The Vaccination Frenzy

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Moldleg333

unread,
Jan 7, 2010, 3:31:38 PM1/7/10
to Toxic Indoor Mold Central

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
A Catalyst for Public Debate: Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and
Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org < http://www.ahrp.org>

FYI

A resolution calling for an investigation into the influence that
drugmakers
may have had on the World Health Organization, scientists and
governments
was signed and supported by more than a dozen members of the
Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe and passed unanimously by the Health
committee. The resolution was introduced by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a
member
of Germany's Social Democratic Party who chairs Health Subcommittee.

The approved text of the resolution calling for a debate and inquiry
states
(among other things):

"In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu,
pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official
agencies,
responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments
worldwide.
They have made them squander tight health care resources for
inefficient
vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people
to the
risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The
birds
flu campaign (2005-06) combined with the swine flu campaign seem to
have
caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and
to
public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability
of
important international health agencies. The definition of an alarming
pandemic must not be under the influence of drugsellers."

See: Pharma Times http://www.pharmatimes.com/WorldNews/article.aspx?id=17147
and
Ed Silverman's Pharmalot (http://www.pharmalot.com
< http://www.pharmalot.com>

In June 2009, the WHO declared the swine flu a class 6 pandemic--
despite
evidence that it did not fulfill the required conditions of a
pandemic:
"a new influenza virus subtype emerges; it infects humans, causing
serious
illness; and it spreads easily and sustainably among humans."

Most of the cases attributed to the swine flu proved to be mild, and
far
fewer than anticipated cases emerged. Indeed, both the WHO and the US
Centers for Disease Control had stopped counting swine flu cases.

But the WHO classification has had major financial ramifications for
the
global procurement of drugs and vaccines worth many billions of
dollars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8094655.stm


Dr. Wodarg called the "false pandemic" "one of the greatest medical
scandals
of the last century" and said that pharmaceutical companies influenced
the
whole process and needed to be held accountable. They were willing to
"inflict bodily harm in their pursuit of profits," he said. Articles
in the
European press, starting in Denmark and spreading, have repeatedly
called
into question the myriad ties between vaccine manufacturers and
decision
makers in the United Nations' global health body.

Further investigation, a report and a vote on the resolution by the
Parliamentary Assembly are anticipated.

A slate of reports confirm that "expert" medical advisory panels in
the U.S.
were overrun by panelists with conflicts of interest.

For example, The New York Times reports (below) that a report issued
last
month by the Inspector General of the Health and Human Services
Department
found that the majority of "expert" advisors to the Centers for
Disease
Control--the agency that has been most actively promoting vaccination
against the swine flu "pandemic"--had serious conflicts of interest:

"64 percent of the advisers had potential conflicts of interest that
were
never identified or were left unresolved by the centers. Thirteen
percent
failed to have an appropriate conflicts form on file at the agency at
all,
which should have barred their participation in the meetings entirely,
Mr.
Levinson found. And 3 percent voted on matters that ethics officers
had
already barred them from considering."

"Most of the advisers identified [in the report] had either a job or a
grant
from a company or other entity whose interests were affected by the
committees' discussions, and a considerable number also owned stock in
such
companies."

Public trust and the integrity of healthcare policymaking have been
sacrificed when defective medical products were recommended for
marketing by
financially compromised "expert" advisory panels.

As Gardiner Harris points out: "As numerous medicines have been pulled
from
the market in recent years, worries have grown that experts may be
recommending medical products - even ones they know to be unsafe - in
part
because manufacturers are paying them."

CDC's former chief, Dr. Julie Gerberding (2002-2008), a long-time
advocate
of vaccines, encapsulates the betrayal of trust by a high ranking
federal
official.
Following her departure from the CDC, Jan. 2008, Dr. Gerberding went
to work
immediately for the global public relations firm, Edelman, that
describes
itself as "adviser on global health strategy." Edelman's Big Pharma
clients, include: the industry's lobbying group, PHARMA, AstraZeneca,
Novartis, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck--
thereby
violating federal statutes (18 U.S.C. 207) restricting high government
officials from serving as lobbyists before a year's "cooling off"
period:
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/207.html

The Alliance for Human Research Protection calls for an investigation
of
conflicts of interest at Federal Agencies which spearheaded the
excessive,
expensive, and unjustifiable federal expenditure in response to false
Swine
Flu "pandemic" in the U.S. Indeed, federal agencies even stage-managed
"off
the record" media coverage of the epidemic. See:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/swineflu/news/sep0309exer
cise.html

Issues requiring investigation:

1. Why was BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority)
a new
agency in charge of procuring countermeasures for weapons of mass
destruction, with no expertise procuring drugs in common use, made the
lead
agency for procuring vaccines and drugs for nonexistent Bird Flu and
Swine
Flu?

BARDA bought large quantities of new drug and vaccine products which
had not
been tested in the field: it is unknown if any of it will work as
desired.
Indeed, as reported in the BMJ, December 8, 2009, no reliable evidence
supports the usefulness of Tamiflu in treating the flu.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/dec08_3/b5351

2. Why were the manufacturers of all five Swine Flu vaccines and the
two
antiviral drugs (Tamiflu and Relenza) issued total liability waivers--
as
were "government program planners" at BARDA and other agencies who had
approved and exhorted their use?

DHHS Secretaries under GW Bush and Barack Obama approved these
liability
waivers under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act
(PREP):
ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/countermeasurescomp/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency_Prepar
edness_Act.pdf.

However, neither the Bush nor Obama administration made any attempt to
inform Americans that in the event that they suffered a drug or
vaccine-caused injury, they were prohibited from accessing the US
legal
system to seek damages. Discussion of the PREP law which enabled this
can
be found here: http://www.hrsa.gov/countermeasurescomp/prep_act.htm

3. AHRP would like to know why the US treasury, and worldwide health
budgets, have come to resemble Big Pharma's cookie jar?

With at least 36,000 U.S. deaths annually from seasonal flu, and (at
most)
10,000 deaths from swine flu, we believe that President Obama's recent
declaration (in October 2009) that swine flu presents a national
emergency
was ill-advised as it is preposterous.

For continuing updated information about unsustainable vaccine
policies,
see: http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/ (the blog is maintained by
AHRP
board member, Meryl Nass, M.D)


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
vera...@ahrp.org
212-595-8974


http://www.wodarg.de/english/2948146.html
Council of Europe will investigate and debate on "Faked Pandemics"

In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against
flu,
pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies,
responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide
and
make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine
strategies
and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an
unknown
amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.
The "birds-flu"-campaign (2005/06) combined with the
"swine-flu"-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not
only to
some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the
credibility and accountability of important international health-
agencies.

The Council of Europe and its member-states should ask for immediate
investigations and consequences on their national levels as well as on
the
international level.
The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the
influence of drug-sellers.

When in April 2009 some hundred normal influenza cases in
Mexico
City were rashly announced to be the beginning of a threatening new
pandemic, there was little scientific evidence for this judgement.
Nevertheless a large and immediate word-wide agenda setting process
started
and was eagerly spread by alarmist media and formally legitimized by
pandemic-defining WHO, the agency, which is our global epidemiological
watchdog and task-force.

Besides this, vaccination programs against influenza are
already
established in most of the exposed countries as an annual routine.
They are
regularly taking into account all expected varieties of flu-viruses to
bundle their antigen fragments in a well-adjusted polyvalent vaccine.

But around the Mexican outbreak, WHO in cooperation with some
big
pharmaceutical companies and their scientists re-defined pandemics and
lowered the alarm-threshold. Those new standards forced politicians in
most
states to react immediately and sign marketing commitments for
additional
and new vaccines against "swine-flu" and spend billions of dollars to
catch
up with the alarming scenario that Big Pharma, media and WHO were
spreading.

From the beginning in April 2009 it was clear, that a newly
combined
flu-virus was on its way - as many flu-virus-variations have been
almost
every year before. From the first cases in Mexico it was also evident,
that
this new subtype was doing less harm to infected humans than others in
former years. Nevertheless the "swine-flu-campaign" was increasingly
threatening people, filling television programs, newspapers, health-
agendas,
ambulances and hospitals.

Never before the search for traces of a virus was carried out
so
broadly and intensively. Besides, many cases of death, that happened
to
coincide with seropositive H1N1 lab-findings, were simply attributed
to
"swine-flu" and used to foster fear.

Additionally it has been proven, that at least one third of
the
population older than 60 had already positive test results because of
flu
contacts in the second half of the last century. In contrast to this
"agenda
setting process" it has to be stated, that the annual worldwide
spreading
("pandemic") of 2009- influenza was a relief for global health,
compared
with the suffering, influenza waves used to originate most of the
years
before.

The Australian flu-season, which has already passed by with
the
Australian winter, has even given evidence, that the infection with
"swine-flu" brings some protection against other, more dangerous
virus-types. Nevertheless we have to observe, that a faked "swine-
flu"-
pandemic is still used for marketing risky vaccines.

The victims among millions of needlessly vaccinated people
must be
protected by their states and independent scientific clarification
should
provide evidence and transparency for national and -if necessary-
European
courts.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html
The NEW YORK TIMES
December 18, 2009
Advisers on Vaccines Often Have Conflicts, Report Says
By GARDINER HARRIS

WASHINGTON - A new report finds that the Centers for Disease Control
and
Prevention did a poor job of screening medical experts for financial
conflicts when it hired them to advise the agency on vaccine safety,
officials said Thursday.

Most of the experts who served on advisory panels in 2007 to
evaluate vaccines for flu and cervical cancer had potential conflicts
that
were never resolved, the report said. Some were legally barred from
considering the issues but did so anyway.

In the report, expected to be released Friday, Daniel R.
Levinson,
the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services,
found
that the centers failed nearly every time to ensure that the experts
adequately filled out forms confirming they were not being paid by
companies
with an interest in their decisions.

The report found that 64 percent of the advisers had potential
conflicts of interest that were never identified or were left
unresolved by
the centers. Thirteen percent failed to have an appropriate conflicts
form
on file at the agency at all, which should have barred their
participation
in the meetings entirely, Mr. Levinson found. And 3 percent voted on
matters
that ethics officers had already barred them from considering.

The inspector general recommended that the centers do a far
better
job of screening. In a reply, the agency's new director, Dr. Thomas R.
Frieden, agreed.

"Since the period covered in this review, C.D.C. has
strengthened
the financial disclosures and conflict-of-interest process by
instituting
improved business processes and realigning responsibilities and
oversight,"
Dr. Frieden wrote.

As numerous medicines have been pulled from the market in
recent
years, worries have grown that experts may be recommending medical
products
- even ones they know to be unsafe - in part because manufacturers are
paying them.

As a result, government agencies, medical societies and
medical
journals have become increasingly insistent that experts disclose
potential
conflicts. And while the experts invariably insist that they have done
so,
government audits routinely find large gaps between these disclosures
and
the experts' actual income from consulting.

Congress tightened the rules on outside consulting after
similar
conflicts were found among members of advisory panels to the Food and
Drug
Administration. But little attention has been paid to the potential
conflicts of advisers to the C.D.C., even though that agency's
committees
have significant influence over what vaccines are sold in the United
States,
what tests are performed to detect cancer and how coal miners are
protected.

Most of the advisers identified by Mr. Levinson had either a
job or
a grant from a company or other entity whose interests were affected
by the
committees' discussions, and a considerable number also owned stock in
such
companies, the report said.

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who said
she had
long been a supporter of the C.D.C., said: "That is why I am so
concerned
about this report issued by the inspector general exposing serious
ethics
violations within the C.D.C. All members of the federal advisory
committees,
whose recommendations direct federal policy, should be without
conflict of
interest."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material
the use
of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner.
Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance
understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical,
and
social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a
'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17
U.S.C.
section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed
without
profit.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages