New York Times. It treated the vaccine autism theory as if it comes down to a disagreement between emotionally fragile parents of autistic children and real research: “faith” and “feeling” versus hard science.

“Some parents feel certain that vaccines can lead to autism,” stated the article, and “the vaccine-autism link has continued to be accepted on faith by some.”

You might run across this network news story that uses Dr. Paul Offit as an expert on vaccine safety. He’s introduced as “director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia” and he “denies a connection with vaccination and autism.”

Somehow, it goes unreported that Offit has made millions (he won’t disclose exactly how much) inventing a vaccine for Merck, which makes the MMR vaccine in question. Offit’s rotavirus vaccine has, itself, been the subject of safety concerns. And his employment at Children’s Hospital has been funded in part by $1.5 million given by Merck. In addition, he got caught giving false and disparaging information regarding a report I did exposing his financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry he so vigorously defends. His false statements were corrected by the publication that originally reported them. And Offit and his book publisher settled a libel accusation by an vaccine safety advocate who accused Offit offabricating a disparaging conversation in his book: Autism’s False Prophets. Offit agreed to apologize, correct the book and make a donation to an autism charity.

But to the news: none of that matters. Offit is simply presented as an unbiased expert.

The supposedly best medical experts in the world who deny vaccines have anything to do with autism remain at an utter loss to explain this generation’s epidemic. To declare the science “settled” and the debate “over” is to defy the plain fact that many scientists worldwide are still sorting through it, and millions of people are still debating it.

The body of evidence on both sides is open to interpretation. People have every right to disbelieve the studies on one side. But it is disingenuous to pretend they do not exist.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:31 pm





Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe TRAILER
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:50 pm

The Lies About Andrew Wakefield

http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/03/the-lies-about-andrew-wakefield.html

'If the vaccine program is so good, why the dirty tactics? Why the straw man? Vaccine safety and effectiveness is a messy business: making Wakefield the scapegoat won't work much longer.'

This morning Age of Autism re-posts a brief article published last year about the key allegations against Andrew Wakefield, which have been long disproven but go on being endlessly recycled by a  mainstream media in the pay of, and intimidated by, the pharmaceutical industry.

By John Stone

Before yesterday morning I had not heard of ‘Upworthy’ which according to Wiki is a “website for viral content” founded by Eli Pariser (Chairman of AVAAZ, pictured) and Peter Koechley (former managing editor of 'The Onion'), for which Kim Kellerher of 'Wired' is also a board member. A presentation “curated” by  Adam Mordecai and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation states:

"After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything."

What, of course, this does not tell you is that the senior author and clinician in the paper, Prof John Walker-Smith,  who also compiled eleven of the twelve case histories appealed to the English High Court over the GMC findings and was completely exonerated nearly three years ago – Walker-Smith, unlike  Wakefield, was funded to appeal. All that ‘Upworthy’ are doing is playing the same trick as CNN and Wiki – which I reported on last year - and peddling disproven stories without mentioning that they have been disproven.

CNN, having cited wiki, blocked the following comment:

But this is a flawed account. The findings were confirmed by both histopathologists in the paper subsequent to the hearing. [See also here]

When the Deer/BMJ findings came under the scrutiny of Dr David Lewis in November 2011 they were forced to re-trench (reported in Nature):

“But he (Bjarnason) says that the forms don't clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records.

"The data are subjective. It's different to say it's deliberate falsification," he says.

“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records…

“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal's conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children's records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”

Although Godlee had previously stated in February 2011:

“The case we presented against Andrew Wakefield that the1998 Lancet paper was intended to mislead was not critically reliant on GP records”. It is primarily based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free from GPs and consultants."

But it is clear that the judge who presided over Walker-Smith's exoneration and reviewed the Lancet paper in detail could not find any evidence of this. His one major quibble was over the statement about ethical approval in the  paper which Walker-Smith says he did not see - however this is accurate too.

"Ethical approval and consent

"Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent."

The paper did not have ethical approval and consent, and did not need it because it was simply a review of patient data (which was what was on the tin). The procedures needed ethical approval and consent and had them.

So Wiki does not tell you any of this but repeats an account that is long disproven.

