There has been increasing brouhaha about Fake News of late. In the general media, Facebook are apparently going to introduce panels of reviewers to take down posts that contain fake material. In the academic media, doctors are told not to believe what they hear in the media about the adverse effects of drugs – See Fake News and the Great Purple Pill as well as this article passing off concerns about PPIs as nothing to see here.
As regards medical and health-related issues, there is more than a vague sense that under cover of efforts that some would see as reasonable to block claims for instance that Hilary and Bill Clinton are really Martians who abuse and cannibalise children, politicians – more often on the Left than the Right – intend to brand and block what they declare to be Fake News about the adverse effects of vaccines or drugs – anything that might scare people away from treatment.
Its absolutely fine for pharmaceutical companies to scare the bejaysus out of people as This Video shows.
But its not fine for a prescriber like me to remind people that you can only get prescription drugs from someone like me because we have every reason to think once we know more about them they will turn out to be more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.
Added to this legitimate concern about drugs we know little about, you’d have thought medics like me would be pitching these drugs as risky and needing expertise. If these drugs aren’t dangerous and work wonderfully well then nurses and pharmacists and others would make cheaper prescribers. The reason for not going the whole way and having them over the counter is that industry want a fall-guy in between them and us who can be blamed if anything goes wrong.
Keeping the Herd Together
Then there is the surreality of the recent Golden Globes shenanigans. What is going on here?
[The video is no longer available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8WxAIUQ4A]
While vaccines have been around since 1800 and the basis for them came into view in the 1860s, and public health focused on sewers and food adulteration had been around since the 1850s and grew in force in the 1890s on the back of germ theories, around 1900 something else took shape. Several inputs from the picture school inspections revealed of the health of children to the work of Josephine Baker on infant mortality created a preventive medicine centered on building up resilience – on engineering individuals rather than the environment.
Baker’s work led to the greatest ever jump in life expectancies. This led public health departments to embrace what some have since termed pronatalism and others refer to as “gardening”. It seemed increasingly possible to shape the population – removing the weeds and generally getting the human garden in a shape pleasing to the gardener’s eye. The new ethos fuelled a push to eugenics in the US and UK and Scandinavia.
It led to a later German effort to purify the Volk that turned in the first place to eliminating the mentally ill and mentally handicapped along with the removal of non-nationals from the national territory and then their later elimination when complete removal proved impractical.
The need to tend the national garden seemed obvious to most people. German doctors were at the time the most advanced scientifically, and the most philosophically oriented, in the world. Few of them objected. Doctors like Hans Asperger, featured here, continued to go to Church while screening children for relatively minor oddities, knowing that in many instances this would lead to their elimination.
Just as the Vatican’s show a reluctance to get involved in anything medical now (other than bullying women about abortion), few of the hierarchy in any of the Churches spoke out about “gardening”.
While what happened in Germany and Austria looks horrific in retrospect, and the recorded efforts of some parents to save their children by writing and visiting regularly are heart-wrenching, most of us stayed away and hearing that our child had died wrote letters to the authorities thanking them for doing the necessary in the case of these lives not worth living.
This is what we would do again – we are no different to the Germans. This perhaps is what we are doing now.
Anti-Vaxx
The authorities express alarm at the growing number of anti-vaxxers in our midst. There may be some died in the wool anti-vaxxers, but I’ve yet to meet one. There may be some libertarians who believe in vaccines but not in compulsion. But the vast majority of people I have met – it feels like 80% plus – who are engaged on the issues were pro-vaccine and pro-drug and are engaged on these issues because of an injury to their child.
It seems inordinately cruel to brand them and deride them as anti-vaxxers. There is no basis in good science or good religion for doing so.
Its worth repeating the greatest concentration of Fake News on the planet centers on the drugs and vaccines doctors dish out – See HERE. When it comes to drugs, the articles underpinning medical practice are almost entirely ghostwritten and the data from studies are entirely inaccessible. Doctors are now and for thirty years have been the greatest consumers of Fake News. When it comes to exercising discrimination, teenage boys do better in respect of designer clothes or gadgets than doctors do in respect of designer drugs, vaccines and devices.
Fake What
One of the functions of religion is to keep the herd or the tribe together. Loyalty is an important “virtue” in this respect. A tribe or herd can cope with occasional dissent but not with a split. The vaccine struggles seem religious in this sense – down to talk of herd immunity when herd immunity in fact applies to very few vaccines. In practice herd immunity seems to mean we need to inoculate all members of the herd so they believe the same things and are protected against any deviations from the one true faith and give straight arm salutes.
But good religion has also been about equipping us to look steadfastly at realities from our individual insignificance to the plight of others and the need to overcome the effects of evil. Its about standing up for things that count rather than running with the herd.
