- Carol Waters on CDC officials discuss neurological damage from vaccines in secret meeting – Simpsonwood
- Josh on Congressman introduces bill requiring study of autism rate in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated
- Bruni Brewin on Dr Wakefield: Govt. experts have conceded that MMR vaccine caused autism
- Prudence Dagg on What happens if you decide not to vaccinate your child?
- Dan on What happens if you decide not to vaccinate your child?
Author Archives: The Refusers
By Jon Rappoport May 16, 2014
At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.
Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?
I’m talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).
And with that, let’s go to the smoking guns. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.
Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song It’s only a Coincidence
Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; because the FDA has a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Search engine “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions” or click here to be taken directly to the FDA page in question).
And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.
Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn’t I go along with Janet Napolitano’s advice: see something, say something.
This is what I see and this is what I’m saying. Maybe DHS would like to investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization.
How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?
Do we need 100,000 smoking guns every year? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?
And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?
I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.
All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art medical research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.
The buck stops at the FDA.
Except in the real world, it doesn’t. Which tells you something about the so-called real world and how much of it is composed of propaganda.
Here is the situation. No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That’s the rule. The FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade. The FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what’s going on. This is mass murder. Not accidental death. Murder. A holocaust.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Unavoidable Unsafe
Jon Rappoport is an investigative reporter, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Exclusive interview by Jon Rappoport April 25, 2014 NoMoreFakeNews.com
Before her recent resignation from CBS, Sharyl Attkisson was a mainstream news star. Multiple Emmys. CNN anchor, CBS anchor on stories about space exploration. Host of CBS’ News Up to the Minute. PBS host for Health Week. Investigative reporter for CBS.
Attkisson dug deep into Fast&Furious, Benghazi, and the ill-effects of vaccines. Too deep. Her bosses shut her down and didn’t air key stories.
She now has her own website, sharylattkisson.com. She is writing a book, Stonewalled: My Fight for the Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.
It’s not every day that a major mainstream journalist leaves the fold and then seeks to expose the corruption that impinged on her work.
She agreed to do an email interview. Some of the questions I sent went to the heart of her book-in-progress, so she declined to answer them. However, her answers to my other questions were revealing and explosive.
In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
You’ve revealed serious problems caused by vaccines. Have you run into opposition as a result of covering these stories?
This is a long discussion but yes, it is one of the most well funded, well orchestrated efforts I’ve ever seen on a story. Many reporters, if not all, who have tried to factually cover this topic have experienced the same opposition as have researchers who dared to uncover vaccine side effects. Those who don’t want the stories explored want to censor the information from the public entirely, lest the public draw the “wrong” conclusions about the facts. The media has largely bought into the conflicted government, political and medical complex propaganda on the topic that marginalizes researchers, journalists and parents who dare to speak to the scientific facts they’ve uncovered or to their own experiences. It’s a giant scandal of its own.
In an interview with Real Clear Politics, you suggested that the website, Media Matters, has been targeting and attacking you. Why have they gone after you? Because of your work on the Fast&Furious story? Do these people just reflexively react whenever a reporter writes something that casts a negative light on the Obama White House?
I didn’t interview with Real Clear Politics but maybe they quoted my interview with CNN. MediaMatters is well known to be a left wing propaganda group that acts as a pro-Obama surrogate to attack journalists that threaten the agenda. It works in concert with federal officials who withhold public information from the press and the public but then share it with MediaMatters so that the “talking points” of the day can be controlled and manipulated. (One example: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/) The group works with other surrogates such as Talking Points Memo to controversialize and harass reporters to intimidate them and try to stop their damaging coverage. None of that is surprising or unexpected. They are simply using a media campaign to try to squelch the journalists who they believe could damage the interests of those they serve. The only strange part of the equation is that the “mainstream” press at times almost treats these paid opinion bloggers as if they are objective media watchdogs. I don’t see these news organizations respond to the right wing counterparts with the same deference. They news media typically doesn’t quote conservative media ‘watchdogs’ or question journalists about the conservative watchdogs’ criticisms and observations. Just the liberal ‘watchdogs.’
At this moment in time, because you’re not employed by a major news network, are you viewed by the media establishment as a loose cannon? Are you being painted as an outsider, a weirdo, a chronic dissenter with an axe to grind?
All of the above, I suppose, but I don’t pay attention that. It’s expected. I have heard from many colleagues at various networks who are happy that I’m in a position to speak freely of things that they, too have experienced and observed but cannot say publicly.
My comment on Attkisson’s answers: Her discussion of the endlessly corrupt CDC is remarkable. The most hyped “epidemic” in recent history, Swine Flu, had absolutely no basis in fact. It was one more effort to promote vaccines and scare the public. And the harassment of mainstream reporters who question the sacred conventional wisdom about vaccines is another piece of the story.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Vaccine Gestapo
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, Jon Rappoport has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.
By Charlotte Gilruth, CCH – Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice
Apr 22, 2014
Scapegoating usually is an oversimplification of a more complex issue. (1)
Contrary to the stated goals of official health organizations such as the CDC and WHO, measles could not be eliminated even if everyone on the planet were to be vaccinated. On the contrary, mass vaccination seems to be exacerbating measles’ spread.
A study published in Great Britain’s Proceedings of the Royal Society (2) found that measles vaccination “can have a range of unexpected consequences as it reduces the natural boosting of immunity” and that “the interaction between vaccination and waning immunity can lead to pronounced epidemic cycles in which the peak levels of infection can be…orders of magnitude greater than the mean.”
Microbes constantly mutate, so vaccines may become less and less successful at protecting against new circulating strains, similar to the way overuse of antibiotics promotes growth of resistant bacteria such as MRSA. The international medical community is addressing this important phenomenon of “vaccine-driven pathogen evolution.” (3)
Measles can be spread through vaccinated individuals. The CDC cites 21 cases of measles occurring in a fully vaccinated secondary school, which “…demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%.” (4)
The origin of an outbreak in New York City in 2011 was traced to an “index patient” who had two doses of measles-containing vaccine, and spread the infection to four “secondary patients” who had either two doses of measles vaccine or confirmed positive test for measles antibody. (5)
Any vaccine can lead to encephalitis (brain damage, through swelling of the brain): The Merck Manual, the largest-selling medical textbook, says vaccines can cause encephalitis when “A virus or vaccine triggers a reaction that makes the immune system attack brain tissue (an autoimmune reaction).” (6)
In the package insert of Merck’s M-M-R II vaccine, “Encephalitis; encephalopthy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) are listed as possible adverse reactions, with the comment that “the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases may have been caused by measles vaccines.” (7)
Of of the nearly $2.7 billion total paid out in claims for vaccine injuries and deaths from 1988 to the present by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), 12% was for deaths and injuries attributed to measles vaccines. (8)
In the VICP, only four conditions are covered for measles-containing vaccines: Anaphylactic shock, Encephalopathy (or encephalitis), Thrombocytopenic purpura [excessive bruising and bleeding], and Vaccine-strain Measles Viral Infection in an immunodeficient recipient. (9) Those vaccinated against measles can endanger immune-compromised individuals through shedding of live viruses.
Vaccines are not necessarily as effective as we are led to believe. Merck has been sued for falsification of data and for making fraudulent claims about the efficacy of the Mumps component of its M-M-R II vaccine. (10) This case has been tied up in court since 2012. How can we believe Merck’s claims about its many other vaccines?
Most of these problems apply to other types of vaccines, making it clear that vaccination is fraught with ambiguity, and that the tiny percentage of those who opt out - less than 2% of children entering kindergarten nationwide are not vaccinated at all (11) – cannot be blamed for the failure of vaccines to check the spread of disease.
Nearly 300 vaccines are under development, (12) and following current protocols, most will eventually be mandated. Even now it’s reasonable to forgo at least a few shots of the dozens required, yet throughout the country, hostility mounts toward thinking health care consumers who decline vaccination for a variety of good reasons.. A survey by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found 25 percent of pediatricians have fired patients for refusing vaccines. (13)
The Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice regularly hears complaints from those who have been disrespected by their physicians because of their vaccine choices. Recently, two of my close family members were subjected to varying degrees of pressure to be vaccinated themselves while pregnant; one was later harassed for refusing to vaccinate her newborn. (The doctor honorably apologized the next day.)
As the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and the government increasingly dominate health care, it becomes ever more urgent to hold onto our right to informed consent regarding all medical choices–including the highly personal matter of whether to accept vaccination for oneself or one’s children. Informed consent, a cornerstone of medical ethics, is summarized by the AMA as a communication process to “elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.” (14)
Informed consent by definition includes the right to say “no.” Period.
Charlotte Gilruth, CCH
Secretary Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice
1) Anonymous comment. “Herd Immunity.” Science-based Medicine. 5 June 2009. http://
2) Heffernan, J.M., and Keeling, M.J. “Implications of vaccination and waning immunity.” Proceedings of the Royal Society. 4 March 2009. http://tinyurl.com/l8jm7kn
3) “Vaccination: an evolutionary engine for species?” Fondation Merieux. 25-27 November 2013. http://tinyurl.com/la6lmlv
4) “Measles Outbreak among Vaccinated High School Students–Illinois.” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report/CDC. 22 June 1984. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
5) Jennifer B. Rosen, Jennifer S. Rota, Carole J. Hickman, Sun B. Sowers, Sara Mercader, Paul A. Rota, William J. Bellini, Ada J. Huang, Margaret K. Doll, Jane R. Zucker, and Christopher M. Zimmerman. “Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011.” Clinical Infectious Diseases/Oxford Journals. Volume 58 Issue 9. 1 May 2014. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/9/1205
6) “Encephalitis.” Merck Manual Home Health Handbook. May 2013. http://tinyurl.com/kpqsuyu
7) Merck & Co., Inc. “M-M-R® II (MEASLES, MUMPS, and RUBELLA VIRUS VACCINE LIVE).” (vaccine package insert). Food and Drug Administration. http://tinyurl.com/nyqwxtj
8) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. “Data and Statistics.” Human Resources and Services Administration. 2 April 2014. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html
9) Ibid. “Vaccine Injury Table of covered vaccines and associated injuries.” http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html
10) Kramer, Reuben. “Class Says Merck Lied About Mumps Vaccine.” Courthouse News Service. 27 June 2012. http://tinyurl.com/7hj7372
11) “Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2012–13 School Year.” CDC: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). 2 August 2013. http://tinyurl.com/lflzpoc
12) Taylor, Lynne. “US biopharma: nearly 300 vaccines in R&D, Online Pharma Times. 24 April 2012. http://tinyurl.com/kh2fkmx
13) Jaslow, Ryan. “Doctors fire patients who refuse vaccines for children: Ethical?” CBS News. 30 March 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-fire-patients-who-refuse-vaccines-for-their-children-ethical/
14) Shaz, Beth H., MD. “Donor’s Written Statement of Understanding.” (p.6) FDA. June 2009. http://tinyurl.com/n8apvhg
“I think the CDC Should Be Investigated.” Congressman Bill Posey
PRNewswire Apr 16, 2014
WATCHUNG, N.J., April 16, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — In an April 8 interview on AutismOne’s A Conversation of Hope radio show, Congressman Bill Posey’s strong resolve and demands for transparency were evident as he discussed the Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s handling of vaccine safety studies which affect “our most precious resource in our nation – our children.” The 30-minute interview, conducted by vaccine industry watchdog, PhD biochemist Brian Hooker, delves into what Posey called “the incestuous relationship between the public health community and the vaccine makers and public officials.”
The Florida legislator, known as “Mr. Accountabililty,” did not mince words when criticizing current and past CDC officials including indicted fraudster Dr. Poul Thorsen; CDC director turned Merck Vaccine President Dr. Julie Gerberding; and the agency’s current spokesperson regarding autism and vaccines, Dr. Coleen Boyle.
On Thorsen, Posey said “If you read through the emails and learned about the meetings and the financial arrangement this crook had with the CDC, it will make you absolutely sick to your stomach. This was no casual researcher way down the line. This is the CDC’s key man in Denmark. He was closely tied to the CDC’s top vaccine safety researchers… as long as Thorsen was cooking the books to produce the results they wanted, they didn’t care whether the studies were valid or how much money was being siphoned off the top…It’s like the Security and Exchange Commission and Bernie Madoff. But it’s worse because we’re talking about someone who basically stole money that was supposed to be used to improve the health and safety of our most vulnerable in our society – our young babies.”
Click PLAY to hear Refusers CDC song Vaccine Gestapo
Dr. Hooker remarked that Thorsen had collaborated with the CDC on 36 papers, not just one paper as claimed by Dr. Boyle, and that the agency refused to investigate studies exonerating vaccines’ role in causing autism following his indictment on wire fraud and money laundering. Posey described Boyle as “intentionally evasive,” in his questioning of her at a Congressional hearing. “I asked her a very direct question. ‘Have you done a study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children?…’ She started telling us about everything she’s done …After she wasted three minutes, I cut her off and I demanded that she answer the question. And then, only then, did she admit that the federal government has never done that very simple, fundamental, basic study.”
About Boyle’s denial of a true increase in autism, Posey said, “I know we have an autism epidemic. You know it. She knows it. She knows we know it. But for some reason they refuse to acknowledge it publicly.” Regarding Boyle’s assertion that the increase is due to better diagnosing, Posey said, “I don’t think anybody that’s intellectually honest with this issue can begin to fathom that lame excuse that she uses.” He also described an orchestrated campaign on behalf of the CDC and vaccine industry: “people who do all the blogging and shredding anyone who dares question the unaccountable bureaucrats.” He spoke of “their little media network [that will] twist the truth to disparage, to malign, to vilify, to denigrate anybody who wants any kind of accountability….”
Posey then discussed his co-sponsorship with Rep. Carolyn Maloney of the Vaccine Safety Study Act. He said the proposed legislation would compel the government to conduct a retrospective vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study of health outcomes. He felt it could be done with “accountability and direct oversight of the government”
In his closing remarks, Posey said, “The CDC can’t be trusted regarding investigating vaccine safety. Huge conflict of interest. I think the CDC should be investigated.”
Barry Segal, founder of Focus Autism, which sponsors Dr. Hooker’s investigative research, called the interview “a game changer.”
Representative Bill Posey is serving his third term in Florida’s 8th Congressional District. He serves on the Committee for Science, Space and Technology. He was instrumental in the release of CDC documents regarding a link between vaccines and autism. These papers are now being analyzed by several researchers, including Dr. Brian Hooker.
Brian Hooker, PhD, PE, has 15 years experience in the field of bioengineering and is an associate professor at Simpson University where he specializes in biology and chemistry. His over 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Hooker has a son, aged 16, who developed normally but then regressed into autism after receiving Thimerosal (mercury-containing) vaccines.
The Focus Autism Foundation is dedicated to providing information that exposes the cause or causes of the autism epidemic and the rise of chronic illnesses – focusing specifically on the role of vaccinations. A Shot of Truth is an educational website sponsored by Focus Autism. AutismOne is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that provides education and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis.
Media Contact: A Shot of Truth, A Shot of Truth, (844)367-2768, email@example.com
News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com
SOURCE A Shot of Truth
by Amy Davidson April 15, 2014 The New Yorker
Awarding the Pulitzer for public service to the Guardian and the Washington Post should go down as about the easiest call the prize committee has ever had to make. It would have been a scandal, this year, if there had been no Pulitzer related to the documents that Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, leaked to several reporters. This was a defining case of the press doing what it is supposed to do. The President was held accountable; he had to answer questions that he would rather not have and, when his replies proved unsatisfying to the public—and, in some cases, just rang false—his Administration had to change its policies. Congress had to confront its own failures of oversight; private companies had to rethink their obligations to their customers and to law enforcement; and people had conversations at home and at school and pretty much everywhere about what they, themselves, would be willing to let the N.S.A. do to them. Justice Scalia recently said that he fully expected these issues to be before the Supreme Court soon, because we’ve had a chance to read the Snowden papers. And journalists have had to think about their own obligations—to the law, the Constitution, their readers, and even, in the practice of reporting in the age of technical tracking, to sources they might expose or make vulnerable. Any one of those aspects would be a major public service. How could that not be Pulitzer material?
And yet, the Post itself acknowledged that some people might be angry, noting that the documents were classified and came from Snowden, “who has fled to exile in Russia, lending a controversial edge to this year’s awards.” Congressman Peter King, in character, tweeted that “Awarding the Pulitzer to Snowden enablers is a disgrace.”
He’s wrong. What is meant by “enabling”—that the reporters involved were Snowden’s mousy little couriers? The public-service successes wrought by these stories were not inevitable. As explosive as the papers would have been on their own, with no mediation, the shape of the scandal has also been a function of careful journalism. It didn’t have to play out this way: either paper could have bungled it. They had to be judicious and brave. Each has more documents than it has published, and has been scrupulous about what it shares, making sure to give a sense of what the acronyms and connections mean. (In a way, the Pulitzer is also for what the papers have not made public.) Each has also reported out the stories, which includes going to the government for comment—listening to what it has to say, dealing with its pressure sensibly and not reflexively—and then publishing certain things that it has been told it should keep secret. The newspapers have been called criminal. As Janine Gibson, the editor-in-chief of Guardian US, said after the award announcement, “It’s been an intense, exhaustive, and sometimes chilling year working on this story.”
The Post and the Guardian’s peers could have left them alone and exposed. Instead, half a dozen other outlets have had some part of the papers, and many more have followed up on the leads that they present. But imagine an alternate history, with journalists charged with crimes, official explanations and claims of outrageous damage unchallenged, and a couple of bad court rulings tightening the parameters on freedom of the press. It’s not farfetched. (Look at Snowden’s situation.) This Pulitzer was deserved in part because publishing the papers was a risky thing to do, not despite it.
It makes sense that the prizes went to the papers, and not just to a few of the dozens of reporters and editors who worked on this story. That’s not to quarrel with the George Polk Award, which went, last week, to Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill, for the Guardian, and Barton Gellman, at the Washington Post, who had the main bylines on the big stories, and who took the earliest gambles. (If one were forced to choose the single journalist who most made the story happen, it would be Poitras.) But it’s good that the Pulitzer committee is used to recognizing teams, because that’s what this one took. The Post said that its contingent included twenty-eight people (including Julie Tate, late of The New Yorker); the Guardian mentioned, in addition to Greenwald, Poitras, and MacAskill, Gibson, Stuart Millar, Paul Johnson, Nick Hopkins, and ten others.
If one looks over the list of Pulitzer winners for public service, starting in 1918, it is striking how well this prize fits in. A good proportion have to do with government corruption, whether it involves money or power. The Times won for publishing the Pentagon Papers, in 1972, and the Post for its Watergate investigation, in 1973.
Interview with Dr. Peter Gotzsche, author of Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime
Dr. Gøtzsche is co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. His new book is entitled: Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare.
Apr 8, 2014
ANH-Intl: Towards the end of your book you state that “What we should do is … identify overdiagnosed and overtreated patients, take patients off most or all of their drugs, and teach them that a life without drugs is possible for most of us.” Can you please explain this a little further?
PG: Removal of drugs should usually not be accompanied by the introduction of other types of treatment. Many patients would gain a better quality of life if their drugs were taken away from them. What we need is to remember Brian McFerrin’s song: “Don’t worry, be happy”. We shall all die, but we should remember to live while we are here without worrying that some day in the future we might get ill. It is daunting how many healthy people are put on drugs that lower blood pressure or cholesterol, and it changes people from healthy citizens to patients who may start worrying about their good health. This can have profound psychological consequences apart from the side effects of the drugs that the patients don’t always realise are side effects, e.g. if they get more tired or depressed after starting antihypertensive therapy or experience problems in their sex life.
ANH-Intl: What can the public and patients do to help redress the situation? Are they effectively disempowered or are there things they can do to help build a more functional healthcare system?
PG: First of all, the public needs to know the extent to which they are being deceived in the current system, e.g. few people know that prescription drugs are the third major killer. If drug testing and drug regulation were effective, this wouldn’t happen.
ANH-Intl: Numerous problems with the medical literature are cited in your book, among them unpublished trials, fiddled statistics, unsuitable comparators and other methodological weaknesses and the preponderance of academic ‘flak’ in the form of weak, industry-sourced publications designed to muddy the waters. Bearing this in mind, what advice would you have for anyone wishing to locate high-quality published data?
PG: There are very little high-quality published data. Neither the drug industry nor publicly employed researchers are particularly willing to share their data with others, which essentially means that science ceases to exist. Scrutiny of data by others is a fundamental aspect of science that moves science forward, but that’s not how it works in healthcare. Most doctors are willing to add their names to articles produced by drug companies, although they are being denied access to the data they and their patients have produced and without which the articles cannot be written. This is corruption of academic integrity and betrayal of the trust patients have in the research enterprise. No self-respecting scientists should publish findings based on data to which they do not have free and full access.
ANH-Intl: Are there any classes of drug, as opposed to individual products, for which, in your opinion, there is no valid scientific or medical justification for their use in healthcare?
PG: There are several classes of drugs, e.g. cough medicines and anticholinergic drugs for urinary incontinence, where the effect is doubtful but there is no doubt about their harms, which in my opinion means they should be withdrawn from the market. There are many other types of drugs that likely have no effect. All drugs have side effects, and it is therefore difficult to blind placebo-controlled trials effectively. We know that lack of blinding leads to exaggerated views on the effect for subjective outcomes, such as dementia, depression and pain, and it is for this reason that many drugs, which are believed to have minor effects, likely aren’t effective at all.
There are also classes of drugs where, although an effect has been demonstrated, their availability likely does more harm than good. I write in my book that, although some psychiatric drugs can be helpful sometimes for some patients, our citizens would be far better off if we removed all the psychotropic drugs from the market, as doctors are unable to handle them. Patients get dependent on them, and if used for more than a few weeks, several drugs will cause even worse disorders than the one that led to starting the drugs. As far as I can see, it is inescapable that their availability does more harm than good.
ANH-Intl: The chapter in your book entitled “Intimidation, violence and threats to protect sales” begins as follows: “It takes great courage to become a whistle-blower. Healthcare is so corrupt that those who expose drug companies’ criminal acts become pariahs.” Have you experienced any blowback since publishing the book?
PG: No, quite the contrary, as people have praised the book. I don’t hear from the drug industry of course, but I have seen blunt lies about the book being propagated by drug industry associations and their paid allies among doctors.
Vaccine Failure: Twice-Vaccinated Individual Contracts and Transmits Measles – Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal
By MB Apr 11, 2014
Hey all you vaccinated people – you’re not protected! Your measles vaccine insurance policy is a fraud. You can still get and transmit measles to others.
Hey all you media know-nothings who blame every disease case on the unvaccinated – vaccinated people get diseases too and spread them because of VACCINE FAILURE.
Hey Big Pharma, lick your scummy lips at the prospect of selling more doses of failed vaccines to gullible people who will never figure out that vaccines are defective and who will line up obediently like sheep for more doses of your useless and toxic vaccines.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Little Prick
Hey everyone else – do you have a functioning brain that can add 2 and 2? Vaccines are failing, measles eradication is a lie because the vaccinated can get and infect others with measles.
Try this one on for size: Measles eradication efforts actually eliminate herd immunity. Every case of measles in an unvaccinated person is the real herd immunity. They get permanent immunity against measles. Epidemiologists are idiots. The outbreaks they panic over and attempt to suppress with the epidemic models they were taught in BS statistics provide real herd immunity. Permanent immunity gained through natural exposure. That is authentic herd immunity and they are doing everything in their power to stamp it out by using vaccines that will always fail and leave people asking for more doses of vaccines that don’t work.
Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity. Clinical Infectious Diseases Apr 10, 2014
‘The index case had two doses of measles-containing vaccine. Of 88 contacts, four secondary cases were confirmed that had either two doses of measles-containing vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All cases had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles, and high avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response.’
Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time ScienceNow Apr 11, 2014
Get the measles vaccine, and you won’t get the measles—or give it to anyone else. Right? Well, not always. A person fully vaccinated against measles has contracted the disease and passed it on to others. The startling case study contradicts received wisdom about the vaccine and suggests that a recent swell of measles outbreaks in developed nations could mean more illnesses even among the vaccinated.
When it comes to the measles vaccine, two shots are better than one. Most people in the United States are initially vaccinated against the virus shortly after their first birthday and return for a booster shot as a toddler. Less than 1% of people who get both shots will contract the potentially lethal skin and respiratory infection. And even if a fully vaccinated person does become infected—a rare situation known as “vaccine failure”—they weren’t thought to be contagious.
That’s why a fully vaccinated 22-year-old theater employee in New York City who developed the measles in 2011 was released without hospitalization or quarantine. But like Typhoid Mary, this patient turned out to be unwittingly contagious. Ultimately, she transmitted the measles to four other people, according to a recent report in Clinical Infectious Diseases that tracked symptoms in the 88 people with whom “Measles Mary” interacted while she was sick. Surprisingly, two of the secondary patients had been fully vaccinated. And although the other two had no record of receiving the vaccine, they both showed signs of previous measles exposure that should have conferred immunity.
A closer look at the blood samples taken during her treatment revealed how the immune defenses of Measles Mary broke down. As a first line of defense against the measles and other microbes, humans rely on a natural buttress of IgM antibodies. Like a wooden shield, they offer some protection from microbial assaults but aren’t impenetrable. The vaccine (or a case of the measles) prompts the body to supplement this primary buffer with a stronger armor of IgG antibodies, some of which are able to neutralize the measles virus so it can’t invade cells or spread to other patients. This secondary immune response was presumed to last for decades.
By analyzing her blood, the researchers found that Measles Mary mounted an IgM defense, as if she had never been vaccinated. Her blood also contained a potent arsenal of IgG antibodies, but a closer look revealed that none of these IgG antibodies were actually capable of neutralizing the measles virus. It seemed that her vaccine-given immunity had waned.
Although public health officials have assumed that measles immunity lasts forever, the case of Measles Mary highlights the reality that “the actual duration [of immunity] following infection or vaccination is unclear,” says Jennifer Rosen, who led the investigation as director of epidemiology and surveillance at the New York City Bureau of Immunization. The possibility of waning immunity is particularly worrisome as the virus surfaces in major U.S. hubs like Boston, Seattle, New York, and the Los Angeles area. Rosen doesn’t believe this single case merits a change in vaccination strategy—for example, giving adults booster shots—but she says that more regular surveillance to assess the strength of people’s measles immunity is warranted.
If it turns out that vaccinated people lose their immunity as they get older, that could leave them vulnerable to measles outbreaks seeded by unvaccinated people—which are increasingly common in the United States and other developed countries. Even a vaccine failure rate of 3% to 5% could devastate a high school with a few thousand students, says Robert Jacobson, director of clinical studies for the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, who wasn’t involved with the study.
MB Comment: This new comprehensive review of flu vaccine effectiveness shows the flu shot and nasal mist are almost useless.
‘71 people would need vaccination to prevent one case of influenza (95% CI 64 to 80). Vaccination shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalisation.’
The flu shot doesn’t work. It’s a clear case of vaccine failure.
Anyone who tells you the flu vaccine is effective is misinformed or lying.
It’s simply a money-making scam for Big Pharma perpetrated by vaccine zealots at the CDC.
Click PLAY to hear the Refusers song Do You Want a Flu Shot?
The Cochrane Collaboration Mar 13, 2014
Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults
Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C.
We evaluated the effect of immunisation with influenza vaccines on preventing influenza A or B infections (efficacy), influenza-like illness (ILI) and its consequences (effectiveness), and determined whether exposure to influenza vaccines is associated with serious or severe harms. The target populations were healthy adults, including pregnant women and newborns.
Over 200 viruses cause influenza and ILI, producing the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot distinguish between them as both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines may only be effective against influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Annually, the World Health Organization estimates which viral strains should be included in the next season’s vaccinations.
Inactivated vaccine is prepared by treating influenza viruses with a specific chemical agent that “kills” the virus. Final preparations can contain either the complete viruses (whole vaccine) or the active part of them (split or subunit vaccines). These kind of vaccines are normally intramuscularly administered (parenteral route).
Live attenuated vaccine is prepared by growing the influenza viruses through a series of cell cultures or animal embryos. With each passage, the viruses lose their ability to replicate in human cells but can still stimulate the immune system. Live attenuated vaccine are administered as aerosol in the nostrils (intranasal route).
The virus strains contained in the vaccine are usually those that are expected to circulate in the following epidemic seasons (two type A and one B strains), accordingly to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (seasonal vaccine).
Pandemic vaccine contains only the virus strain that is responsible of the pandemic (i.e. the type A H1N1 for the 2009/2010 pandemic).
The evidence is current to May 2013. In this update, 90 reports of 116 studies compared the effect of influenza vaccine with placebo or no intervention. Sixty-nine reports were clinical trials (over 70,000 people), 27 were comparative cohort studies (about eight million people) and 20 were case-control studies (nearly 25,000 people). Of the 116 studies, 23 (three case-control and 20 cohort studies) were performed during pregnancy (about 1.6 million mother-child couples
The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small: at least 40 people would need vaccination to avoid one ILI case (95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 128) and 71 people would need vaccination to prevent one case of influenza (95% CI 64 to 80). Vaccination shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalisation.
The protection against ILI that is given by the administration of inactivated influenza vaccine to pregnant women is uncertain or at least very limited; the effect on their newborns is not statistically significant.
The effectiveness of live aerosol vaccines on healthy adults is similar to inactivated vaccines: 46 people (95% CI 29 to 115) would need immunisation to avoid one ILI case.
REASON MAGAZINE April 2014
A libertarian debate on immunization and government
The Science Is Not Settled
By Sandy Reider MD Harvard Medical School Graduate
Given the sheer volume of vaccine promotion and propaganda, coupled with the cozy relationship between government, industry, and media, there are sufficient grounds for a healthy skepticism. Individual parents have become the last line of defense (not offense, not a swinging fist), and their choices should be respected and preserved.
As a practicing primary care physician for the last 43 years, and as a parent since 1981, I have followed the evolution of vaccination policy and science with interest, and not a little dismay.
The number of vaccines given to children has increased significantly over the last 70 years, from four antigens in about five or six injections in 1949 to as many as 71 vaccine antigens in 53 injections by age 18 today (the number varies slightly from state to state). This includes four vaccines given in two shots to pregnant women (and thus the developing fetus) and 48 vaccine antigens given in 34 injections from birth to age six.
Each vaccine preparation, in addition to the antigen or live virus, contains many other substances, including preservatives (mercury, formaldehyde), adjuvants to hyperstimulate the immune response (aluminum), gelatin, aborted fetal DNA, viral DNA, genetically modified DNA, antibiotics, and so on. We know that the young child’s nervous and immune systems are actively developing and uniquely vulnerable, but I wonder how many thinking adults would themselves voluntarily submit to such an invasive drug regimen?
In 1986 the National Vaccine Injury Act was passed, prohibiting individuals who feel they have been harmed by a vaccine from taking vaccine manufacturers, health agencies, or health care workers to court. At the time, vaccine producers were threatening to curtail or discontinue production because of the mounting number of lawsuits claiming injury to children, mostly relating to immunization against diphtheria. Once relieved of all liability, pharmaceutical corporations began rapidly increasing the number of vaccinations brought to market.
Pharmaceutical companies are now actively targeting both adolescents and adults for cradle-to-grave vaccination against shingles, pneumonia, human papilloma virus, influenza, whooping cough, and meningitis. There are many more vaccines in the pipeline. Who wouldn’t love a business model with a captive market, no liability concerns, free advertising and promotion by government agencies, and a free enforcement mechanism from local schools? It is, truly, a drug company’s dream come true.
Click PLAY to hear Refusers song Get Your Mandates Out of My Body
Judging from what one reads and hears in the popular media, it is easy to conclude that the science is settled, that the benefits of each vaccine clearly outweigh the risks, and that vaccinations have played the critical role in the decline of deaths due to infectious diseases such as measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria, all of which claimed many lives in the past.
However even a cursory look at the available data quickly reveals that the mortality from almost all infectious disease was in steep decline well before the introduction of vaccination or antibiotics. Diphtheria mortality had fallen 60 percent by the time vaccination was introduced in the 1920s, deaths from pertussis/whooping cough had declined by 98 percent before vaccination was introduced in the late 1940s, measles mortality had dropped 98 percent from its peak in the U.S. by the time measles inoculation was introduced in 1963-and by an impressive 99.96 percent in England when measles vaccination was introduced in 1968. In 1960 there were 380 deaths from measles among a U.S. population of 180,671,000, a rate of 0.24 deaths per 100,000.
The takeaway here is that vaccination played a very minor role in the steep decline in mortality due to infectious disease during the late 19th century and early to mid- 20th century. Improved living standards, better nutrition, sanitary sewage disposal, clean water, and less crowded living conditions all played crucial roles.
Current immunization policy relies on the oft-repeated assertion that vaccines are safe and effective. Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine, and even the American Academy of Pediatrics have acknowledged that serious reactions, including seizures, progressive encephalopathy, and death, can and do occur. The federal vaccine injury court, which was established at the same time that vaccine manufacturers were exempted from liability, has to date paid $2.6 billion dollars in compensation for vaccine injuries. And there is ample reason to believe that the incidence of vaccine injury is strongly underreported.
Ronald Bailey has made the colorful assertion that an individual choosing not to vaccinate themself or their child is akin to a person walking down the street swinging their fists/microbes at others. Rather than indulging in broad generalizations about immunization, a close examination of data regarding the recent pertussis outbreaks may help illustrate the complexity inherent in immune function, individual susceptibility, and the spread of infectious illness.
In 2011, there were numerous outbreaks of pertussis around the United States, notably in California, Washington, and Vermont. The majority of whooping cough infections in each state were reported among well-vaccinated adolescents and young teens. There was also a slight increase in cases among infants younger than 1 year old.
In Vermont, 74 percent of individuals diagnosed with whooping cough had been “fully and appropriately vaccinated” against pertussis. Vermont Deputy Commissioner of Health Tracy Dolan stated: “We do not have any official explanation for the outbreak and have not linked it to the philosophical exemption.” In a July 2012 interview, Ann Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease stated that: “We know there are places around the country where large numbers of people are not vaccinated [against pertussis]. However, we do not think those exemptors are driving this current wave. We think it is a bad thing that people aren’t getting vaccinated or exempting, but we cannot blame this wave on that phenomenon.”
It’s clear that the pertussis vaccine is not very protective against a disease that already has a very low mortality, likely because the pertussis bacterium has developed resistance, much like bacteria become resistant to antibiotics over time. In a September 2012 article, The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “protection against pertussis waned during the 5 years after the 5th dose of DTaP [a type of combination vaccine].”
Recent studies suggest that immunized persons, once exposed to wild Bordetella pertussis bacteria, take longer to clear the pertussis bacterium from their respiratory tract than individuals who have had natural pertussis and thus gain natural immunity. These vaccinated individuals can then become asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria and vectors for transmission. So those who choose to opt in can also, as Bailey puts it, “swing their microbes.”
Vaccine-induced immunity is not the same as naturally acquired immunity, and the much touted “herd immunity” resulting from mass vaccination is a far cry from natural herd immunity, the latter being much more protective, long-lasting, and transferrable to nursing infants who are then protected during their most vulnerable stage of development.
Understanding vaccine effects is complicated. The “fence” or “firewall” as Bailey puts it, is in fact a two-way street. Much has been said about all the “junk science” cited by anyone questioning vaccines (Jenny McCarthy, anyone?), but even a cursory peek over that fence will reveal some very good information and science-Mary Holland’s Vaccine Epidemic and Suzanne Humphries’ Dissolving Illusions, for example.
Lumping skeptical parents with the crazies is a way to avoid legitimate questions. Such as: Should tetanus vaccination be required for entrance to school, given that tetanus is not a communicable disease? Why should hepatitis B immunization be required for school entrance, when the disease is found primarily among adult drug users and sex workers? Do we need to keep immunizing against diseases, such as chickenpox, that are almost always mild?
There is a considerable difference between giving a seriously ill child a proven life-saving medicine versus subjecting a completely healthy child to a drug that is known to cause severe, or even potentially fatal, adverse effects, however small the chance. This is an ethical issue that goes to the heart of our basic human right to informed consent to any drug treatment or medical intervention.
Given the sheer volume of vaccine promotion and propaganda, coupled with the cozy relationship between government, industry, and media, there are sufficient grounds for a healthy skepticism. Individual parents have become the last line of defense (not offense, not a swinging fist), and their choices should be respected and preserved
Sandy Reider (firstname.lastname@example.org) has a primary care practice in Lyndonville, Vermont.