ALL THE WORLD’S A LAB
So what exactly is in that vial? It’s a question that history has answered, all too often, with shocking details. Not least among these is a development that took place in January 2010, when a researcher who made a ‘groundbreaking’ discovery about the MMR vaccine was discredited on grounds of professional misconduct.
Then there’s the web of deceit that covers up (though every now and then some details manage to slip through) vaccine scams that turn those tiny ‘life-saving’ drops into potentially lethal weapons.
And not least of all, there are question marks hovering over how the Western governments have tried to vaccinate entire populations or sections of the population into submission.
In this section, we shall explore some of these issues while illustrating how untruths are carefully and conveniently converted into ‘scientific fact’ to suit the profit and political agendas of various stakeholders in the vaccine game.
1. The HPV Controversy
Remember the ‘dirty money’ connection uncovered in Texas in 2007? Governor Rick Perry had then ordered in the interest of health that every female six-grader be vaccinated against the Human Papillomavirus Virus (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer.
It was an order that bypassed the state’s legislature (See Chapter 5: Critical Mass), and the governor’s attempt to force the vaccine on children caused outrage among parents as well as watchdog and civil rights groups.
Soon, Perry’s ‘dirty secret’ was out – the decision would have earned millions of dollars for the HPV vaccine manufacturer – Merck – who had gifted large sums of money to Perry for his political campaign.
The nexus didn’t stop there. In a sequence of events that reeked of kickbacks and more subterfuge, it was revealed that the governor’s chief of staff was a senior Merck employee when the governor was pushing the HPV vaccine. With pressure mounting on Perry, the Texas Legislature eventually passed a law rescinding the governor’s order.
It is easy to believe slick political-speak only because we have been brainwashed from the cradle that vaccines are good for health. Had the HPV secret not been discovered, thousands of sixth-graders would have been vaccinated with a chemical cocktail that has been shown time and again to prove controversial.
Interestingly, the HPV vaccine at the center of the Texas firestorm was Gardasil, approved by the FDA in June 2006, less than 12 months before Governor Perry attempted his forced vaccination campaign.
Needless to say, administering it to every female sixth-grader in Texas would have provided a ready market for Merck.
Not surprisingly, controversy has repeatedly followed Gardasil, which its makers claim protects against four strains of the HPV that cause cervical cancer and genital warts. According to the CDC, as of September 1, 2009, 26 million doses of Gardasil had been distributed across the US.
The CDC also states that till that date, its VAERS had received more than 15,000 reports of adverse events, of which 7 percent were serious.
Also, these are merely cold statistics till viewed against the type of serious events associated with the vaccine, and in the short period since it was approved, the vaccine has been linked to cases of young women dying just hours after being administered the drug. The vaccine is also suspected to cause blood clots and strokes and has been linked to the Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a rare and debilitating disorder of the nervous system where the nerves get inflamed and which also causes paralysis.
Some public interest groups state that they have gathered sufficient evidence to link Merck’s HPV vaccine to 18 deaths, of which 11 took place less than a week after the women were administered the vaccine. Miscarriages were also frequently noted in women who had received this controversial vaccine.
According to a study whose results were published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in January 2009, researchers in Australia had found that Gardasil had provoked a severe allergic reaction – or anaphylaxis – which can lead to death in some cases. The study concluded that the vaccine is 5 to 26 times more likely to cause such a reaction in young women compared to other vaccines administered to the same age group.
The US Federal government finally sounded a warning about the vaccine in July 2009, with VAERS releasing a report which stated that Gardasil is associated with adverse reactions 400 times more than an anti-meningitis vaccine administered to women in the same age group.
As of September 28, 2010, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has more than 18,000 Gardasil-related adverse events listed in it, including at least 65 deaths. Clearly, the number of vaccine injuries is rising fast. And these are only the reported cases which amount to an estimated 1 to 10 percent of all cases.
The government report also recommended that Congress “investigate how the vaccine was fast-tracked for approval in the absence of safety data on girls younger than 17”. The report therefore raises a serious ethical issue: Considering that Gardasil had only been tested on adult women, what moral right did Governor Perry have to mandate the compulsory vaccination of sixth-graders with this lethal and sometimes fatal chemical?
With the mountain of evidence piling up against this vaccine, Gardasil was dealt another blow, this time from the lead researcher on the team that conducted the clinical trials for Merck. In a confession, since retracted under pressure from the pharmaceutical giant, the researcher confessed that the vaccine loses its efficacy five years after it is administered. Not surprisingly, Merck has been selling the vaccine for $400 a dose!
Moreover, independent research suggests that the HPV naturally leaves the body within two years of infection in 70 to 90 percent of cases. If the immune system can naturally eject the virus and even protect the body from future attacks, why do women need a vaccine against HPV in the first place?
The final twist in the Gardasil story comes from a development in October 2009. This was a red-letter day for Merck because the FDA had approved the vaccine to prevent genital warts in boys.
It was no coincidence that the announcement by the vaccine manufacturer came less than a day after rival GlaxoSmithKline announced that the FDA had approved its own HPV vaccine for cervical cancer!
All the data I have presented above raises some serious ethical questions: The motives of at least one manufacturer in the case of one virus (in this case HPV) have been clearly bared as being profit-driven with no regard for the lives of the young women being coaxed to get vaccinated.
Hopefully, the unfolding Gardasil drama will serve as a deterrent to parents and their children to not so readily submit to unproven experimental drugs like Gardasil that were never tested against a true placebo. We certainly cannot rely on the FDA to protect us against the reckless profiteering schemes of drug producers. Being the watchdog body supposed to safeguard the public’s health, the FDA had yet again sold out to a vaccine maker with no regard for its objectives.
Finally, if a healthy human body and immune system can do the job of a synthetic vaccine, is a vaccine against HPV necessary at all?
2. Experimenting in Africa
Uganda: Global public health agencies are watchdogs of public health, saving millions of lives on the planet, with most of their objectives fulfilled in poor and developing countries. That’s the message the media has been putting out so successfully that most of us believe it is true. But there are hidden agendas, which often remain concealed. But once in a while, their so-called noble intentions are unraveled, laying bare a shocking reality.
Among these was a web of deceit uncovered by an African radio broadcaster who discovered that mass immunizations with the OPV in Uganda were definitely not intended to save children from the debilitating paralytic disease.
Vaccinations with the OPV – which uses the live virus – began in Uganda in 1963, a country that had no history of polio while the government of Uganda introduced mass immunization at the behest of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1977.
Kihura Nkuba, the broadcaster, who had studied in England, had returned to Uganda to open a radio station there. But his experiences with the Ugandan people revealed a shocking story. Hundreds of Ugandan children who were being inoculated during government-enforced immunization drives were dying of polio.
In other words, the OPV, quite literally being forced down their throats, was causing a disease that had not been present in Uganda till the vaccine was introduced in the 1960s.
Nkuba said that parents, who had made a connection between the vaccine and their children’s deaths, would hide in the African bush when government officials and health volunteers came around to administer the OPV. In some cases, children were allegedly dragged out of hiding to be vaccinated.
It was only in 2002 that the penny dropped, when Nkuba made the connection between the discontinuation of the OPV in the US and its introduction in Uganda. The OPV, developed by Dr Albert Sabin in the 1950s and which used the live polio virus, had been banned from use in America because it had been observed to accidentally cause the disease in recipients of the vaccine. The US then reverted to using the Inactivated Polio Virus or IPV.
Instead of discarding vaccines worth millions of dollars, these suddenly useless but dangerous doses of the OPV were being force-fed to children in Uganda!
Nkuba realized another shocking truth – that the vaccine when administered in the US was contraindicated for use in families with a history of HIV. That is because the live virus used in the OPV gave rise to a condition called ‘viral shedding’. This takes place, as explained earlier, when a vaccinated individual literally sheds the virus through mucous, feces and other bodily fluids for a period of time immediately after being vaccinated.
Naturally, the OPV was not recommended for use in families where individuals have a compromised immune system. But neither was this practice being observed in Uganda, where HIV was widespread, nor was the information being disseminated among the public. The catastrophe that this caused can only be imagined.
Nkuba went public with his observations on the OPV disaster on his radio station and was subsequently hounded and persecuted. Not surprisingly, his radio station was also shut down by the Ugandan government, which he openly accused of committing mass murder hand in glove with the WHO, UNICEF, United States Association for International Aid (USAID) and CDC.
Nigeria: It is easy to use a vulnerable nation – where illiteracy rates are high, where disease is rampant and where global agencies have projected themselves as saviors of the people – as a human laboratory.
Like Uganda, Nigeria is another country where global health agencies have been accused of abusing the trust of the people, and worse still, of committing genocide. This has resulted in a triple whammy for this African nation.
The country has seen severe outbreaks of polio, and even deaths, ever since Western health agencies began a mass OPV immunization campaign in 2002.
A year after the campaign kicked off, the drive was halted after the local people and Muslim clerics alleged that the vaccine contained material that left recipients infertile.
The WHO resumed immunization, this time more ‘aggressively’ in 2006, in an attempt to cover as many people as possible. But then, soon after, Nigeria saw the beginning of its worst-ever polio outbreak, leaving 60-odd children paralyzed in 2007-2008 and more than 120 in 2009.
What went wrong in Nigeria? In a secret that cost the US CDC huge embarrassment and worldwide censure, the Nigeria outbreak was finally diagnosed as being vaccine-induced. The polio vaccine administered in 2002 resulted in the development of a mutant strain that was now causing the disease in healthy children who had not been vaccinated earlier.
How was this possible? The ‘benevolence’ of Western health agencies had placed Nigeria in a Catch-22 situation. Children were contracting polio either directly from the OPV while others were left open to the disease because they resisted immunization with a faulty vaccine!
The implication was that to be protected against the mutant polio virus, Nigerian children should have been immunized with a faulty vaccine. All because the WHO decided to ‘dump’ a vaccine that had been banned in the US.
Why didn’t the agency use the IPV that was being used in the US? One, it saved the vaccine maker millions of dollars not to destroy millions of doses. Two, the OPV is cheap. And three, the OPV can be easily administered by health workers and volunteers, not necessarily doctors. This accounts for the popularity of the faulty vaccine in mass immunization efforts across Third World countries.
But it also left the WHO in another dilemma. Immunization programs in Nigeria had been aimed at the polio Type 2 virus but due to genetic mutation, the outbreaks post-2007 were caused by the Type 1 strain!
To cover up its mistakes and make sure they had not left out any known strain of the polio virus, immunization programs in Nigeria have since included two rounds of vaccination that target Types 1, 2 and 3 of the virus! Could there be a bigger mess?
Alas, Nigeria wasn’t the only country affected by the OPV mistake. No less than 12 countries have reported cases of vaccine-induced polio over the last decade. During this time, 10 billion doses of the faulty OPV had been administered to children in developing countries, including outbreaks in the Dominican Republic and Haiti in 2002.
(...)
4. Going Retro: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Scientists love jargon and drug companies love them even more. That is because the more ominous a virus or disease sounds, the faster people will panic and look to pharma companies for a ‘cure’.
One of the favorites of vaccine-makers is the term ‘retrovirus’, a type of virus discovered in human beings in 1981 (or genetically engineered during the Special Cancer Virus Program [SVCP]).
All viruses need a host cell to replicate. However, a retrovirus gets the host cell it infects to replicate itself. It achieves this by incorporating its own genetic material into the host cell’s genetic make-up so that when the host produces new cells, it also replicates more retroviruses.
How does it manage to do this? A retrovirus is a type of RNA protein particle that uses an enzyme called ‘reverse transcriptase’ that converts its own RNA into DNA in the host cell that it infects. The DNA is then transcribed back into RNA, which is how a retrovirus makes copies of itself. This enzyme is unique to retroviruses.
This is a complex process but suffice to say that retroviruses have been associated with a wide range of immunodeficiency disorders, a condition where the immune system seriously malfunctions. In extreme cases, such as in HIV, the immune system appears to attack itself, leaving patients defenseless against the onslaught of the virus and a host of other potentially infectious agents.
Retroviruses have classically been associated with serious debilitating diseases, especially diseases of the immune system. Vaccine-makers have been accused of wielding the ‘retrovirus’ weapon for disease mongering, that is, first scaring people into believing that a certain virus causes a specific disease and then offering a vaccine to protect them from it.
In my book, Ending the AIDS Myth, I show that the presence of these retroviruses in persons with severely impaired immune systems is merely a correlation and does not prove that the diagnosed AIDS diseases are in fact caused by retroviruses. To the contrary, I show that the dozens of disease conditions, known as AIDS, are actually behind the breaking up of RNA molecules into the retroviruses known as HIV 1, HIV 2, HIV 3, and so forth.
I am certainly not the only one who believes that HIV is not responsible for causing AIDS.
In 1983, world renowned French scientist Dr Luc Montagnier, had discovered HIV for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine in 2008. Montagnier is currently director of the organization which he helped found: the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, a UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). He has repeatedly stated that HIV alone cannot cause AIDS. Instead of trying to destroy HIV (which cannot cause AIDS) with costly and potentially dangerous drugs and vaccines, Montagnier recommends measures of good hygiene, balanced nutrition, clean drinking water, and antioxidants such as fermented papaya extract to prevent and cure AIDS diseases.
In the 2009 documentary House of Numbers, which can be viewed at www.houseofnumbers.com, Dr Montagnier states: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if we have a good immune system.” This is how any healthy person deals with any virus. In other words, HIV is a harmless passenger virus that bothers no one, unless the immune system has been compromised by other factors, such as polluted drinking water, poor personal hygiene, poor nutrition, oxidative stress, etc.
I suggest we take it from the world’s leading virologist. Experts like him know that it is by introducing simple health measures that has always led to the decline of viral epidemics, and not vaccination campaigns. Montagnier believes this to be also the best approach with regard to other epidemics, including malaria. What applies to HIV/AIDS certainly applies to other presumed virus-induced diseases.
One of the diseases currently being blamed on a retrovirus is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or CFS. This disorder is characterized by extreme muscle fatigue and an all-round, all-pervasive feeling of tiredness.
To date, scientists have been unable to diagnose the causes of CFS but is it believed to be a disorder associated with immune dysfunction. Patients with this disorder have a much higher level of cytokines circulating in their bloodstream, altered T-lymphocyte numbers and low natural killer-cell cytotoxicity. This makes them susceptible to a wide variety of pathogens and afflicted by the disease symptoms they cause.
Lately, though, several researchers have been pointing a finger at a retrovirus called the ‘xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus’ or XMRV. This retrovirus has been linked to prostate cancer as well as CFS patients.
Research findings published in the journal Science in October 2009 state that the virus was found in 67 percent of CFS patients but in only 4 percent of the general population. This has led to a flurry of media reports citing the study and suggesting that CFS may be caused by the XMRV and that a vaccine may be in the offing. When media reports such as these (usually fuelled by drug and vaccine manufacturers) do the rounds, people tend to ignore the critical ‘may be’, used as a classic alibi by media houses.
Knowing very well that the general populace usually pays little attention to the question marks and ‘maybes’ in these reports, the media usually gets away with false propaganda about causal relationships between pathogens and disease.
CFS is a disease associated with a seriously compromised immune system and many patients are also afflicted by prostate cancer as well as a host of other diseases. The problem with CFS is that it may not be a single disorder. Researchers believe it may be a collection of diseases that are in some way linked to each other to produce the constellation of symptoms classified as CFS. How, then, can a single virus be associated with a disease about which so little is known?
The Epstein-Barr virus or EBV was at one time thought to be correlated with CFS. But science is still a long way from understanding CFS and many researchers have since minimized the causal relationship between EBV and CFS. Yet, jumping to conclusions and instantly suggesting ‘causes’ of diseases seem to be the prerogative of the media and vaccine-makers.
Just as the US study on CFS patients created a stir, another research study, this one in the UK, found that none of the 186 CFS patients studied tested positive for XMRV.
The study, undertaken by researchers at the Imperial College London and King’s College London, illustrates just how little science knows about CFS and how important it is that we exercise caution while believing what media reports have to say.
Take the HPV discussed above, for instance. Cervical cancer is caused by various factors. Some researchers say it is not caused by a virus at all. Yet vaccine manufacturer Merck is trying hard (too hard?) to convince the public that HPV is the sole cause of this type of cancer and that it has a vaccine to protect against it!
My question is why are none of these researchers and neither the drug companies nor the governments the slightest bit interested in investigating anything other than germs that could possibly impair a person’s immune system? It is a rhetoric question to which the answer is obvious. There is not much money to be made by telling people that they need get rid of their vitamin D deficiency, oxidative stress, poor hygiene, nutrient depletion, and overexposure to toxins, including those contained in vaccines and medications.