Good science equally is not about a blind acceptance of what the authorities say. Its about recognising that when it comes to spotting a phenomenon or an anomaly that needs explaining a high school drop-out or page 3 model may do just as well as a Nobel Prize winner and it may be a better idea to pay heed to motivated high-school dropouts than to most guideline committees whose commitment is to ghostwritten pap.
So what should the scientific response be to a 15 month old child who is developing fine until vaccinated and after that shows a regression?
Its not scientific to respond by saying we have no studies that show an increased rate of regression, autism, call it what you will, after MMR, and therefore the vaccine hasn’t caused the problem. The studies we have are all seriously flawed but even if they weren’t this would not be a scientific response. The point is that science aims at explaining what is in front of us.
It may be that lots of 15 month old children regress but this doesn’t just happen for no reason. In each case there will be a reason. Listening to all sides of the story, from parents and other family members to the doctors or other healthcare personnel, and any other interested parties, there is a need to make a judgement call in each case as to what has happened and what may have caused it to happen.
If there is a mismatch between the view that emerges as to what has happened to this child and the apparent result of studies, while many will find it more convenient to ignore the child and her parents, even if current studies were done by angels and were not contaminated by Fake Evidence, the scientific thing is to wonder how come the studies are not reflecting what has happened in the case of this child.
The case of people becoming suicidal on antidepressants brings home the point. When the case is convincing, the scientific question is not how has this patient fooled us or what bias does her doctor have, but rather why do the studies that claim to show no problem not show a problem. In the case of the antidepressants it turned out that the reason the studies show no problem is that companies went out of their way to hide the problem using a variety of illegal and unethical and unscientific maneuvers.
But even if these had been studies done by angels, there would still be the same need to work out how the studies were failing to find things they should find.
If it isn’t the case that we start by attempting to explain the individual case, the justice system could no longer function.
But the logic of the justice system is not the logic of drug and vaccine regulators who, as Ian Hudson the current CEO of MHRA put it, faced with compelling cases that, having looked at all angles and heard testimonies from all points of view, you or I or a jury would figure had a drug induced problem, argue there is no issue if controlled trials haven’t shown the drug causes the problem.
This is logically incoherent. If we haven’t some reason from individual cases to think the drug can produce a benefit, we wouldn’t have done any trials at all and there would be nothing on the market.
Since 1990 or thereabouts, modern medicine where it involves drugs or vaccines or devices has been increasingly incompatible with natural justice and with science. Its difficult to know what to say about religion.
What do we need?
Perhaps a Facebook review process banning adverts and related material in the public domain as for example on HPV vaccines instanced above and on PPIs as shown on the Great Purple Pill.
Media – especially the “liberal” media who are the greatest purveyors of Fake News – need to look carefully at how they have been hoodwinked by the False Balance strategies they have adopted and need to scrutinize the role of bodies like the Science Media Centre.
Medical journal editors need to Woman Up. The greatest failure in this area has come from Cochrane which appears beyond reform.
Meanwhile, whether we think its science or religion or whatever, the greatest concentration of Fake News on the planet centers on any drug, vaccine or device our doctor proposes giving us. We need to look her in the eye and ask him what s/he figures on doing about this.
David,
Thank you for these desperately germane observations. At this present moment – a straw in the wind – the Argentinian government are introducing new laws which will mean you cannot renew your driving license, or your passport without being up-to-date with your shots – ie you won’t even be able to escape to a less tyrannous country without being jagged into oblivion first – and ominously while our attempts to leave the EU seem to be failing a friend who recently went to lobby the EU commissioner about vaccine liberty found Dr Salisbury at his shoulder, and was assured that vaccines were better trialed than other pharmaceuticals – which would be useless if it was true, but the precise opposite is the case – the to need trial vaccines against placebo is generally circumvented by the alleged priority of protecting against the target diseases. In the case of MMR there seem to have been no trials anyway. All one can say is that we are not even being asked to put our faith in science (ie human knowledge) but human political institutions which are both fallible and corrupt. And soon we will see the Argentinian final solution to the bureaucrats’ problem sprouting everywhere.
When I recently wrote to Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer to the British government, asking her to account for her statement that the MMR vaccine is “a safe vaccination -we know that” I received only flimsy and inadequate replies: the policy is precisely based on a wild jump of faith, not knowledge.
https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-junk-safety-science-which-underpins-uk-government-mmr-vaccine-policy.html
https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/01/confirmation-bias-and-the-united-kingdom-department-of-health.html
And one has to remember that Davies too is just another lieutenant for US Global Health Strategy:
https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/12/smart-power-reasons-for-disaffection-in-italy-and-the-destruction-of-the-post-war-liberal-order.html
‘Ours not to reason why,
Our but to do and die…’
As I remarked here (I think) a couple of months ago, six decades after the charge of the Light Brigade and Tennyson’s solemn warning we had the Somme, which was 1,000 times worse. Actually, it was worse than that, because the charge of the Light Brigade happened through a misunderstood order, while the generals at the Somme just thought it lay in their dispensation to sacrifice all those men. Unfortunately, no lesson is ever learnt for all time, and here a a whole host of lessons are being forgotten from history as we are pitched into a new dark age, from which we may never emerge.
What’s going on in that rather surreal scene from the Golden Globes, you ask? Maybe you missed that last remark:
“This cost FIFTY GRAND, guys! Yeah, you’re welcome!”
There was a time when I felt pretty comfortable that vaccines were unlikely to be pushed on us for profit, because there was so little profit in them. They were one-time medicines, labor-intensive to make, and since the patient was not already sick when they took the medicine, liability seemed tough to manage. The government was always scrambling to keep various private companies from dropping out of the market. Alas, this no longer appears to be true … several firms like GSK now pin their financial ambitions on them.
If you’re over sixty, it sometimes seems there’s a new vaccine being pitched at you every year. First the Shingles Vaccine, then the new and IMPROVED Shingles Vaccine. Then the Pneumonia vaccine, then the NEW Second Pneumonia vaccine. Then a new TDAP vaccine specially targeted to prevent you from giving the Whooping Cough to your precious grandbaby (or someone else’s). That last one proved to be OK for preventing us adults from getting Whooping Cough (not a serious threat), but ineffective at its main task: preventing us from becoming carriers, and endangering infants.
Looks like the profit motive is back, for real. What to do? I got the TDAP; may or may not get next year’s flu vaccine. But I think I may just take my chances of having my Golden Years turn to shit on account of Shingles.
David Healy Retweeted
Malcolm Brabant
@MalcolmBrabant
One fatal vaccine, one journalist-turned-Jesus.
After a routine yellow fever vaccine required for an assignment in Africa, award-winning BBC foreign correspondent Malcolm Brabant descends into madness. Following a near fatal fever, subsequent hallucinations convince him he is the new Messiah.
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/malcolmisalittleunwell
January 11, 2019
expert reaction to the sudden death of Prof. Martin Gore following a yellow fever jab
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-sudden-death-of-prof-martin-gore-following-a-yellow-fever-jab/
Melvin Sanicas
Regional Medical Expert,
Sanofi Pasteur
Scientists can vaccinate us against fake news
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/scientists-can-vaccinate-against-the-post-truth-era/
We have the tendency to search for, embrace and recall information that supports our own pre-existing beliefs and hypothesis. In some instances, the more you try to persuade people in the anti-vaccine movement, the more convinced they become that they are right. Therefore it is challenging to convince people to listen to scientific data that shows a different perspective. Parents have the inherent desire to protect their children; by playing on their emotions, Wakefield’s lies are heard more than statements by public health officials supported by decades of robust research.
Scientists need to remain steadfast in the pursuit of science and the truth. Scientists should speak up when robust scientific findings are being disregarded or treated as mere matters of faith. These are challenges we have faced before and will almost certainly face again in the future. Speak up, however you can. It is essential that every member of the scientific community speak to their friends, family, colleagues, make their voice heard on social media and to policy-makers and the public about the importance of science to the future of the world.
Of course, we only know about what happened to Malcolm Brabant and Martin Gore because of who they were.
Then, of course, there is the strategy of blaming the whole thing on Andrew Wakefield rather than on the egregious system and the defective products – it has of course been the over-primed news media that has kept his name to the forefront as the Emmanuel Goldstein of public health. Last summer we cringed as day after day the media posted hate material against him, on the pretext of his newly discovered relationship with Elle Macpherson. The industry is in trouble, therefore more hate against Wakefield.
I forgot to post before my submissions to the House of Commons Media Committee inquiry into Fake News:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/fake-news/written/73097.html
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/fake-news/written/76219.html
Hi. Johanna,
In the Good Old Days when vaccines didn’t make a profit the British government was forced to introduce a vaccine damage scheme to save programme, making 600 payments in the first three years (requiring 90% disability with a three year limitation for claiming):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/242813/response/599844/attach/3/Annex%20A.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
Having plugged the gap they got much better at denying claims: awards were reduced a trickle after 1988 and non-existent after 2010. I am afraid vaccines really took off globally as an industry with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act in the US in 1986 which meant that the manufacturers were liability free and had mandated products, and this is the key to the current situation (when 4b dollars have been paid out in the US special court) that there is no liability to the manufacturers for the products and therefore it doesn’t matter how bad they are – of course, you could theoretically sue manufacturers in other countries, but in practice most countries are adept at denying access to the courts.
At a fundamental non-clinical level when considering these products you have to bear in mind that they are marketed on the basis that the manufacturers cannot be sued, and often have captive populations (mandates). Then you have the fact that there are a great many of them, and hundreds more in the pipeline waiting to be mandated. Meanwhile, the patient who has been protected from diseases – some of which are not so dangerous, some of which are not so common – is unlikely to be a terribly well person.
Submitted to BMJ (it may be little too much reality for them at the moment):
Re: A tale of two vaccines – is there any surveillance of childhood vaccine ADRs at all in the United Kingdom?
With regard to vaccine damage surveillance in the United Kingdom I raised in these columns several times [1,2,3] in the previous decade the astonishing question and answer advice that appeared on the the former NHS website ‘MMR the Facts’ just after the Wakefield affair blew up [4]:
Q.”My son had a sever (sic) reaction to the first MMR jab. Does this mean that he is well protected from these diseases, or is a second dose still necessary?”
A. “If a child has responded to all the components of the vaccine the first time, he will not have a problem being exposed to the viruses again. It’s like any one of us who is already immune meeting someone with the disease – the infection can’t get established.
“If he hasn’t made protection to all three diseases after the first time, then he would still be susceptible to those natural infections, and still needs the 2nd dose.
“Reactions after the 2nd dose are essentially the same as after the 1st dose, but if they do occur they are even rarer. There are no new side effects after the 2nd dose that do not occur after the 1st dose. The advice is therefore that it is safe for your child to have the 2nd dose in order that he is properly protected.”
In July 2009 I commented [3]:
“The advice was taken down for a brief period of months in late 2004 early 2005, and then early last year a line was added that you might want to consult your doctor in the event of a severe adverse reaction, but it was changed back again shortly afterwards. If you had rung your doctor you would probably (in my experience) have been given the bad tempered suggestion that you might want to give your child some Calpol but to stop making a fuss.
“The advice is unambiguous evidence that recording of such events is pre-empted as a matter of policy and the data simply never collected: and almost certainly this goes for the entire schedule, not just MMR. The absence of data is then cited as evidence of safety. The DH and the NHS have had every opportunity to amend this folly but they simply persist and demonstrate their arrogance and recklessness.”
This is already much in line with the report on a legal website of 2014 noted by Wendy E Stephen below [5,6]:
“The workshop concluded that ADR reporting in children was “impractical for busy healthcare professionals and potentially acted as a barrier to reporting” (sic). As a consequence, the MHRA guidance for healthcare professionals reporting ADR in children has been simplified to bring them into line with reporting guidelines for adults. Healthcare professionals must now report all suspected ADRs that are serious, medically significant or result in harm, but need not report less serious or minor ADRs…”
There is here the fascinating possibility the reporting might be a barrier to reporting (!!!), but also that infant and childhood ADRs are simply too numerous to bother with anyway. But a further problem arises that if there is no reporting in the first place it sabotages any possibility of linking the event with long term harm. In other words the system can apparently provide no information of value on this matter for any childhood vaccine, and there is no reason to suppose that the situation with Pandemrix is worse than for any other product.
[1] John Stone ‘Think harm never – vaccine and the inversion of medical ethics’, 6 July 2004, https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/think-harm-never-vaccine-and-inversion-medical-ethics
[2] John Stone, ‘Endorsement for mmrthefacts advice’, 3 October 2004, https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/endorsement-mmrthefacts-advice
[3] John Stone, ‘Re: Re: Re: Re: The origins of antivaccine activism’, 10 July 2009, https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/re-re-re-re-origins-antivaccine-activism
[4] ‘MMR the Facts: Your questions answered’ 21 March 2004, https://web.archive.org/web/20040321045936/http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk:80/questions/question.php?id=79
[5] ‘UK MHRA SIMPLIFIES ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING IN CHILDREN’, Blog: Focus On Regulation | 07 October 2014, https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/blogs/focus-on-regulation/uk-mhra-simplifies-adverse-event-reporting-in-children
[6] Wendy E Stephen, ‘ A Tale Of Two Adverse Reaction Reporting Systems’, 12 October 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4152/rr-16
Rumors of “fake news” about Gardasil and cancer, about official data from cancer registries in foreign countries!
by delepine (his site)
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
If this published data is dangerous, it is only for the very lucrative business model of Sanofi Pasteur, MSD and GSK [21] whose claims of protection against cancer are cruelly denied.
Rumeurs de « fake news » sur Gardasil et cancer, au sujet de données officielles des registres des cancers de pays étrangers !
https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/rumeurs-de-fake-news-sur-gardasil-211642
Google Translate
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.agoravox.fr%2Ftribune-libre%2Farticle%2Frumeurs-de-fake-news-sur-gardasil-211642
When will we have an effective vaccine against this cancer of interest?
Italian parents put up such a wonderful fight against having their children compulsorily vaccinated that the law was revised They even set up schools in the woods and in private homes according to Italian media reports. ~They were to some extent ‘lucky’ that there was an anti establishment political party backing pro choice but nevertheless are still labelled anti vaxers or members of ‘populist’ movements a term used to discredit opposition. The battle hasn’t been won though as editors give space to those who can write pretty articles which seem more balanced to the sort of groups who read their articles and stoke up condemnation against those who are not convinced. If I had young children I couldn’t make a decision based on information generally available plus the stigma of not choosing vaccination can rub off on the children.
Two different types of articles last year on the Italian job are:
‘Mandatory vaccinations in Italy – scientific evidence and political controversies’ by Giovanni Rezza
‘Italy loses vaccine law just as children return to school’ in New York Times
Recently I’ve come across the explanation for where we are now with the sinister imposition of more and more vaccine products. This is the ‘missing link’ that has been a revelation to me in understanding the current oppressive status quo of a rampant vaccine industry supported by academia, doctors, ‘regulators’, politicians, lobby groups, the journal industry and a biased mainstream media which refuses to critically analyse vaccination policy.
A presentation by Dr Suzanne Humphries alerted me to the Children’s Vaccine Initiative (CVI), particularly The CVI Strategic Plan – Managing Opportunity and Change: A Vision of Vaccination for the 21st Century, published in 1998 by the CVI’s co-sponsoring agencies i.e. the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Rockefeller Foundation. You can access the pdf of this report via this link: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/64635
The CVI Strategic Plan is essential reading for anyone trying to understand the current hostile situation relevant to vaccination policy, with citizens who dare to question ever-increasing vaccine schedules and vaccine safety and effectiveness being reflexively labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’ and marginalised and shut down.
The CVI Strategic Plan is the blueprint for the manipulation of the entire international community by a coalition of organisations from the public, non-government and private sectors, apparently working in the best interests of the vaccine industry.
This is a massive international political scandal, with more and more governments moving towards mandating lucrative vaccine products, e.g. Australia, the United States and Italy, and actively denying citizens the right to question burgeoning vaccine schedules and coercive vaccination policy.
Suzanne Humphries summarises the situation in this video on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HealthNutNews/videos/317815328766484/ (How long will we have the freedom to share this information on facebook, before faceless ‘panels of reviewers’ deem dissent about vaccines as ‘fake news’ and censor discussion?)
I’ve transcribed the Suzanne Humphries’ video from 0.32, see below:
QUOTE:
In 1997 the World Health Organisation formulated a strategy which was put into a book called The Strategic Plan, which laid out a map to completely change the way people thought about vaccines.
The plan had key points, which were using the media to structure messages that shaped public opinion to co-opt or persuade key opinion people in all levels of society – medical, lay and entertainment, to get pro-vaccine spokespeople at every level conveying one message and one message only.
This plan emphasised private/public partnership and philanthropy, with the aim to make vaccines a core topic in society. Anyone who reads this book can clearly see that this was a plan which would result in what I would call a ‘slow cooking’ of human frogs from cold water, hopefully that we wouldn’t even notice what was happening, to get us all to a point where we could see nothing else other than the dogma.
Part of that plan came to fruition in a big way when Bill Gates stepped up to take his place in the World Health Organisation plan. People who are part of this plan are called stakeholders, not just by me, but it’s an acceptable term. Private stakeholders existed for the last 20 years but never more obviously than in 2015. The whole public face of vaccination has changed, and a large part of that change has been due to the involvement of private individuals.
In 2010, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $10 Billion, with a ‘B’, to make 2010 to 2020 the Decade of Vaccines. The vaccine stakeholders have planted flags everywhere, with some startling results. In 2015 the focus in the United States was on making vaccines mandatory for all people, and they were successful in some places, making vaccines a lifestyle event for all people, from cradle to grave.
The World Health Organisation’s strategic plan was printed first in 1993, and then it was updated in 1997, and it morphed into the global immunisation vision and strategy which Bill Gates often makes reference to in his publicity, and you can see it right here in that last paragraph, the Global Alliance. Today we have a computer software billionaire, the pharmaceutical industry, academia, and the US Department of Homeland Security* and the World Health Organisation all speaking and working in unison towards the same goals.
These alliances should have anyone who listens and watches asking lots of questions because the goals are to restrict our health freedom, to censor what we read and can say, and remove our ability to choose what goes into our bodies.
(*Should this be US Department of Health and Human Services?)
END OF QUOTE
Suzanne Humphries refers to the involvement of private individuals such as Bill Gates, who is exerting enormous influence over international vaccination policy via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as described in the report Philanthropic Power and Development: Who shapes the agenda?[1]
The Gates Foundation’s tentacles are spreading everywhere, even to funding the supposedly ‘independent’ and ‘unbiased’ Cochrane group.[2] And now Microsoft, of which Bill Gates remains a director and advisor on key development projects[3], has formed a strategic alliance with Walgreens to develop ‘new healthcare models’.[4] Walgreens promotes vaccine products too.[5] Who is examining Bill Gates’ conflicts of interest in influencing international vaccination policy and promoting vaccine products?
Again, the Children’s Vaccine Initiative Strategic Plan is the blueprint for the manipulation and exploitation of the global community with an ever-increasing load of vaccine products, without adequate transparency and accountability. The impact of this strategic plan must be examined in the current context, this is a massive international scandal that must be analysed and exposed.
References:
1. Philanthropic Power and Development: Who shapes the agenda? https://www.brot-fuer-die-welt.de/fileadmin/mediapool/2_Downloads/Fachinformationen/Sonstiges/study_philanthropic_power_and_development.pdf
2. Are Cochrane reviews truly “independent and transparent”? https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/are-cochrane-reviews-truly-independent-and-transparent/
3. Microsoft Leadership – Bill Gates: Founder and Techology Advisor: https://news.microsoft.com/exec/bill-gates/
4. In Blockbuster Alliance, Walgreens and Microsoft To Develop ‘New Healthcare Models’: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2019/01/15/walgreens-partners-with-microsoft-to-develop-new-healthcare-delivery-models/#3b23d26828db
5. See for example: The Flu Shot: What You Need to Know: https://www.walgreens.com/health/p2/a/900002/the-flu-shot-what-you-need-to-know/2447311
Elizabeth – there’s just been a programme on Radio 4 this pm -The Media show.(podcast available on BBC Sounds) Facebook is funding a charity to carry out fact checking. areas identified include health … .There was Criticism of citizen journalists as unable to fact check what is posted – how are they going to be able to do that themselves ?! I didn’t catch whether that charity will have the power to shut down sites
The Facebook pages I visit all tend to lock into documents. All they can do is stop people circulating document which is central to the EU Copyright Directive.
Thanks Susanne. Re ‘criticism of citizen journalists as unable to fact check what is posted’? Have you ever seen such self-serving and patronising rubbish?!
It’s up to activist citizens to do their own fact-checking now, we cannot rely on thoroughly corrupted political and medical systems, or the grossly biased corporate media.
In regards to the current over-vaccination epidemic, I fear we are facing a catastrophe for natural immunity and health which is going to play out over future generations.
We desperately need truly independent immunologists to consider the big picture on this, but does such a creature exist? It seems Big Pharma dominates this area with the support of governments, academia, doctors, ‘regulators’, the journal industry, the media, and of course the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the WHO, and other organisations, such as the CDC and NIH, building empires on the back of expanding vaccine markets and looming government vaccine mandates.
The scope of this global vaccination exploitation scandal is breath-taking… Where to turn for accountability?
Indian court stops compulsory vaccination
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/india-measles-vaccinations-cannot-be-administered-forcibly-and-without-consent-parents
https://m.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/hc-orders-deferring-mr-vaccine-campaign-in-delhi-after-parents-objection/story-lQ9L6q0vCiEwiimAWviSAP.html
The real issue with vaccines, and why more and more people, particularly parents, are questioning them is as follows:
Too many
Too soon
Too often
Too multiple
Too experimental
Too toxic
Too unnecessary
As someone who grew up in an age without them, and like most I knew, survived the minor childhood diseases and everything else for that matter, I know they are unnecessary.
As someone who had children who had two-three at later ages, but still had most of the minor childhood diseases, I know they are unnecessary.
Vaccine theory remains unproven. Why is it dangerous? Because, never before in human evolution has a process been put in place, within hours of a baby’s birth, and tragically, now also in utero, where the immune system is tricked, manipulated, confused into reacting to a non-threat.
in addition, only in recent decades has a new and toxic ingredient been added, Aluminium, which is linked to both Autism and Alzheimer’s.
Not only Aluminium, but a host of other chemicals and materials are used in the manufacture of vaccines, with long-term impacts unknown. Do we know what animal, bird, human material from aborted foetal cell lines might do in the human body? No, we do not.
Do we know what injecting for quick uptake by the bloodstream, bypassing the first lines of immune response, disease and toxic and untested materials, might do in the human body, or in terms of genetics? No, we do not. Such a process is completely unknown in nature and no human has yet evolved to cope with it.
So, if I and millions of others can survive without vaccines, and my children and millions of others can survive with one or two, why on earth do we need to give more than 50 vaccinations to children today, beginning within hours of birth?
Public records clearly show all of the infectious diseases for which children are now vaccinated, were in steep decline long before vaccines appeared. In other words, provide good living conditions and hygiene, sanitation and better nutrition and these diseases were not a threat as they were in poor living conditions in centuries past.
Not only do vaccines ignore, disrupt, deny, normal body function, they ignore hard data showing they are not necessary.
And don’t bring up Polio. This disease has been with humans for centuries and in 92% of cases manifested as no more than mild-Flu like symptoms. What caused the Fifties epidemic? Well, as recognised at the time, the removal of adenoids and tonsils, common from the early 20th century when antibiotics made surgery safer and fortunes could be easily made whipping out something for which medicine found no use – wrong – and the predispostion to severe paralytic Polio which came from the Diptheria vaccine, paralysis often beginning at the injection site.
Warnings were given but largely ignored. I mean, what do a few dead or paralysed kids matter when the agenda is ‘maintaining faith in the public in vaccines.’
And don’t bring up the Flu pandemic either. This rode on the back of a Depression, the First World, ghastly living conditions, vaccine experiments with soldiers and deaths were massively increased, as also eventually recognised, by the use of Aspirin to treat the sick.
And the experts wonder why anyone of moderate intelligence questions vaccination.
This article gives a wider view of Fact Checking Co.s and Full Fact, as brought up by Susanne from The Media Show
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/fake-news-full-fact-fact-checking-news
https://fullfact.org/blog/2019/jan/full-fact-start-checking-facebook-content-third-party-factchecking-initiative-reaches-uk/
What’s more…
David Healy Retweeted
Malcolm Brabant
@MalcolmBrabant
A sensible view of our film and vaccine safety from someone who has seen it.
@GeorgeMonbiot
Regulation in the pharmaceutical industry
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/regulation-pharmaceutical-industry-nick-peters/?published=t&fbclid=IwAR1Yr9L81BWmjU0NckIBt8ngfBuP_Ffjc0YL8WOJZvVTRZCGOY8bD6QRNk8
But does the “greater good” argument let the manufacturer off the hook for at least agreeing to participate in a proper study of a vaccine that was first approved over half a century ago and for which there is prime facie evidence of alarming side-effects, not just today but over decades of reporting?
It has become a sin to tell the truth.
Calling out what you see is deemed stupid.
Those who see the emperor is naked, can’t believe their eyes because no one else says anything. And instead of speaking out, it is much more convenient to remain silent.
It has been this way for a long, long time. But it hasn’t stirred any reactions. Perhaps until people started to question how skyscrapers could collaps within their footprint, and not lose any momentum going down.
There has been “fake fasades” in news, politics, science.
A “whistle-blower” was/is seen as something bad.
When in reality, whistleblowers are just people who can’t stand a particular lie.
Ove2019
On the subject of vaccines, according to the WHO, citizens questioning vaccination are now in the top ten threats to global health in 2019…
See: https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019
QUOTE
Vaccine hesitancy – the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines – threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease – it currently prevents 2-3 million deaths a year, and a further 1.5 million could be avoided if global coverage of vaccinations improved.
Measles, for example, has seen a 30% increase in cases globally. The reasons for this rise are complex, and not all of these cases are due to vaccine hesitancy. However, some countries that were close to eliminating the disease have seen a resurgence.
The reasons why people choose not to vaccinate are complex; a vaccines advisory group to WHO identified complacency, inconvenience in accessing vaccines, and lack of confidence are key reasons underlying hesitancy. Health workers, especially those in communities, remain the most trusted advisor and influencer of vaccination decisions, and they must be supported to provide trusted, credible information on vaccines.
In 2019, WHO will ramp up work to eliminate cervical cancer worldwide by increasing coverage of the HPV vaccine, among other interventions. 2019 may also be the year when transmission of wild poliovirus is stopped in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Last year, less than 30 cases were reported in both countries. WHO and partners are committed to supporting these countries to vaccinate every last child to eradicate this crippling disease for good.
END OF QUOTE
In Screening for Suicide Risk, Facebook Takes On Tricky Public Health Role
https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/01/screening-suicide-risk-facebook-takes-tricky-public-health-role/
From The New York Times: “Facebook’s rise as a global arbiter of mental distress puts the social network in a tricky position at a time when it is under investigation for privacy lapses by regulators in the United States, Canada and the European Union –
The anti-suicide campaign gives Facebook an opportunity to frame its work as a good news story. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among people ages 15 to 29 worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Some mental health experts and police officials said Facebook had aided officers in locating and stopping people who were clearly about to harm themselves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/technology/facebook-suicide-screening-algorithm.html
“In this climate in which trust in Facebook is really eroding, it concerns me that Facebook is just saying, ‘Trust us here,’” said Mr. Marks, a fellow at Yale Law School and New York University School of Law.
Re David Healy’s earlier post “I’ve caught her virus & she’s caught mine”, published on 19 November 2018: https://davidhealy.org/ive-caught-her-virus-shes-caught-mine/
This post alerted me to the BBC Newsnight program “Why the anti-vaccination movement is wrong”, which was broadcast in September 2018. The segment can be viewed via this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u5ex0u4acn1wlel/BBC_Two_England-2018-09-19_22-32-52.mp4?dl=0 (I’ve prepared a transcript of this program.)
To set the tone, the program’s presenter, Emily Maitlis, leads in with the obligatory reference to “the discredited and mendacious doctor Andrew Wakefield”…
My initial complaint about this BBC program focuses on the lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest of one of the participants in the program, i.e. Dr Pauline Paterson of the Vaccine Confidence Project.
FYI, see below the response I’ve received from the BBC, i.e. from Adam Cumiskey, Newsnight’s Chief Programme Producer, who edited the show in question.
As you can see, Mr Cumiskey has had to acknowledge that the Vaccine Confidence Project has received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GSK, Merck, GAVI, Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the European Commission, 3ie and the Innovative Medicines Initiative.
It is a serious matter that this conflict of interest information re Dr Pauline Paterson and the Vaccine Confidence Project wasn’t disclosed during the BBC Newsnight program.
I hadn’t heard of 3ie and the Innovative Medicines Initiative, so I’ve done some checking on these organisations.
Here’s the link to the 3ie website ‘About us’ page, which indicates it’s a sort of Cochrane organisation: http://www.3ieimpact.org/about-us
Apparently, the “International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is a global leader in funding, producing, quality assuring and synthesising rigorous evidence. We support studies and reviews that examine what works, for whom, why and at what cost in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). We are also a global advocate for the generation and use of quality evidence in development decision-making.”
3ie is a membership organisation with a global network of members and key partners.
Who are 3ie members? http://www.3ieimpact.org/about-us/3ie-members
“3ie members are public and private donors, government agencies from low and middle-income countries (L&MICs) and NGOs. Together they form a diverse global community, united by a commitment to using evidence from rigorous impact evaluations and systematic reviews to improve their policies and programmes. 3ie members support or implement at least US$1 million in development programming per year. Learn more about 3ie membership and benefits on our governance page.”
And when we click on the US region on the map provided we discover that…drum roll…the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a 3ie member, what a surprise…not
What about the Innovative Medicines Initiative, what is this? Apparently it’s “the world’s biggest public-private partnership in the life sciences”, see more here: https://www.imi.europa.eu/about-imi
Any Gates’ connection? But of course! See: “IMI launches Euro115 million Calls for proposals to develop vaccines & medicines of the future, which will see IMI collaborate with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”: https://www.imi.europa.eu/news-events/press-releases/imi-launches-eu115-million-calls-proposals-develop-vaccines-medicines
Crikey, the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is everywhere, they’re running the show!
Really, we have to do something about this… Bill and Melinda Gates are pushing they’re own expensive and zealous vaccination hobby horse, without adequate transparency and accountability. Their activities are impinging on the rights of the world’s citizens and their children in regards to bodily autonomy.
This is a most serious political matter that must be urgently investigated, particularly conflicts of interest.
FYI, see the email response from BBC Newsnight’s Adam Cumiskey below.
I’m considering further complaints to the BBC about this Newsnight program, and the BBC’s appalling coverage of issues relevant to international vaccination policy.
Email from BBC Newsnight’s Adam Cumiskey:
Dear Ms Hart,
Thank you for your note regarding the introduction we gave to Dr Pauline Paterson on Newsnight (September 2018). I am the show’s Chief Programme Producer and edited the show in question.
Since the VCP began, the research team has received funding from a range of organisations. These include:
– National Institute for Health Research
– European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
– The European Commission
– Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
– Merck & Co.
– GlaxoSmithKline
– Wellcome Trust
– Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
– 3ie
– Innovative Medicines Initiative
The LSHTM says that research undertaken by the VCP is published through the peer review process and is conducted completely independently from its funders who do not have a role in the design and analysis of VCP studies or the authorship of VCP research papers. In the interest of transparency the VCP has told us that it’s updating its website to include funding sources.
We are happy that because of this independence from the funders and because Dr Paterson was obviously a vaccine advocate that the item was fair. There is always a judgement to be made on the source of funding and the information we give the audience – this group has a wide range of funding which the LSHTM tells us plays no role in their research outcomes. The range of scientific opinion in favour of the effectiveness of vaccines is overwhelming and the item was not about whether vaccines are effective – in fact it made a deliberate point of stating that that argument has been settled. This position is further backed by Dame Sally Davies and the WHO among many others. This was an item about how to counter low vaccine take up. I hope his answers your concern.
Kind Regards,
Adam Cumiskey
David Healy Retweeted
Malcolm Brabant
@MalcolmBrabant
The newspaper that sacked me at the end of my first week and whose editor told me that I’d never work in journalism again now reports on our documentary.
WATCH: Shocking film shows journalist’s psychotic episode which he claims was caused by vaccine
An award winning journalist from Suffolk is calling for an investigation into a vaccine which he claims caused his “meltdown” into insanity
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/malcolm-is-a-little-unwell-documentary-stamaril-vaccine-1-5860556
The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said adverse reactions were “generally mild and not everyone will experience them”.
“However, there is a very rare risk of serious, life-threatening reactions in around 1 in 100,000 vaccinees,” it said. “These risks can be higher in those aged over 60 years and those with a poorly functioning immune system.”
Heidi Larsen from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said the change meant some people, including Mr Brabant, could have taken too much of the vaccine and at the wrong time.
Vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur offered its sympathies to Mr Brabant but denied responsibility for his illness.
“After carefully examining all the medical information that was disclosed to us up to April 2013, no evidence was found for a causal relationship between the administration of the yellow fever vaccine Stamaril and Mr Brabant’s reported medical conditions,” it said