Having considerable respect for the good works of AVAAZ I think it is a great pity that Mr Pariser - author also of  'The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You' -  should be associated with this travesty, and he really ought to look into it. It seems that the entire defence of the vaccine program hinges on the false claims that have been made about the Wakefield paper (which did not even purport to prove that vaccines cause autism). If the vaccine program is so good, why the dirty tactics? Why the straw man? Vaccine safety and effectiveness is a messy business: making Wakefield the scapegoat won't work much longer.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:15 pm

Paging Dr. Wakefield: One Of Your Critics Quoted By CBS and FOX Was Named As A Defendant In A Wrongful Death, Fraud Case With $33 Million Conflict Of Interest

I was going to call it a day, when a piece of particularly distressing Associated Press anti-“Vaxxed” (the movie) propaganda caught my eye–on Fox (Health) News Online  and CBS News online.
 
The headline was: Medical Community Is Fighting A New Germ: Celebrities.
 
It managed to be all at once offensive, self-victimizing, and the kind of yuk-yuk “clever” only the truly humorless could ever embrace.

The Fox News article featured a photo of Jenny McCarthy, while CBS News used a photo of Robert De Niro.

Propaganda has countless depressant features; One is that all hope of novelty or ingenuity is lost before you even read it. It’s always a sucker punch. Take that. In this case, we the aggrieved nerds at the CDC who resent that anybody in the Western World should begrudge us a fatally corrupted study MMR/Autism that supplied the bedrock of “vaccines-don’t-cause-autism” are here to flog famous people who have “disappointed” us. We all know how Jenny McCarthy was crucified for speaking out on behalf of her vaccine damaged (by her own telling) son, despite the fact that she managed to improve his condition tremendously by way of multiple healing modalities, chiefly gut restoration and diet change.

Despite the fact that the gaspers here are politically correct down to their last atom, they see no reason to hold back on mocking and flogging McCarthy for her beauty. You get the sense they would like to literally stone her if they could. The condescending and wholly unoriginal insult they trot out again and again asks with heavy eye roll who parents would “rather” get pediatric advice from–a medical doctor, or a Playboy Bunny. As if any parent alive ever stood before these two choices. The worst thing is, nobody ever tells these people how banal they are.

My eye caught the other sucker punch quote that has been, insanely, pollinating in the raft of articles hysterically denouncing the explosive documentary nobody has seen yet: Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe, produced by Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree, and Polly Tommey. Robert DeNiro, who has seen it, backed it passionately, until suddenly, he pulled the plug, this past Saturday, removing it from Tribeca Film Festival’s schedule.

De Niro therefore is getting mostly praised, but inside the praise, psychosis bristles. This brings me to the second sucker-punch, opening with that favorite pod phrasing about what “no one would question:”

[This is an author-less article, written by The Associated Press, and syndicated.]

From CBS News:

“No one would question that the issue is personal to De Niro. But the Tribeca Film Festival, which opens its 15th edition on April 13, is an extremely public event. When news of the documentary’s scheduled screening spread, disease experts were distressed that the festival would lend its megaphone to a film by a disgraced doctor. Michael Specter, the New Yorker staff writer and medical expert, called it “a disgrace” for the festival, and compared Wakefield’s film to “Leni Riefenstahl making a movie about the Third Reich.” ”

Hell’s Bells. “Disease experts,” distressed? We can’t have that. Let’s instead make sure that millions of parents of brain damaged children are tortured to no end, by the mass media, who bludgeon any and all who think its “journalism” to allow their voices to be heard. Then let’s make a clumsy Nazi/Reich/Propaganda/Riefenstahl metaphor, for good measure, even though the analogy does not even make sense. Vaxxed is an expose documentary about the CDC whistleblower–not a propaganda film for the CDC. Maybe The New Yorker and Salon, and Forbes, should make that one.

[In an interview with The Truth Barrier, not yet published, distributor Philippe Diaz, of Cinema Libre, called Specter’s quotes, “insane,” and wondered, “what is he smoking?”]

I knew what was coming next–one always does with these “period pieces.” The lament. The lament that despite the CDC’s best efforts at totalitarian control of the press, and the film industry–a few rogue celebrities still manage to go off script.

This despite their creepy foundations like “Hollywood, Health, and Society–” which is run by a former CDC employee, funded by the CDC, The Gates Foundation, and countless more corporate giants, which “consults” on scripts for hundreds of TV shows, movies, and even documentaries, spreading “important messages about public health.”

