Andrew Marriott’s recently published If You Wake at Midnight is a compelling read. It would have been a great candidate for inclusion on the recent list of Books on Medical Treatments Gone Wrong.
It tells the story of Lariam – mefloquine – a treatment to ward off malaria. A drug that for over 40 years has been causing suicides, homicides, depression, and a wide range of neurotoxic symptoms. There are many RxISK posts about Lariam – see Sanctuary Trauma.
But If You Wake is not just about Lariam and the problems it causes, it’s about the bureaucrats, FDA, EMA, MHRA and others who have blocked recognition of these problems, when recognition could have saved lives. Bureaucrats who have been perfidious in the way they have treated the families left behind or destroyed in the wake of Lariam induced problems who came to them looking for answers – thinking the regulators of medicines were an obvious first port of call.
Phrases like economical with the truth come to mind. Or the old joke: How do you know they’re lying – when their lips move. Perhaps updated now to – when their fingers touch a keyboard.
To many who came to them looking for help, Peter Marks of FDA, June Raine from MHRA or Guido Rasi of EMA can look like ministering angels. They are warm and sympathetic far removed you think from the juggling fiends Macbeth had to deal with it. But his words apply in spades here
Be these ministering angels no more believed that palter with us in a double sense. That keep the word of promise to our ear and break it to our hope.
Again, and Again, and Again, people damaged by Lariam, Isotretinoin, Finasteride, SSRIs, Antipsychotics, thinking they are being listened to by these ministering angels, instead have found and find and will find themselves gaslit, jilted, let down, betrayed.
And so it will be Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow to the last syllable of recorded time. See Harmatology.
If you Wake is also not just about Lariam, or ministering bureaucrats, it’s about Roche. Hoffman la Roche.
Up till recently we have had survivors of the Second World War present at ceremonies to celebrate a defeat of fascism. So too we have had a generation of people badly damaged by benzodiazepines, in particular Valium, aka diazepam. By the 1970s, Valium was the best-selling drug in the world and the boss of Roche, Adolf Jann, asked whether the company had any responsibility to the public said:
I would say no. Because it is in my opinion absolutely logical that my task, my responsibility is to develop Hoffman La Roche. And why are we doing that? We are doing it because it is absolutely clear that the only chance for the social security or social health service is to make economies by finding new drugs.
See Antidepressant Story at 19.31 if you want to see Jann get all worked up about this and thump the desk in front of him.
The people who were collateral damage in Roche’s Special Mission, don’t call it a War, were left to face Roche alone with no support from doctors or politicians or the media. They got nowhere. Their claims of harms were dismissed by the establishment – it was easy in those days before we had health pages in newspapers or anything to do with health on television to ignore people who had been harmed, who were even more invisible than now – See Nearly Invisible, Drug Traffic Accidents.
Recognition of the harms being caused by the benzodiazepines only came when the pharmaceutical companies developed a new generation of drugs that would make them more money than the old off-patent drugs. Companies sponsored academics like Malcolm Lader to do the benzos in and promote first of all Buspar and later the SSRIs – completely corrupting psychiatry in the process.
Lader and others seemed like good guys to many of Us. They may have been well-intentioned but just duped. Willing dupes – who knows?
The result was that many people now made a point of telling their doctors that they didn’t want anything dangerous like Valium or Ativan or drugs like that, drugs that could hook you, but they’d take Paroxetine, Fluoxetine, Sertraline instead – those happy pills, the ones that made you Better than Well.
Or doctors would point blank refuse to give Valium for fear of being struck off or sued Valium ended up widely regarded by doctors as more dangerous (to them) than Heroin. When the patent ran out Roche stopped marketing it. While lots of brand name companies were making money selling branded generics – life Pfizer selling Zoloft, Roche eliminated the word Valium. You could get diazepam but not Valium.
This too is leading to injuries because Diazepam and other benzodiazepines are often much safer and more appropriate than the SSRIs or antipsychotics or anticonvulsants people get given now.
Diazepam was a twentieth century War. Isotretinoin and Lariam were the Special Missions Roche embarked on after those injured by benzos, were rendered invisible. The dogs bark the caravan moves on.
Those whom Accutane (isotretinoin) has caused to kill themselves or others, or who have had their ability to make love wiped out by this drug will know exactly what Andrew Marriott and others working with him to bring the truth of Lariam to light have been through trying to get hold of documents they know to exist, trying to assist families at inquests into a death, trying to grapple with the double-speak of doctors and company people and bureaucrats.
A health warning is in order. Anyone who has been injured by a drug or lost a loved one to a drug should know, you are likely to feel homicidal reading If You Wake.
If You Wake has another circle of hell to it – not found with benzos or SSRIs.
Lariam is a military drug. It was developed by the US Military and did not go through the usual clinical trial or FDA approval process before being deployed for use and then handed over to Roche to commercialise it and get it used by you and me traveling to malaria risk zones. As the risks became clear, Roche began to scale back its use by you and me but the military, especially the British, Canadian and Australian military kept using it in Sierra Leone and West Africa as well as Afghanistan.
Accounts from soldiers bring out the horrific dreams, and the paranoia it caused, make it a racing certainty that some of the senseless acts of violence there have been, like soldiers running amok and wiping out innocent families and children, were caused by it.
The Americans decided this was definitely the case in Afghanistan. Even so, Marriott makes a strong case it was used in Guantanamo Bay by the Americans and British (yes you read that right) to break detainees down, some of whom appear to have been held not because of crimes committed but as guinea pigs in exercises to see whether Lariam could soften them up. Not just Guantanamo but Diego Garcia also.
There are telling vignettes. One name that crops up is Johnny Mercer whom RxISK readers will know from What’s a Life Worth and Once We Were Warriors. Mercer made a big deal about becoming a politician to help the comrades he had fought with. Those suffering from Lariam toxicity hoped for better things when they took their case to him. But like Tracey G found, he was all talk, all promise but bailed out when asked to do something.
In the Lariam case, he all of a sudden got a ministerial post, which rather than making it look like he was even better placed to help his comrades looks instead to have been a bribe to get him to keep his mouth shut.
One of the other features that came into play that lies in between the lines of the Lariam story is how the Army embraced – PTSD. The soldiers with dreams, who were depressed or suicidal, were told they had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, even if they had seen no action. They could get compensation or treatment for this – but not for Lariam induced problems.
Trying to decide whether the medicines regulators or the military command – all the way up to serial Ministers of Defence – would have been more inclined to keep sending troops over the top as in the Great War is a difficult call. Hard to say who would blink first in the face of drug induced carnage.
The extraordinary thing is that the military otherwise have a code of honour which requires them to look after their troops if injured. The pension schemes we have today, injury compensation schemes, developments in rehabilitation medicine – all come from the military. But none of these enlightened moves apply to injuries from drugs like Lariam.
What’s happening? Marriott leaves us wondering what it is that has made cowards of so many otherwise brave men. Leaves us wondering how the senior military command expect us to trust them to organize anything, if all the post and emails to them on issues like this somehow get lost, or they are prepared to lie so blatantly.
If You Wake looks forward to a day when the troops killed by Lariam on duty, or who die after suffering Lariam induced agonies for years after returning home, are also remembered in Memorial Settings and on Memorial Days. There are no ceremonies now for them or their families or comrades to attend, where the truth about what happened and their sacrifice is recognized.
It is as though they are criminals.
This is something everyone who has been seriously drug injured – ordinary folk who are heroes – will recognize.
On the day that is in it (July 12), perhaps the best way to put it is that at the moment it seems more likely we will seen Green and Orange marching arm in arm in a twelfth of July parade than we are to see the Military embrace its mistakes about Lariam (and other medical interventions – see next week) and honour the troops who have died or been tortured beecause of these mistakes.
Someone to whom all of the above applies was talking to me recently and said:
This is not Worthy of Western Democracy – or Western Medicine.
He is right.
Over ten years ago now, a group of men broke into the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris and gunned down the staff who had printed cartoons of the Prophet.
As War on Civilization outlined, Nikolas Sarkozy stood on the steps of the Elysee Palace and said
This is a declaration of a war on civilization and it is the responsibility of civilization to defend itself.
A ghostwritten literature with all the hazards of drugs hidden is also a declaration of war on civilization and it is our responsibility to defend ourselves.
I have thought this for a long time and cautioned the editors of journals like Eric Rubin and Kamran Abbasi to beware of the injured breaking into their offices and gunning them all down because they have published caricatures of science that have killed and maimed tens of thousands of people.
Regulators and Ministers of Health and Medical politicians, no matter how good they are, or think they are, should see the movie Calvary – Father Munchausen I Presume – should beward too. Sometimes it can be more effective to make an example of a good guy than tackle the villain.
Just last week in Sweden a man murdered Ing-Marie Wieselgren. She was a prominent face for mental health – but became the target for a man who believes psychiatry has failed us. The week before a young man in Copenhagen gunned down three people – to draw attention to the fact that psychotropic drugs don’t work.
Soldiers sitting in a mess just following orders perhaps should beware too – they all knew what was going on but didn’t seem able to get their act together and sort out a military command that has been on this issue – complicit in ordering a modern Charge of the Light Brigade – see The Valley of Death.
One of the most extraordinary things about the Lariam story is this. It is normal, healthy even, to have homicidal feelings in the wake of injuries like those Lariam causes you and your friends and the suffering it brings to families. No-one trained to take action, however, has put on Warpaint.
This book by one of their own should be very uncomfortable reading for anyone in or linked to the military but better this than donning Warpaint.
To Be ContinuedShare this:
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
So began a journey towards the truth, a truth that vested interests in the United Kingdom and around the globe were determined to conceal.
In a unique exposé of an entirely preventable pharmaceutical disaster, Marriott turns a spotlight on the murky world of clandestine military and industrial research in the United States in which Lariam was developed. With other survivors, including some very courageous women, he undertakes a forensic examination of a scandal extending to the upper echelons of government and the armed forces. A culture of betrayal and dishonour had imperilled those defending our country to the most insidious and silent form of friendly fire.
This is the book Johnny Mercer could have written.
UK Surgeon General Defends Use Of Lariam
The British military’s Surgeon General has defended the use of anti-malarial drug Lariam, despite evidence of serious side-effects among…
Can I say…
Can I just say…
Can I say…
(sign up to watch this video, you can unsign later)
Can I say
An MHRA spokesperson said it had been granted an extension to the deadline for replying to the coroner’s demand for action “in order to seek independent expert advice.” The spokesperson added, “We are currently reviewing the available evidence on the suspected association between doxycycline and psychotic disorder.
Can I say
New @NICECommsdepression guideline warns about suicidal feelings or agitation at start of antidepressant treatment. Patients & their families should be alerted to this.
Bereaved families have had a vital influence on this guideline. #SuicidePrevention
Can I just say
Louis Appleby had every opportunity to put this in his presentation at RCP Conference but failed to do so
‘spotted flycatchers & spotless starlings, vultures, lizards, bats, tortoises & hummingbird hawk moths.’
Can I say
‘caricatures of science that have killed and maimed tens of thousands of people.’
If you Wake at Midnight…friendly fire…
Does it boost anybody’s confidence in trust, transparency, integrity ,blah blah
Covid-19: Researchers face wait for patient level data from Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials
BMJ 2022; 378 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o1731 (Published 12 July 2022)
Independent researchers looking to obtain patient level data from the Pfizer and Moderna covid-19 vaccine trials may have to wait longer. In status reports filed recently with the US federal trials registry (clinicaltrials.gov) between February and May, both companies extended the dates by which the trials will be completed, Pfizer by nine months, from 15 May 2023 to 8 February 2024. Moderna’s expected completion date is delayed from 27 October to 29 December 2022.
Pfizer indicated in its trial protocol that individual participant data would be made available two years after study completion.1 Now that the date has been pushed back, Pfizer will entertain and review requests “when the study is complete and all planned analyses have been performed,” said the company’s senior director of global media relations, Jerica Pitts.
Luis Carlos Saiz, a researcher at the Innovation and Organisation Unit of the Navarre Regional Health Service, Spain, said that access to raw patient data was important for researchers because “it is key to build trust in health policies and to protect citizens from potential vested interests.”
The raw patient data would allow independent researchers to assess trials and verify results. “The vaccination strategies adopted by health authorities all over the world must be audited and checked by looking carefully at the raw data,” said Saiz, especially given the “revelations of poor practices” at vaccine trial sites as reported by The BMJ.2
Pitts explained by email that the completion date needed to be changed because of a single study participant “who received their second vaccination very late,” in the spring of 2022. “Given that the timing of downstream visits are dependent upon completion of the initial two doses, this pushed the overall primary completion date for the study out,” Pitts wrote. The total enrolment is 44 000 participants.3
Reformulating booster shots
In June the US Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee recommended that manufacturers reformulate booster shots to target omicron variants as well as the original strain.
Dick Bijl, president of the International Society of Drug Bulletins, is among the researchers who cite uncertainties about whether the products will be effective enough to warrant additional doses and whether the benefit will outweigh the risk of potential side effects—and how that risk-benefit ratio will differ among subgroups. “The main problem is that we need all the data,” he said. “The public needs transparent, open study details so they can judge for themselves whether they want to vaccinate or not.”
Bijl cited a recent preprint study that examined the first four months of Pfizer and Moderna trial data—the same dataset that was the basis for FDA emergency use authorisation—and found an excess risk of serious adverse events of 12.5 per 10 000.4 The authors pointed to the need for more formal analysis: “Individual participant data for all serious adverse events is not publicly available at present, but would help identify factors (e.g. age and comorbidities) that may elevate the risk.”
Bijl and Saiz are among hundreds of physicians and researchers who’ve joined the non-profit organisation Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, which is suing the FDA to make Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine biological product file data public and has already prompted some data to be released through the Freedom of Information Act, which the organisation is publishing on its website.5
Over the past decade researchers have pushed regulators successfully for more data transparency, achieving policy victories within the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada. In a May 2020 letter, researchers from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and Cochrane urged the EMA to publish detailed clinical study reports on all covid-19 drugs and vaccines in spite of accelerated authorisation,6 which they have done. But neither the EMA nor Health Canada holds participant level datasets; only the FDA and the sponsors do. “To assess these products further and to accelerate the development of additional products, the fast and full public availability of the information submitted to regulators is of utmost importance. Transparency is also vital to maintain public trust during the crisis,” said the letter.
CCVAC, COVID-19, Informed consent, PutChildrenFirst
Letter to UK health authorities, re: 6 month to 4 years Covid vaccines
Letter to UK health authorities, re: 6 month to 4 years Covid vaccines
Dr June Raine, CEO MHRA
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chairman JCVI COVID-19 vaccines sub-committee
Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer
Dr Jenny Harries, CEO, UKHSA
Hon.Sajid Javid, MP, Secretary of State for Health & Social Care
30th June 2022
Dear Dr Raine,
Re: Covid-19 vaccines for 6 months to 4 years age group
We are writing to you urgently concerning the announcement that the FDA has granted an Emergency Use Authorisation for both Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines in preschool children.
We would urge you to consider very carefully the move to vaccinate ever younger and younger children against SARS-CoV-2, despite the gradual but significant reducing virulence of successive variants, the increasing evidence of rapidly waning vaccine efficacy, the increasing concerns over long-term vaccine harms, and the knowledge that the vast majority of this young age group have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly and have demonstrably effective immunity. Thus, the balance of benefit and risk which supported the rollout of mRNA vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable in 2021, is totally inappropriate for small children in 2022.
We also strongly challenge the addition of Covid-19 vaccination into the routine child immunisation programme,[i]despite no demonstrated clinical need, known and unknown risks (see below) and the fact that these vaccines still have only conditional marketing authorisation.
It is noteworthy that the Pfizer documentation[ii] presented to the FDA has huge gaps in the evidence provided:
The protocol was changed mid-trial. The original 2-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.
There was no statistically significant difference between the placebo and vaccinated groups in either the 6–23-month age group or the 2-4-year-olds even after the third dose. Astonishingly the results were based on just three participants in the younger age group (1 vaccinated and 2 placebo) and just seven participants in the older 2–4-year-olds (2 vaccinated and 5 placebo). Indeed, for the younger age the confidence intervals ranged from minus 367% to plus 99%. The manufacturer stated that the numbers were too low to draw any confident conclusions. Moreover, these limited numbers come only from children infected more than 7 days after the third dose.
Over the whole time period from the first dose onwards (see page 39 Tables 19 & 20), there were a total of 225 infected children in the vaccinated arm and 150 in the placebo arm, giving a calculated vaccine efficacy of only 25% (14% for the 6-23 months, and 33% for 2-4s).
The additional immunogenicity studies against Omicron, requested by the FDA, only involved a total of 66 children tested one month after the third dose (see page 35).
It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children. When it comes to safety, the data is even thinner: only 1057 children, some already unblinded, were followed for just 2 months. It is noteworthy that Sweden and Norway are not recommending the vaccine for 5-11s and Holland is not recommending it for children who have already had Covid-19. The director of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority stated recently that with what is now known, the decision to vaccinate children was a mistake.[iii]
We summarise below the overwhelming arguments against this vaccination.
A. Extremely low risk from Covid-19 to young children
In the whole of 2020 and 2021, not a single child aged 1-9 died where Covid-19 was the sole diagnosis on the death certificate, according to ONS data.[iv]
A detailed study in England from 1st March 2020 to 1st March 2021 found only 6 children under 18 years died with no comorbidities. There were no deaths aged 1-4 years.[v]
Children clear the virus more easily than adults.[vi]
Children mount effective, robust, and sustained immune responses.[vii]
Since the arrival of the Omicron variant, infections have been generally much milder. That is also true for unvaccinated under 5s.[viii]
By June 2022 it is now estimated that 89% of 1-4-year-olds had already had SARS-CoV-2 infection.[ix]
Recent data from Israel shows excellent long-lasting immunity following infection in children, especially in 5-11s.[x]
B. Poor vaccine efficacy
In adults it has become apparent that vaccine efficacy wanes steadily over time, necessitating boosters at regular intervals. Specifically, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly against the latest Omicron variants.
In children vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly in 5-11s than in 12-17s, possibly related to the lower dose used in the paediatric formulation. One study from New York showed efficacy against Omicron falling to only 12% by 4-5 weeks and to negative values by 5-6 weeks post second dose.[xi]
In the Pfizer 0-4s trial,1 the efficacy after two doses fell to negative values, necessitating a change to the trial protocol. After a third dose there was a suggestion of efficacy from 7-30 days but there is no data beyond 30 days to see how quickly this will wane.
C. Potential harms of Covid-19 vaccines for children
There has been great concern about myocarditis in adolescents and young adults, especially in males after the second dose, estimated at 1/2600 in active post marketing surveillance in Hong Kong.[xii] The emerging evidence of persistent cardiac abnormalities[xiii] in adolescents with post mRNA vaccine myopericarditis, as demonstrated by cardiac MRI at 3-8 months follow up, suggests this is far from ‘mild and shot-lived’. The potential for longer term effects requires further study and calls for the strictest application of the precautionary principle in respect of the youngest and most vulnerable children.
Although post-vaccination myocarditis appears to be less common in 5-11-year-olds than older children, it is, none-the-less, increased over baseline.[xiv]
In the Pfizer study 50% of vaccinated children had systemic adverse events, including irritability and fever. Diagnosis of myocarditis is much more difficult in younger children.[xv] No troponin levels or ECG studies were documented. Even a vaccinated child in the trial, hospitalised with fever, calf pain and a raised CPK, had no report of D-dimers, antiplatelet antibodies or troponin levels.
In Pfizer’s 5-11s post-authorisation conditions, they are required to conduct studies looking for myocarditis and are not due to report results until 2027.
Of equal concern are, as yet unknown, negative effects on the immune system. In the 0-4s trial, only 7 children were described as having ‘severe’ Covid-19 – 6 vaccinated and 1 given placebo. Similarly, for the 12 children with recurrent episodes of infection, 10 were vaccinated against only 2 who received placebo. These are all tiny figures and much too small to rule out any adverse impact such as antibody dependant enhancement (ADE)[xvi] and other impacts on the immune system.
Also unanswered is the question of Original Antigenic Sin.[xvii] It is of note that in a large Israeli study, those infected after vaccination had poorer cover than those vaccinated after infection.[xviii] In the Moderna trial, N antibodies were seen in only 40% of those infected after vaccination, compared to 93% of those infected after placebo.[xix]
There is evidence of vaccine-induced disruption of both innate and adaptive[xx],[xxi] immune responses. The possibility of developing an impaired immune function would be disastrous for children, who have the most competent innate immunity, which by now has been effectively trained by the circulating virus.
Totally unknown is whether there will be any adverse effect on T-cell function leading to an increase in cancers.[xxii]
Also, in terms of reproductive function, limited animal biodistribution studies showed lipid nanoparticles concentrate in ovaries and testes.[xxiii] Adult sperm donors have showed a reduction in sperm counts particularly of motile sperm, falling by 3 months post-vaccination and remaining depressed at 4-5 months.[xxiv]
Even for adults, concerns are rising that serious adverse events are in excess of hospitalisations from Covid-19.[xxv]
D. Informed consent
For 5-11s, the JCVI, in recommending a ‘non-urgent offer’ of vaccination, specifically noted the importance of fully informed consent with no coercion.[xxvi]
With the low uptake in this age group, the presence of ‘therapy dogs’,[xxvii] advertisements including superhero images[xxviii] and information about child vaccination protecting friends and family, all clearly run contrary to the concept of consent, fully informed and freely given.[xxix]
The complete omission of information explaining to the public the different and novel technology used in Covid-19 vaccines compared to standard vaccines, and the failure to inform of the lack of any long-term safety data, borders on misinformation.[xxx]
E. Effect on public confidence
Vaccines against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles, need to be prioritised.[xxxi] Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine onto young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunisation programme.
The poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer risks bringing the pharmaceutical industry into disrepute and the regulators if this product is authorised.
In summary, young healthy children are at minimal risk from Covid-19, especially since the arrival of the Omicron variant. Most have been repeatedly exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus, yet have remained well, or have had short, mild illness. As detailed above, the vaccines are of brief efficacy, have known short- to medium-term risks and unknown long-term safety. Data for clinically useful efficacy in small children are scant or absent. In older children, for whom they are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination programme.
For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licences. Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunisation programme.
There is a long list of those who have signed this on the web site
“Too Big to Nail”
Watch this blast from the past. Send this to those who worship the vaccine.
“Too Big To Nail” is about the criminal activity that has been covered up by the US government.
Deaths After Vaccination in Pfizer Trial Not Fully Investigated, New Documents Reveal
BY WILL JONES
13 JULY 2022 5:18 PM
The revelations come in a report from Pfizer released on July 1st by court order as part of the documents which the U.S. FDA relied on to grant emergency use authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine in December 2020. They add to worries that adverse effects of the vaccine in the clinical trials were not properly documented, giving a potentially misleading picture of the drug’s safety.
These reports add to the accumulating evidence that adverse events in the trials were not fully or properly investigated and recorded, giving a potentially misleading picture of the vaccines’ safety. Such evidence includes the disturbing stories of Maddie de Garay, a 12 year-old girl who was left nearly blind and suffering daily seizures shortly after receiving the vaccine during the Pfizer trial, an injury which Pfizer recorded as unrelated “abdominal pain”, and Augusto Roux, who was hospitalised with heart inflammation which the hospital doctor wrote was an adverse reaction to the vaccine but which was recorded by Pfizer as unrelated “bilateral pneumonia”. In addition, Danish investigators have found that more people died in the vaccine arms of the mRNA trials than in the control arms. The need for proper investigation by the medical authorities into the safety of the Covid vaccines remains as urgent as ever.
“Too Big to Nail” – “it was like having an imaginary friend, a bad guy…”
Replying to @edwarddowd
@EdwardDowd GB NEWS, THE STUDIO FULL OF FAMILIES OF DEAD AND INJURED FROM THE COVID VACCINE. aired live on UK TV on the Mark Steyn show.
VICTIMS OF THE VAX
Mark is joined by the vaccine injured and bereaved
with Dan Wootton and Neil Oliver and Sir Christopher Chope MP OBE and Vikki Spit (first victim payment) and Michelle Dewberry
“You guys are frosted out”…
The covid discussion can rage on but the above blog is about the book ‘If you wake at Midnight’ and the evils of Lariam (Mefloquine). Mefloquine is one of several anti-malarials based on quinoline, which itself is a parent of the original quinolone antibiotics. These days we are probably more familiar with the name fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, Levaquin, Avelox/moxifloxacin and Ofloxacin) and hopefully have them all down as likely to cause serious and long lasting or permanent ADRs.
What many people, HCPs and innocent patients alike, don’t expect is to see serious psychiatric ADRs from fluoroquinolones. Unfortunately these are often overlooked and the common side effect of insomnia is dismissed while the anxiety and panic attacks are often dealt with by gaslighting. Occasionally I’m contacted by (or about) someone who experiences no physical problems from a fluoroquinlone but has suddenly become preoccupied with the idea of jumping off a cliff. Because these effects are played down (practically smothered) by MHRA*, doctors rarely see them as being caused by an antibiotic while the psyche docs also dismiss this as a possible cause and can’t wait to get their prescription pads out.
I wrote a blog about all this at: https://rxisk.org/cipro-will-do-the-trick-fda-fad-and-you/
so, going back to their origins and Lariam, the linked BBC news article from 2016 is very relevant as it describes how the Army Chief (Lord Dannatt) refused Lariam after he saw how severely his son was affected:
It points out that:
The MoD’s doctors prescribed Lariam to more than 17,000 troops between April 2007 and March 2015, although it is not the main anti-malaria drug used by the armed forces.
Lord Dannatt said the drug’s side-effects – which can include depression and suicidal thoughts – could be “pretty catastrophic”.
He said: “Because [my son experienced] that effect, whenever I’ve needed anti-malarial drugs, I’ve said, ‘I’ll take anything, but I’m not taking Lariam.'”
He added he was happy to “say sorry” to the troops. Well, this is more than anyone will ever get from MHRA so perhaps the troops still struggling even now should be grateful.
* June Raine, CEO of MHRA, said at an open board meeting last year that “there’s no need to over-emphasise the risks”. The discussion was about the very well known risks of Oxycontin. I’ve also heard her say the same in discussions about Isotretinoin so I’m happy to assume not over-emphasising risk is standard practice in their office.
The Fever Trail: 2001…
Lariam: The malaria drug’s shocking psychological side effects
While Lariam has been proven to be one of the most proficient medications in halting malaria infections, its side effects have earned it more criticism than praise.
In 2002, four American soldiers were accused of murdering their wives. Two of the accused committed suicide shortly thereafter. And while the brutal crimes may have been attributed to post-traumatic stress resulting from combat, the accused pointed to psychotic episodes as a result of the use of Larium.
According to a CBS report at the time, the Fort Bragg murders brought Larium’s side effects under the microscope. Following the incident, other soldiers and their wives began speaking out on the side effects of Larium. Despite medical reports detailing the prolonged harmful effects of Larium, the US government denied the correlation between the drug’s use and the Fort Bragg murders.
More recently, Irish soldiers administered Larium during overseas deployment returned home suffering from fierce neuropsychiatric disorders. These soldiers, who were duty-bound to use the drug, have now launched legal proceedings against the Minister for Defence in May 2018.
According to the law firm representing the complainants, 75 soldiers have laid legal complaints against the government for administering Larium. As reported by The Independent, the soldiers are being represented by solicitor Norman Spicer, a former Defence Forces member, who also experienced the adverse effects of Larium while deployed in Chad. Spicer explained:
“I believe it [Larium] to have been administered in such a way that falls below standards which one might expect to receive. A lot of the soldiers I have been speaking to have suffered very badly.”
A former female Defence Forces member taking legal action reported that, following the use of Larium, he suffered from suicidal thoughts, had to seek psychiatric treatment and now has difficulty securing and maintaining full-time employment.
‘It’s not a benign drug – it has ruined my life’
Thousands take the anti-malarial drug Lariam every year, most without any problems. But some claim it causes serious side effects, ranging from depression to suicidal – or even homicidal – impulses. So should it be banned? Mark Honigsbaum investigates
Thu 24 Oct 2002
Roche accused them of “hype and hysteria”
Indeed, they claim that if Hoffmann-LaRoche had taken their concerns about the severe psychiatric side effects associated with its anti-malaria medication, Lariam, more seriously seven years ago, Brunt might now be enjoying a brilliant career at Cambridge.
As John O’Callaghan, a 29-year-old Australian who became mentally ill after taking Lariam during a surfing trip to Indonesia, wrote in a suicide note two years ago: “Since [Lariam] first blew my brains apart… I have never been the same, always dazed and confused, always physically sick. I never thought this could happen to me. Sorry mum, dad.”
Mark Honigsbaum is the author of The Fever Trail: In Search of the Cure for Malaria (Macmillan); the paperback will be published on November 8. For further information, email: LariamInfo@earthlink.net.
Instead they battle on in laboratories and facilities desperate to find what has eluded mankind for centuries. A cure.