We know that heavy metal exposure alone can trigger chronic fatigue symptoms and cause brain injury and dementia. Why is the amount of aluminum in the US rivers and streams now up to 50,000 times higher than permitted by US government regulations? Millions of metric tons of Aluminum oxide and other toxic minerals like barium are being dumped by commercial airlines and fighter jets to form chemtrails, allegedly to achieve climate change and protect us against global warming. It is astonishing to me to still find some healthy people in this country!
And, according to a recent CNN report, 45 million Americans live in poverty and suffer from serious malnutrition. Every doctor knows that malnutrition damages the immune system. Merely including the poverty-stricken who currently cannot afford health insurance in a universal health care program, does absolutely nothing to properly address the causes of their health conditions. This approach just fills the coffers of those who know how to create millions of more patients at the expense of taxpayers and send the country deeper into the abyss of irreversible national debt.
5. Vaccine Research: Faking It!
Vaccine-makers are not known to put conscience before science. Scientific research is replete with examples of dodgy data, clinical trials without sufficient controls, non-representative samples and researchers who either unconsciously or deliberately fudge their results. And, no, vaccine researchers are not immune to these maladies.
The swine flu outbreak of 2009 provides many examples of irresponsible media reportage and drug companies who used an overenthusiastic media to push their vaccine propaganda.
For instance, a reputed news agency quoted ‘researchers’ who claimed that flu vaccines used by pregnant women were likely to increase the birth weight of their infants. It also claimed that pregnant women who took flu vaccines were more likely to have full-term babies. What next, a vaccine against premature births?
Neither of these studies had used randomized, placebo-controlled study protocols. So how were they allowed to be reported? When a responsible media house (this one was Reuters) makes statements like this, the need to be skeptical about what you read is more pressing than ever.
While on the subject of outrageous claims, here is another absurd one: Individuals who take statin-based (cholesterol-lowering) drugs are “50-percent less likely to die from flu”!
A ‘news report’ undoubtedly sponsored by the makers of statin drugs, recently claimed that “researchers have provided more evidence that cholesterol-lowering drugs help the body cope with infection".
Further probing revealed that there were no clinical trials conducted and that the so-called conclusions were based on a superfluous ‘analysis’ of the medical records of individuals who had succumbed to seasonal flu infections.
Without taking any other variables into account, the researchers found that a majority of patients from their ‘sample’ were taking statin drugs; only 3.2 percent were not.
Conversely, they claimed that only 2.1 percent of patients who were taking statin drugs had died. Since 2.1 percent is about 50 percent less than 3.2 percent, they said that “statin drugs can halve the number of deaths caused by seasonal flu”! A masterful example of statistical jugglery but nothing more than wild claims.
Let me illustrate the almost-incestuous relationship between drug regulators and drug manufacturers, something that has always clouded the clinical trials of new drugs. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is a body of the European Union that approves the sale of drugs across Europe. If the EMA is meant to safeguard the health of the public at large, why did it give vaccine-maker Novartis the green signal to sell its H1N1 flu vaccine Celtura in Europe even though the vaccine was tested on only a hundred people?
Before I answer that question, here’s another disturbing fact: The clinical trial based on which Celtura was subsequently sold in several European countries was conducted by the University of Leicester and University Hospitals of Leicester in England – and was sponsored by Novartis.
Scratch beneath the surface a little more and other skeletons begin to tumble out. The EMA also gave two other swine flu vaccines the go-ahead at the same time – GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix and Novartis’s Focetria.
With two-thirds of the EMA’s funding coming from pharmaceutical companies, is it surprising that neither safety, sample size, control groups nor other scientific measures are concerns for an agency that clears drugs for millions of people across the continent?
Did you know that the EMA pays pharma companies millions of euros in ‘fees’ for services they perform in evaluating the very drugs the companies themselves make?
When pharma, self-serving medical practitioners and the media push the same agenda, it is hard not to be brainwashed. This dangerous nexus between three vaccine promoters – a vaccine technology company, a doctor from Columbia University and the television media – together made a strong case not only for the H1N1 vaccine but vaccines in general in late 2009.
The doctor in question is Dr Mehmet Oz, professor of Cardiac Surgery at Columbia University, no less, an extremely prolific author and vaccine promoter who was on every major talk show during the swine flu outbreak in 2009.
After scaring up a storm on national television, Dr Oz landed a health segment of his own on the hugely popular Oprah Winfrey Show, which virtually launched his television career. After that, he landed a lucrative deal with Winfrey’s Harpo Productions and Sony Pictures Television to distribute The Dr Oz Show outside the US, and now it is a popular TV-show in the US.
I have always held a high esteem and respect for Dr Oz because of his continuous effort in making helpful alternative views about many important health topics available to the masses. However, having already been a celebrity doctor for quite some time, I don’t understand why he needed to use the 2009 swine flu scare to make millions of dollars from an unsuspecting population.
Soon after his much-hyped Ask Dr Oz segment on TV, it transpired that the doctor owned expensive stock – 150,000 shares – in a vaccine technology company called SIGA Technologies. The company doesn’t make vaccines per se but researches and develops technologies used in vaccine production.
Dr Oz’s rabble-rousing, it seemed, was almost certainly aimed at driving up stock prices in vaccine companies and vaccine-related companies, which would have earned him – and them – a sizeable booty. During an interview, Dr Oz jokingly remarked that his wife wouldn’t allow their children to be vaccinated against the swine flu.
When one comes across instances of deceit and dishonesty like this and stakeholders in a dangerous game colluding with each other, it is hard to tell fact from fiction. A gullible and panic-stricken public is liable to believe what they hear, especially if they’re watching ‘an authority’ on vaccines on one of America’s top-rated television talk shows.
Professional ethics took another serious blow in January 2010, when a 12-year hearing on the professional conduct on the doctor who first researched the link between the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine came to a close.
The hearing, conducted by the General Medical Council (GMC), the body that licenses and regulates doctors in the UK, ruled that Dr Andrew Wakefield had engaged in professional misconduct.
It was Dr Wakefield’s research that had first suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, leading to a furor and declining sales of the vaccine, which had been developed a decade earlier.
While clearly stating that it was not ruling on the authenticity of Dr Wakefield’s research findings per se, the GMC concluded that the doctor’s methods were blatantly unethical. The most damning revelation was that Dr Wakefield, now residing in the US, was on the payroll of lawyers representing parents who believed that the vaccine had damaged their children’s health.
If that was not shocking enough, further investigations revealed that Dr Wakefield had based his findings on a sample of just 12 children! Moreover, the doctor was a gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London and was not qualified to perform medical procedures such as lumbar punctures, colonoscopies and MRI scans that he had used in his research.
Dr Wakefield’s method of assembling his clinical sample – the 12 children – was equally shocking. He admitted to having bribed them at his son’s birthday party to part with blood samples for this research!
The medical journal, Lancet, which had published Dr Wakefield’s findings in 1998, issued a retraction of the doctor’s paper after the GMC investigation concluded as the doctor had (obviously) not disclosed details of his research methods at the time.
So if Dr Wakefield’s original research sparked one of the biggest debates in the area of vaccination, revelations about his professional misconduct have made an impact for quite a different reason.
If Dr Wakefield had been bribed to conduct his ‘ground-breaking’ research, what about all the other ‘ground-breaking studies that are milestones in vaccine research and medical research in general? How many of them have broken the rules? What is authentic and what is not? And how many ‘reputed’ research studies have been funded by pharmaceutical companies to ‘produce’ results that promote the vaccines that these companies manufacture or plan to make?
Growing fears that medical research is becoming increasingly dishonest were further substantiated by a study carried out by the University of Edinburgh in June 2009.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, reviewed 21 scientific misconduct surveys between 1986 and 2005 and found that faking, falsifying and even fabricating it is more widespread than suspected.
While one in seven scientists surveyed admitted that they were aware of colleagues seriously manipulating their results, 46 percent claimed they were aware of questionable practices by their peers.
Another area of omission is long-term studies on new vaccines. Though researchers know only too well (perhaps because they do) that the side effects of vaccines take months, even years, to surface, they rarely if ever conduct long-term studies to look for possible detrimental effects on the human immune system.
Also, follow-up studies are rarely if ever conducted in vaccinated populations. Most researchers monitor the target group or a sample of it for a couple of weeks only, to detect blatant symptoms.
For instance, symptoms produced by vaccines – such as rashes, arthritis, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, memory loss, seizures and neuropsychiatric problems – have a long incubation period as neurological and immunological dysfunctions usually takes a while to manifest themselves.
The icing on the cake for vaccine-makers and drug companies in general is the all-round immunity they enjoy. Regardless of the consequences of the lack of stringent clinical controls, faulty laboratory practices and manipulation of results – and due to their patronization of federal funds, budgets and political campaigns – vaccine-makers are not accountable for their misdeeds.
Thanks to federal laws, they are allowed to keep their formulations and methods secret even while contesting lawsuits, which places a considerable onus on the plaintiff to prove their claims.
Cases against vaccine manufacturers are heard in the ‘Vaccine Court’ a colloquial term for a tribunal set up under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The tribunal was established in 1986 to arbitrate the flood of complaints against the DPT vaccine. Ironically, claims are funded by a tax imposed on the sale of every dose of vaccine in the US.
6. Where The Twain Meet
The marriage between medicine and pharma is no accident and dates back to the history of the American Medical Association (AMA), the largest and most influential body of physicians in America.
At a time when the AMA was flailing and near-bankrupt and medical schools in the country were desperate for funding, two of the America’s largest philanthropic foundations stepped in – the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations.
Their funding of the AMA, medical education and sponsorship of the crucial Flexner Report, which brought about widespread changes in medical practices, were a turning point in the history of medicine in the US.
It was a turning point because funding by these foundations was contingent on a certain type of medical education, one that raised doctors on drug-oriented practice. It is these practices – it is no coincidence that pharma companies receive grants from these two foundations – that sowed the seeds of many modern diseases.
The mid-20th century saw another turning point in medicine – the rise of various specialties or branches of allopathic medicine. Suddenly, it seemed, every part of the human body had a specialist to fix it!
This was also no coincidence. The bias towards symptomatic treatment meant that symptoms would recur, which ensured a steady demand for drugs and therefore a readymade market for the drugs made by companies funded by these two foundations.
This was the beginning of a complex web of people and institutions concerned with the medical profession – medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, doctors of all allopathic hues, insurance companies and government health bodies such as the FDA – seeking in collusion with each other to perpetuate the myth that human health and life lay in the hands of drug makers.
Vaccination is a part of the larger synthetic drug or allopathic myth and therefore the same rules and the same web of deceit apply. So with any immunization campaign or public service message urging the community to get vaccinated, there are ulterior motives. Your health is nowhere on the priority list.
To keep the allopathic myth alive, health authorities have gone all out to discredit any form of medical therapy that is not allopathic. With the help of the media, they and the medical establishment have done a good job of convincing the public at large that drugs – and drugs alone – are insurance for a long and healthy life.
However, in recent years, there has been increasing awareness of these motives and the manner in which the government and pharma companies have been influencing and thus manipulating the public’s notion of health and disease.
But is profit the only motive?
7. Hidden Motives
So is profit the obvious motivator for the vaccine myth? Or are there other reasons why governments immunize vast numbers of the world’s population and push the vaccine agenda on an ill-informed public?
The answer to this question is layered and subtle and sometimes hard to digest. The fact is that vaccines target the immune system, cause it to malfunction and make people vulnerable to disease. Sickness ensures a ready market for drug manufacturers and keeps profits rolling in.
But it is not always as simple and blatant as that. Vaccines, believe it or not, also serve subtle political agendas. They help dominate people, groups of people and even countries that the West wants to control – even their own populations. By systematically weakening the people through mass immunizations and predicting a sick fate for those who don’t voluntarily choose to vaccinate themselves and their children, governments subtly create a sense of psychological weakness.
This, in turn, creates a sense of powerlessness, submission and dependency on authority figures – government agencies, politicians and world bodies. People are therefore more likely to believe what these ‘authority figures’ say.
Vaccination is an effective tool used for decades by Western nations, who have sought to exercise social and economic control over several developing countries as clearly illustrated by the African model.
Africa is a continent rich and abundant in natural resources. Keeping the African population weak and preoccupied with sickness and grappling with disease serves Western economic interests. Immunization, along with an influx of economic aid, has worked to effectively subdue possible rebellion and suspend rational thinking.
It’s a Machiavellian strategy that involves several layers of people who perpetuate this agenda – UNICEF, the Red Cross, WHO and a mammoth global network of non-profit organizations. And while billions of people are led to believe that their motives are nothing less than noble, vaccines also conveniently channel funds into the bank accounts of specific companies and powerful individuals.
Keeping entire populations or sections of the population sick and vulnerable also diverts attention from real social and economic issues. These issues are inconvenient for governments because they require genuine resolve and huge budgets to tackle.
Academic researchers, reputed authors and some medical researchers also believe that vaccines are being used as a biological weapon to decimate certain socio-economic and ethnic groups. As discussed above, one section of researchers cites the HIV virus as an example of such weapons being designed and engineered in US laboratories to serve this very purpose.
Does this amount to genocide? We are privy to some stunning disclosures by Dr Sidney Gottlieb, a military psychiatrist who held a key position with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the 1950s, who later claimed he was instructed by his political masters to use viruses in the struggle for Western control over the Belgian Congo or modern-day Zaire.
In CIA hearings, Gottlieb admitted that he was sent to the Congo with “lethal biological material” (containing viruses), which was to be used to assassinate the country’s first elected prime minister after the African nation won independence from Belgium. The country is rich in mineral resources and as soon as it broke free of colonial rule, the US was determined to seize control.
Dr Gottlieb didn’t succeed in his mission as the CIA was unable to find a way to biologically poison the politician it was intended for. However, Dr Gottlieb is reported to have confessed in CIA hearings later that he had dumped this “lethal biological material” into the Congo River. Was he instructed to this or was it an act of carelessness? Some believe it was no accident.
Mass trials of the Hepatitis B vaccine among the American Indian population – whose vast tracts of land have often pitted them against the US Federal government – have also repeatedly raised eyebrows among a section of researchers as well as the American Indian population.
These trials were conducted in 1981 in Alaska, among a people who had no track record of health issues with Hepatitis B. Yet, a plasma-based Hepatitis B vaccine was introduced in schools and in immunization programs among adults as well.
Surprisingly – or not – for school-going children, the program did not require the consent of parents, neither was any justification given for a vaccination campaign among an ethnic community that did not require it.
Several years later – symptoms of vaccine-induced diseases often have fairly lengthy incubation periods – a representation was made before the US Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, which claimed that the vaccine may have contained tainted blood that could induce autoimmune diseases in the population.
According to those who made the representation, this was the only explanation for the rise in diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease that were not prevalent among the healthy Native Americans of Alaska.
The representation before the Senate Committee accused the federal government of using the Alaskan population in medical experiments to test dangerous vaccines. It was not the first time such an accusation had been made.
It is a documented fact that certain ‘expendable’ sections (read ethnic groups) of the human population have been used for medical experiments without their knowledge.
8. Can We Trust Medical Research?
John Ioannidis, who is one of the world’s most renowned experts on the credibility of medical research, doesn’t think so. According to him and his team of eminent researchers, as much as 90 percent of the published medical information relied on by doctors to prescribe drugs, vaccines or recommend surgery is flawed or incorrect.
In November 2010, The Atlantic reports: “His (John Ioannidis’s) work has been widely accepted by the medical community ... Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change, or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.”
In addition, most medical doctors and patients assert that modern medical treatments, including drugs, are “scientifically proven”. Not so, according to a Huffington Post article (April 2010) by Dana Ullman. “…this ideal is a dream, not reality, and a clever and profitable marketing ruse, not fact”. Ullman reports: “The British Medical Journal’s ‘Clinical Evidence’ analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence (BMJ, 2007). They reviewed approximately 2,500 treatments and found:
• 13 percent were found to be beneficial
• 23 percent were likely to be beneficial
• 8 percent were as likely to be harmful as beneficial
• 6 percent were unlikely to be beneficial
• 4 percent were likely to be harmful or ineffective.
• 46 percent were unknown whether they were efficacious or harmful”
What’s even worse is what happens when doctors hand out unapproved drugs to unsuspecting portions of the population as if they were candy. Ullman writes, “We all want drugs given to infants to be as safe as possible, but mothers and fathers will be surprised and perhaps shocked to know that very few drugs are ever tested on infants.” He cites a 2007 study of over 350,000 children which found that a shocking 78.7 percent of children in hospitals are prescribed drugs that the FDA has not even approved for use in children (Shah, Hall, Goodman, et al, 2007). “If this isn't shocking enough, a survey in England found that 90 percent of infants were prescribed drugs that were not tested for safety or efficacy in infants (Conroy, McIntyre, Choonara, 1999),” says Ullman.
This would not be so serious if the treated children were unaffected by these drugs. However, according to Ullman, “there is almost a 350 percent increase in adverse drug reactions in children prescribed an off-label drug than in children who were prescribed a drug that had been tested for safety and efficacy (Horen, Montastruc, and Lapeyre-mestre, 2002)”. He says that doctors are committing “medical child abuse” on a regular basis.
These accusations should not be taken lightly by responsible parents, doctors, and scientists. They reflect the serious sickness that medical industry is suffering from, and this sickness affects nearly everyone. The alleged scientific evidence that drugs have a proven value is a myth that has altered the health and quality of life of millions of people, and cost the lives of many others.
Medical science is quackery at its best. As Ullman points out, “‘Quackery’ is commonly defined as the use of unproven treatments by individuals or companies who claim fantastic results and who charge large sums of money.” He says that “although modern physicians may point their collective finger at various ‘alternative’ or ‘natural’ treatment modalities as examples of quackery, it is conventional medical treatments today that are out-of-this-world expensive, and despite real questionable efficacy of their treatments, doctors give patients the guise of ‘science’.”
When over 85 percent of therapies currently recommended by conventional medicine have never been formally proven, we may begin to wonder whether medical science deservers anyone’s trust. Would you give your car to a mechanic who offers you a 15 percent guarantee that his minimal mechanical expertise will succeed in fixing a serious flaw in your car’s engine? But this is exactly what we do when we hand our lives over into the care of a physician who has been trained by a medical system that is fundamentally corrupt.
The root of the problem is in the way scientific research is being conducted today. For example, during an analysis of antidepressant drug trials, the FDA found that of 38 trials for which the evidence appeared favorable, 37 had been published. Whereas of 36 trials for which the evidence did not appear favorable toward antidepressant drugs, 22 were not published at all, and 11 were published in a way that misleadingly conveyed the outcome as though it was favorable.
Accordingly, drug giants can legally publicize the positive findings they want you and doctors to know about regardless of how poorly 50 percent of the trials reflected efficacy of the studied antidepressant. In others words, the drug makers hide from the public that half of the trials done on the drug failed to prove effectiveness.
Drug makers don’t have to publish negative studies. They do as many studies as possible and once they have just two studies with somewhat positive results, they can ignore all the studies with negative ones. There can be as many as 20 negative studies and just 2 positive studies, which is enough for a drug to become approved by the FDA and be pushed on the population. While the positive studies make it into the medical journals, the negatives ones are being pushed under the carpet, never to be uncovered again, unless of course you find an expert on the matter – such as Dr Ioannidis.
In 2005, Dr Ioannidis showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true. As Dr. Ioannidis wrote: “In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships;… where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Again in 2008, in a new analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Journal, Dr Ioannidis reveals that much of the published scientific research is highly questionable. He found that the most misleading studies are those that oversell dramatic or otherwise considered important results. These include articles that helped spread popularity of treatments such as the use of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, vitamin E to reduce the risk of heart disease, coronary stents to ward off heart attacks, and daily low-dose aspirin to control blood pressure and prevent heart attacks and strokes. As we know today, many of these results were falsified, yet millions of people have been (and still are) subjected to these treatments, many of whom were harmed or died. Hormone replacement therapy, for example, led to an unprecedented rise of breast cancers and heart disease, and coronary stents have never shown to reduce mortality from coronary artery disease.
If just 41 percent of the most acclaimed medical research has been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated, which Ioannidis has done in his analysis, the scope and impact of the problem is simply unimaginable. To make matters worse, even after prominent studies were soundly refuted by repeat studies, researchers continued to cite the original results as correct more often than as flawed – in one case for at least 12 years after the results were discredited, according to the analysis.
The main problem is based on the fact that unbiased, independent research is rarely undertaken, lest published. It is very difficult for an independent researcher to raise enough money to fund the research, and if it doesn’t stand a chance of becoming published, there is no point spending all that time and money anyway. This unfair selection process ensures that what we are being told is “medical science” is only partial truth at is best. As the saying goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, we are now collectively and individually facing the consequences of relinquishing responsibility for our own health.
Nearly all major clinical trials involving drugs are funded, at least in part, by drug companies. This makes sense since drug companies have a vested interest in making money off their investment. For example, studies on the world’s bestselling drugs, statins, which rake in over half a trillion dollars annually, have all been funded by drug companies. Naturally, drug companies propagated the myth that high cholesterol is our enemy that we must control by taking statins for the rest of our lives.
New discoveries made by researchers at the University of California, published in the Annals of Medicine in October 2010, have shown that 92 percent of about 145 clinical trials conducted between 2008 and 2009 are invalid because they didn’t disclose the type of placebo they used. By manipulating the placebo, in this case one that actually raises cholesterol in the control group, researchers can easily ‘prove’ that a statin drug is more effective than the placebo. Read more about this FDA sanctioned medical fraud later on.
Even if the fraud is uncovered and drug companies are fined for manipulating studies or for not disclosing known serious side effects, business continues as usual. Large, publicly traded pharmaceutical companies, like Merck and Pfizer, are simply too big to fail, even if they are found guilty of being the instigators of massive medical fraud. It is unreasonable to expect that any clinical trial conducted by a drug giant procures results unfavorable to their expectations. And yet, drug companies are now the main source to fund the vast majority of research studies in the world. Owning this monopoly on what kind of research is suitable to conduct is what determines our so highly praised ‘science-based evidence’.
What we all need to learn from this is whatever drug or treatment is scientifically proven, in no way does it mean that it is safe or effective. Likewise, the lack of scientific evidence that a natural herb or treatment is effective or safe does in no way mean that it isn’t. We are responsible for ourselves and our families, nobody else is. I suggest you do your own research and decide what is useful for you and what isn’t.
9. Big Pharma on a Rampage
There is more on the scams and frauds in the drug business.
Approximately 200,000 million Americans are killed by prescription drugs each year. There was a time when the common drugs that Americans took were tested chiefly in the US or Europe, but now most clinical trials are unethically conducted overseas in poorer countries where there are next to no regulations; where poor, and often illiterate, people sign on consent forms with a thumbprint; where the risk of litigation is insignificant and where the FDA’s supervision is so scarce that the companies have a field day doing as they please. Thanks to globalization, the pharma companies have found new avenues for more unscrupulous money-making.
Romania, Tunisia, Turkey, Estonia, northeastern provinces of China, Poland, Russia - Big Pharma’s explorers have been there, and even to remote, isolated towns and locations all over the world to scout out people willing to undergo clinical trials for new drugs, and thus help persuade the FDA to declare the drugs safe and effective for Americans.
Bangladesh has been home to 76 clinical trials, Malawi 61, the Russian Federation 1,513, Romania 876, Thailand 786, Ukraine 589, Kazakhstan 15, Peru 494, Iran 292, Turkey 716, and Uganda 132.
According to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, until 1990, just 271 trials were being conducted abroad, whereas in a span of less than two decades, in 2008, the number had gone up to 6,458 – an increase of over 2,000 percent!
The National Institutes of Health has been compiling a database and has identified 58,788 such trials in 173 countries outside the United States since 2000. In 2008 alone, according to the inspector general’s report, 80 percent of the applications submitted to the FDA for new drugs contained data from foreign clinical trials, and more and more pharma companies are doing all their testing offshore. In fact, 20 of the largest US-based pharma companies now conduct “one-third of their clinical trials exclusively at foreign sites.”
All this is happening when 2,900 different drugs for some 4,600 different conditions are undergoing clinical testing and seeking to launch their products into the market.
An important question to ask is: are the results of clinical trials conducted overseas relevant to Americans? People in lesser developed countries may metabolize drugs differently from the way Americans do. Prevailing diseases in other countries, such as malaria and tuberculosis, can distort the outcome of clinical trials.
But the drug companies never had it better, with the cost of running trials far cheaper in such places where the local population just about manages to eke out a living on as little as a dollar a day.
Some of the drugs tested overseas are household names such as the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) Celebrex, which has been marketed on television for more than 10 years. Its manufacturer, Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company, has spent more than a billion dollars promoting it as a painkiller for arthritis and other conditions, including menstrual cramps.
The NIH maintains a record of most drug trials inside and outside of the US and its database counts 290 studies involving Celebrex, out of which only 183 took place in the US and 107 took place in 36 other countries such as Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania, Costa Rica, Colombia, Russia, Mexico, China, Brazil and Ukraine. It is not mandatory for companies to report all studies conducted overseas, and they make no effort to do so.
So what happened to Celebrex? It was revealed that patients who took Celebrex were more likely to suffer heart attacks and strokes than those who took older and cheaper painkillers. It was also suspected that Pfizer had suppressed a study that drew attention to these facts. No prizes for guessing what Pfizer did next - it denied that the study was kept secret and insisted that it “acted responsibly in sharing this information in a timely manner with the FDA.”
Before long, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine reported several more negative results. In the meantime, Pfizer was advocating Celebrex to Alzheimer’s patients, hoping that the drug would slow down the progress of dementia. It didn’t. What did slow down was the sales of Celebrex. From $3.3 billion in 2004, the numbers started declining.
One big factor in the shift of clinical trials to foreign countries is a loophole in FDA regulations: if studies within the US indicate that a drug has no benefit, trials from abroad can often be used in their place to secure FDA approval. When positive data is required by drug companies, and required fast, they turn to seek assistance from the “rescue countries” that quickly come to their aid.
In the 1990s, Aventis Pharmaceuticals (now Sanofi Aventis), developed Ketek, an antibiotic to treat respiratory-tract infections. In 2004, when the FDA certified it effective and harmless, its verdict was essentially based on the results of studies conducted in countries such as Hungary, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey. The endorsement came in just a few weeks after a researcher in the US was sentenced to 57 months in prison for forging her own Ketek data. Dr. Anne Kirkman-Campbell, of Gadsden, Alabama, apparently met only willing volunteers to participate in a drug trial. She enrolled more than 400 local adult persons including her entire office staff. In return, she collected $400 a head from Sanofi Aventis.
It was later revealed that data from at least 91 percent of her patients was falsified. (Kirkman-Campbell was not the only difficult Aventis researcher. There were others of dubious reputation as well, but the drug Ketek did win approval on the basis of overseas trials.
Given the massive medical scam operations we are faced with today, including mass vaccination programs, I advice everyone to do their home work before letting those who make a living of defrauding others take advantage of you. The drug giants would quickly turn into harmless dwarfs if we decided to not use their harmful products and fall for their incessant fear tactics, but instead took care of our health in a natural way.
Vaccine-nation Poisoning the Population,
One Shot at a Time
Andreas Moritz