They are so narcissistically deranged they actually believe and expect that all celebrities should do their ideological bidding every time they open their mouths. And many do.

So here came the self-victimizing lament, quoted as gospel:

“Celebrities have had an out-of-proportion impact on the public’s understanding of vaccine risk,” says Arthur L. Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University. “I don’t want to overplay it; most people vaccinate. It’s not like hordes of people are listening to Jenny McCarthy and saying, ‘Forget the American Association of Pediatrics, I’m going with the former Playboy Bunny.'”

The name Arthur L. Caplan came back to me, from an assignment I had from TALK magazine in 2000, to write about “gene therapy.” I wondered why they would want to lend their megaphone to such a controversial, to say the least, doctor of ethics.

Gene Therapy was a field that ground to a screeching halt after an 18 year old boy named Jesse Gelsinger died in an extremely dangerous “gene therapy” trial at Penn. That was where I remembered Caplan’s name from. I interviewed Jesse Gelsinger’s  grief-stricken father, at the time. TALK, for its part, killed the article, because it wasn’t enthusiastic enough about “gene therapy.” (Actually no, they asked me to revise it to become more positive–and I killed it.)

I remember vividly what the PR man at Penn said to me when I entered his office for an interview. He slumped down in his chair, and sighed.

“We killed an 18 year old kid.”

The interview was pretty much over, after that. This was before the days when everything was reversed–back then, a child’s death was called a death, and heads rolled, and ill-conceived, greedy “research” programs using human guinea pigs were halted. End of story. Turned out they had failed to inform Jesse or his family that two other people had nearly died in similar experiments, and that research monkeys had died. In addition, Jesse’s levels of ammonia were way too high for this to be remotely safe for him. I remember his father telling me that before his organs shut down, Jesse’s blood had turned to the consistency of jello.


Jesse Gelsinger

I typed into Google: “Jesse Gelsinger and Arthur Caplan.”

Well what do you know?

First item, worth quoting in its entirety:

Gelsinger wrongful death lawsuit names bioethicist Caplan

Genetic Crossroads
October 16th, 2000 

The family of Jesse Gelsinger, the 18-year-old who died last September
in a gene therapy experiment at the University of Pennsylvania, has
filed suit against the researchers and institutions involved in running
the experiment: the university, two medical facilities, and Genovo Inc.,
the biotech company founded by lead scientist James Wilson that had a
stake in the successful outcome of the experiment. The lawsuit accuses
the defendants of negligent, reckless, or fraudulent acts.


Gelsinger’s death was followed by revelations of serious regulatory
violations and financial conflicts of interest in the Penn trial,
as well as in hundreds of gene therapy experiments nationwide. (See
Issues 7 and 10 of this newsletter.)


Media coverage of the lawsuit focused on its inclusion of well-known
bioethicist Arthur Caplan, who advised the researchers on the design
of the experiment. Caplan argued that the parents of sick infants are
too desperate to provide true informed consent, and that the experiment
should therefore be conducted on relatively healthy adults. For more
on Caplan’s role, and on bioethicists’ growing influence and financial
conflicts, see Arthur Allen, “Bioethics comes of age,”
.


In venues unrelated to the Gelsinger case, Caplan has often argued
that human germline engineering is “inevitable.” In December 1999 he
wrote, “Before the next century is out, fetuses will no longer need
their mother’s womb for nourishment and growth. We will see many
children made by the artificial creation of embryos. . .This prediction
is 100 percent certain. . ..There will be strong social pressure to use
eugenics to improve children in order to minimize the social cost of
disease and chronic disability. The rush to use eugenics will be
amazing, with parents competing to give their kids the `best’ start
in life.” See


[By the way, Salon has removed its 2000 article on Caplan.]

Here’s more, on the legal case.

It opens with this:

Ten years ago, Jesse Gelsinger died while participating in a human gene- therapy trial at the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”). His death came to signify the corrosive influence of financial interests in human subjects research. After Jesse’s death, the media reported that one researcher, Dr. James Wilson, held shares in a biotech company, Genovo, which stood to gain from the research’s outcome-shares that The Wall Street Journal later valued at $13.5 million, although Wilson maintains he did not make nearly this much.’ At the time Penn authorized Wilson’s deal, internal Penn documents implicitly valued Wilson’s stake in Genovo at approximately $28.5 to $33 million. 
Jesse’s death sparked two separate lawsuits: one by the family, who sued in tort, and one by the federal government, which framed alleged errors in the research trial as a civil False Claims Act violation. Both suits settled, with no public apologies or acknowledgement of wrongdoing in either case.’ The government refused to make public the documents it collected, despite requests from the family.’ Thus, in what is arguably the most famous conflict- of-interest case in medicine, we have known for a decade almost nothing about the nature of the financial stakes that Wilson, and Penn, had in the research’s outcome, or why Penn authorized a researcher to hold such a substantial stake in that research’s outcome. How this web of financial ties came to enmesh Jesse’s trial is a subject worthy of exploration because it provides an important lens for evaluating two divergent visions about the role of money in research.


Another illuminating outtake:

B. A CASE OF FIRSTS


Jesse’s death was a case of firsts. Jesse was the first person to die in a human gene-therapy trial.3 ‘ His family’s lawsuit was also the first high-profile suit in which a family of a participant sued in tort to recover under a variety of new and creative claims.3 2 That suit was also the first to name a bioethicist, the world famous Arthur Caplan, director of Penn’s Center for Bioethics, as a defendant based on the advice he gave the researchers regarding study design-which essentially urged testing the protocol on relatively healthy adults rather than dying infants.

3. The family’s lawsuit was also the first to spotlight a financial conflict of interest by a researcher, Wilson.3 4
Jesse’s trial was also the first to trigger a lawsuit by the government in which it framed errors in a human subjects research trial as a civil False Claims Act violation, bringing to bear the crushing power of the penalties under that act.35

Now let’s go back to the CBS News article, and a phrase you will have read in countless articles these past few days, as well as over the past decade, since Murdoch, Brian Deer, GlaxoSmithKline, the BMJ, and all their attack dogs in the press dropped what Hunter S. Thompson once dubbed “the million pound shithammer” on Andrew Wakefield. The phrase is: “…an elaborate fraud.

To wit:

“The film, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” is directed by Andrew Wakefield, a former British gastroenterologist who was stripped of his medical license in 2010. The British medical journal BMJ called Wakefield’s study connecting autism and vaccines — which was retracted by the medical journal The Lancet — an “elaborate fraud.” ”

Having supposedly been involved in a legal case and having various potential vested financial interests in MMR lawsuits is the better part of why Wakefield is repeatedly drubbed as “an elaborate fraud.”

Here’s how the sane and uncontroversial men of medicine speak, by contrast to Wakefield who speaks mostly of ways to improve bowel diseases that exacerbate autism.

Whereas look what excites Dr. Caplan–let’s have that quote again:

“Before the next century is out, fetuses will no longer need
their mother’s womb for nourishment and growth. We will see many
children made by the artificial creation of embryos. . .This prediction
is 100 percent certain. . ..There will be strong social pressure to use
eugenics to improve children in order to minimize the social cost of
disease and chronic disability. The rush to use eugenics will be
amazing, with parents competing to give their kids the `best’ start
in life.”

I could stop here, but you know what? It gets worse. There’s more.

Here is a comprehensive timeline of events from an online journal called Guinea Pig Zero, It contains this passage, about Caplan: 

“Now, let’s explore the reasons why this young fellow, in relatively good health, was ever strapped into a table, fitted through the groin with arterial catheters, and infused with an experimental gene-vector, in spite of the blood-ammonia reading that should have disqualified him from the procedure. Before we can do that, we must ask, who are these people at the University of Pennsylvania?

Arthur L. Caplan is the director of the university’s Center for Bioethics, and has become the most quoted person in his field in recent years. He is peculiar in that he is far more visible and Media-friendly than any of his peers. Some say he’s right in popularizing important discussions, while others say he’s just another media whore. In either case, Caplan is a team player, and he does not publicly criticize any researcher who practices under the same roof as he does himself. In Guinea Pig Zero #6, I pointed out his odd silence on the subject of the dermatologist Albert Kligman, who used prisoners at Philadelphia’s Holmesburg prison as human guinea pigs from the 1950’s through the early ’70’s. In exchange for small cash payments, Kligman tested LSD, dioxin, radioactive isotopes, Agent Orange, and poison ivy on the inmates. He became very rich (he invented Retin-A), and the prisoners became scarred, insane, chronically ill for unknown reasons, and underwent excruciating pain. When prisoner-experiments came under public scrutiny and Kligman was investigated, he destroyed all his original patient records. This is why I do not say that he killed any prisoners. There were questions about dead inmates, but Kligman destroyed the answers. For all that, Art Caplan has no opinion as to whether the surviving inmate guinea pigs should be compensated or otherwise relieved by the university that tortured them. Since the release of Acres of Skin in 1998, a book documenting Kligman’s research, most everyone else in the city does.

I saw Caplan at a conference on science and religion last spring. The distinguished professor remarked in passing about how those gentlemen outside on the sidewalk (Holmesburg veterans, chanting with picket signs) had reached their conclusions by some logical method as opposed to another. No one would understand what he meant, unless they’d had special training, but he saved face by giving them a nod. But what he said did not in any way reflect upon Kligman’s past behavior and the university’s refusal to take responsibility for the harm suffered by his living victims.

In the case of Jesse Gelsinger, the bioethics poster-boy was the one who made the experiment possible by persuading the researchers and government overseers that asymptomatic adult patients, as opposed to infants with fatal cases, should serve as the human subjects. The reasoning was that the parents would be coerced by the sickness of their babies. Caplan’s letter of Feb. 4th fiercely defended why adult OTC deficient persons like Jesse should be put at risk when they were not the intended beneficiaries of the treatment. He ridiculed a reporter who had taken this up as an issue. The letter’s effect was to draw the reader’s attention away from the more disturbing facts of the case.

Caplan’s name occurs also back in September, when he argued for an immediate announcement about the nature of Jesse’s death. After that, there’s been not a word on the glaring conflict of interest on the part of Dr. James M. Wilson, both co-author of the experiment’s protocol and one who stood to make many millions if the vector proved marketable. It is obvious that Caplan knows which side his ethical bread is buttered on.

When Arthur Caplan, an ethics expert, remains silent on alarming ethical crises, in cases where the players are his own colleagues and when his salary and professional future are controlled by the institution that’s directly vested in the matter, he services as the university’s spin doctor. To be sure, he did not directly praise them. But, of all people, Caplan is the one whose position should be the clearest and loudest when there is an ethical conflict. We should keep in mind, above all, that he participated in planning the clinical trial that took Gelsinger’s life, almost as directly as the researchers themselves.”

And CBS News, which dubbed Wakefield “…an elaborate fraud,” described Caplan, who was named as a defendant in a lawsuit over the death of a child in a very unethical experiment, how?

By his title, of course. And what is his title?

He, unlike Wakefield, was never “stripped” of it. It is, astonishingly:

Head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University.

–Celia Farber
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by Foreverlearning on Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:02 am

It is extremely unfortunate how uninformed the general public is about Cannabis and even other plant extracts that are certainly more effective in treating diseases and other common ailments, without or very little side effects.
I can recall having a conversation with some people about the use of Cannabis for medical reasons, and one individual stated "Cannabis is bad for you" I simply responded "your information is bad".
avatar
Foreverlearning

Posts : 39
Points : 553
Reputation : 49
Join date : 2016-01-15
Age : 44
Location : Ontario, Canada

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Mon May 23, 2016 12:00 am

avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by lizardking on Mon May 23, 2016 12:52 am

avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1757
Points : 4822
Reputation : 2509
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by Just Vital on Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:21 pm

I'm watching the first episode of The Truth about Vaccines MiniSeries. https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/docuseries/episode-1/?utm_campaign=ttav&utm_medium=email&utm_source=maropost&utm_content=2017-04-12-2350&utm_term=

The host Ty Bollinger started off by saying that Galileo got convicted when he claimed the earth was a globe instead of a plane object. The same is happening now in a way with people that question vaccines. So far this episode is a real eye opener (besides of the earth being flat obviously).

Just Vital

Posts : 2
Points : 20
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2017-04-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by newflatearther2000 on Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:35 pm

Hi All,
Thanks to all for this very informative thread.

I didn't see anything posted about MMS.
Does anybody have any info to back up the claims?

https://quantumleap.is/

br

newflatearther2000

Posts : 1
Points : 108
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2017-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum