Refusers Newsroom

Flu Shots Don’t Work – Science Daily

Posted on May 18, 2013 by The Refusers

MB Comment: Finally a health official has the courage and wisdom to call a spade a spade – flu shots don’t work.

Contrast that reality with the pure hype emitted by brainwashed doctors, CDC officials and drug stores who are simply charlatans pushing snake oil flu shots like the holy grail.

I’ve got news for you – if the entire vaccine sales apparatus can be this wrong about marketing useless flu shots, it exposes their complete pseudo-scientific quackery on the subject of every other vaccine. The CDC is a broken government agency that has sacrificed its scientific credibility.

Why should anyone follow ANY non-evidence-based vaccine recommendation pushed by the unscientific CDC? Good grief, they recently extended their recommendation of these useless flu shots for pregnant moms, babies and toddlers.

Patients facing dictatorial doctors with squirting vaccine needles should do their homework on vaccine efficacy and adverse reactions before submitting to this form of institutionalized medical malpractice.

Bravo to the author of this BMJ article for speaking the truth – the flu shot emperor has no clothes.

Click PLAY to hear the Refusers song Do You Want a Flu Shot.

**********************************************************************************

Science Daily – May 16, 2013

Expert Questions US Public Health Agency Advice On Influenza Vaccines

May 16, 2013 — The United States government public health agency, the CDC, pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.” But Peter Doshi, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, argues that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so.

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today, writes Doshi. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets — even some drive-throughs.

This enormous growth has not been fuelled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives.

Yet, Doshi argues that the vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.

To support its case, the CDC cites two studies of influenza vaccines, published in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals and carried out by academic and government researchers with non-commercial funding. Both found a large (up to 48%) relative reduction in the risk of death.

“If true, these statistics indicate that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet,” says Doshi. But he argues that these studies are “simply implausible” and likely the product of the ‘healthy-user effect’ (in this case, a propensity for healthier people to be more likely to get vaccinated than less healthy people).

In addition, he says, there is virtually no evidence that influenza vaccines reduce elderly deaths — the very reason the policy was originally created.

He points out that the agency itself acknowledges the evidence may be undermined by bias. Yet, he says “for most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it.”

He also questions the CDC’s recommendation that beyond those for whom the vaccine is contraindicated, influenza vaccine can only do good, pointing to serious reactions to influenza vaccines in Australia (febrile convulsions in young children) and Sweden and Finland (a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents).

Doshi suggests that influenza is yet one more case of “disease mongering” — medicalising ordinary life to expand markets for new products. But, he warns that unlike most stories of selling sickness, “here the salesmen are public health officials, worried little about which brand of vaccine you get so long as they can convince you to take influenza seriously.”

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same, he concludes. “All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Read the article

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | 1 Comment

Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease – British Medical Journal

Posted on May 17, 2013 by The Refusers

MB Comment: Here is a new hard-hitting article from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that claims the CDC is lying about flu vaccine effectiveness and destroying its own credibility. The Refusers obviously agree with this conclusion. The public needs to wake up and reject the media onslaught urging annual flu vaccination. It’s based on junk science, commercial interests and outright corruption among so-called scientific authorities who care more about feathering their own nests than facts.

Julie Gerberding: Former CDC head, current chief Merck vaccine huckster

The best example of this sordid situation is Julie Gerberding, the head of Merck vaccines (the largest US vaccine manufacturer) – who is the former head of the CDC. The CDC mission is to push vaccines, no matter how useless and dangerous they may be. The best career hope for CDC flunkies is to collaborate with that corrupt program and make a jump to a better-paid position with a drug company, a path blazed by vaccine huckster Gerberding.

The entire BMJ article is below, after this brief Q & A with the author.

Q&A with study author Peter Doshi, Harvard University
Q) Should we continue to get the flu shot? What about parents who are trying to decide for their children?

A) “Public health experts are routinely misleading the public as to the strength of the science in support of its statements about vaccine effectiveness, safety, and the threat of influenza … The vaccine is not always “better than nothing.”

Q) Could you comment on the studies that show that getting the flu shot may not prevent you from getting sick, but can help prevent you from getting a serious case?

A) “My paper addresses the studies that claim influenza vaccines reduce the risk of influenza complications. No good studies support this claim … I would encourage you to take specific questions to the CDC regarding its policy.”

Click PLAY to hear the Refusers song Do You Want a Flu Shot?

**********************************************************************************

Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3037 (Published 16 May 2013)

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f3037
  1. Peter Doshi, postdoctoral fellow

Author Affiliations

  1. pdoshi@post.harvard.edu

The CDC pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.” But Peter Doshi argues that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities,1 precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.2 Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.

Now we are all “at risk” of serious complications

Influenza vaccine production has grown parallel to increases in the perceived need for the vaccine. In the US, the first recommendations for annual influenza vaccination were made in 1960 (table1).⇓ Through the 1990s, the key objective of this policy was to reduce excess mortality. Because most of influenza deaths occurred in the older population, vaccines were directed at this age group. But since 2000, the concept of who is “at risk” has rapidly expanded, incrementally encompassing greater swathes of the general population (box 1). As one US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) poster picturing a young couple warns: “Even healthy people can get the flu, and it can be serious.”3 Today, national guidelines call for everyone 6 months of age and older to get vaccinated. Now we are all “at risk.”

View this table:

Table 1. Expansion of influenza vaccination recommendations, 1960 to present

Box 1. A policy without an objective

Despite the enormous sums of money spent fighting the perceived threat of influenza, there are surprisingly few instances of unambiguous statements describing the objectives of influenza vaccination policy. Here is a sampling, drawn from more than five decades of influenza vaccination policies in the United States, that demonstrates the changing purpose of the campaign—from one with a clear objective of saving older people’s lives, to one without any stated objective.

In 1964, four years after annual influenza vaccination policies were first instituted, CDC influenza branch chief Alexander Langmuir and colleagues wrote that the recommendation “was based on three broad assumptions: 1. That excess mortality was the most important consequence of epidemic influenza. 2. That polyvalent virus vaccines had been at least partially effective in preventing clinical illness during most epidemics and therefore presumably would reduce the risk of death among the aged and chronically ill. 3. That epidemics cannot be predicted with sufficient accuracy to permit confident planning of control measures on a year to year basis.”4 In 1984, recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices stated: “Because of the increasing proportion of elderly persons in the United States and because age and its associated chronic diseases are risk factors for severe influenza illness, the future toll from influenza may increase, unless control measures are used more vigorously than in the past. . . . For about 20 years, efforts to reduce the impact of influenza in the United States have been aimed primarily at immunoprophylaxis [vaccination] of persons at greatest risk of serious illness or death.”5 Today, the recommendations do not even mention the effect the policy aims to achieve.6

Box 2: Deciphering the numbers

As concern surged this January over a worse than usual influenza season, members of the media seemed unsure whether the CDC’s announcement that “vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 62%”7 represented good versus disappointing news.8

NBC anchor Brian Williams: “I worry about this number. I woke up to reports of this number. It can disincentivize people to go get that flu shot which all of you are saying is still so important.”

Chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman: “And I had the same concern when you see 62%, because I’m afraid people will say ‘well, it’s half and half.’ But remember, if you have a 62% less chance of getting of getting the flu, it means less chance of being on antibiotics, less chance of ending up in an intensive care unit, and as we’ve seen from this uptick in numbers, 62% less chance of dying.”9

Although the study never tested more severe outcomes such as hospitalizations and death, the logic is nonetheless tempting: if 62% fewer people get influenza, then would not one expect 62% fewer of all of influenza’s complications? Not necessarily so. The reason is that the 62% reduction statistic almost certainly does not hold true for all subpopulations. In fact, there are good reasons to assume it does not. It is well known that influenza infections are more severe for certain groups of people, such as the frail older population, compared with others like healthy young adults. The CDC study did not present the statistics by age or health status, but an update of the study released one month later showed 90% of participants were younger than 65 years, and for older people, there was no significant benefit (vaccine effectiveness was 27%; 95% confidence interval, 31% to 59%).10

Not to worry: officials say influenza vaccines save lives

Risk of serious illness is a problem—but, according to the official narrative, a tractable problem, thanks to vaccines. As another CDC poster, this time aimed at seniors, explains: “Shots aren’t just for kids. Vaccines for adults can prevent serious diseases and even death.”11 And in its more technical guidance document, CDC musters the evidence to support its case. The agency points to two retrospective, observational studies. One, a 1995 peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded: “many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain.”12 They calculated a reduction of “27% to 30% for preventing deaths from all causes”—that is, a 30% lower risk of dying from any cause, not just from influenza. CDC also cites a more recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, funded by the National Vaccine Program Office and the CDC, which found an even larger relative reduction in risk of death: 48%.13

If true, these statistics indicate that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.14 15

So how could these studies—both published in high impact, peer reviewed journals and carried out by academic and government researchers with non-commercial funding—get it wrong? Consider one study the CDC does not cite, which found influenza vaccination associated with a 51% reduced odds of death in patients hospitalized with pneumonia (28 of 352 [8%] vaccinated subjects died versus 53 deaths among 352 [15%] unvaccinated control subjects).16 Although the results are similar to those of the studies CDC does cite, an unusual aspect of this study was that it focused on patients outside of the influenza season—when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit. And the authors, academics from Alberta, Canada, knew this: the purpose of the study was to demonstrate that the fantastic benefit they expected to and did find—and that others have found, such as the two studies that CDC cites—is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect” (in this case, a propensity for healthier people to be more likely to get vaccinated than less healthy people). Others have gone on to demonstrate this bias to be present in other influenza vaccine studies.17 18 Healthy user bias threatens to render the observational studies, on which officials’ scientific case rests, not credible.

Yet for most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it. But for those that bother to read the CDC’s national guidelines19—a 68 page document of 33 360 words and 552 references—one finds that the evidence cited is these observational studies that the agency itself acknowledges may be undermined by bias. The guidelines state:

“. . . studies demonstrating large reductions in hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly have been conducted using medical record databases and have not measured reductions in laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.”19

CDC does not rebut or in any other way respond to these criticisms. It simply acknowledges them, and leaves it at that.

If the observational studies cannot be trusted, what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none. Theoretically, a randomized trial might shine some light—or even settle the matter. But there has only been one randomized trial of influenza vaccines in older people—conducted two decades ago—and it showed no mortality benefit (the trial was not powered to detect decreases in mortality or any complications of influenza). This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes. Approval is instead tied to a demonstrated ability of the vaccine to induce antibody production, without any evidence that those antibodies translate into reductions in illness.

Perhaps most perplexing is officials’ lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence. Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Atlantic that it “would be unethical” to do a placebo controlled study of influenza vaccine in older people.20 The reason? Placebo recipients would be deprived of influenza vaccines—that is, the standard of care, thanks to CDC guidelines.

This is not to say influenza vaccines have no proven benefit. Many randomized controlled trials of influenza vaccines have been conducted in the healthy adult population, and a systematic review found that, depending on vaccine-virus strain match, vaccinating between 33 and 100 people resulted in one less case of influenza.21 No evidence exists, however, to show that this reduction in risk of symptomatic influenza for a specific population—here, among healthy adults—extrapolates into any reduced risk of serious complications from influenza such as hospitalizations or death in another population (complications largely occur among the frail, older population). This fact seems hard for many health commentators to grasp, who seem all too ready to take the largest statistic and apply it to all outcomes for all populations. At a press briefing this winter, CDC director Thomas Frieden said a preliminary CDC study had found “the overall vaccine effectiveness to be 62%,” He explained that this estimate of relative risk reduction: “means that if you got vaccinated you’re about 60% less likely to get the flu that requires you to go to your doctor.” On the evening news, the CDC’s message was translated into a claim that influenza vaccines will cut the risk of death by 62%, despite the fact that the CDC study did not even measure mortality (box 2). Reflecting on the same CDC study, two authors editorialized in the Journal of the American Medical Association that there exists an irrational pessimism about influenza vaccine: “A prevention measure that reduced the risk of a serious outcome by 60% in most instances would be a noted achievement; yet for influenza vaccine, it is seen as a ‘failure.’” Here, too, the authors appear unaware that the CDC study they cite did not measure any “serious outcome” like pneumonia, only medically attended acute respiratory illness with influenza confirmed by the laboratory.

Officials say influenza vaccines are safe

The CDC’s universal influenza vaccination recommendation carries the implicit message that, beyond those for whom the vaccine is contraindicated, influenza vaccine can only do good; there is no need to weigh risks against benefits. In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health produced a promotional YouTube video featuring Fauci. Urging US citizens to get vaccinated against the H1N1 influenza, Fauci stressed the vaccine’s safety: “the track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event.”

Months later, Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program in under five year olds after many (one in every 110 vaccinated) children had febrile convulsions after vaccination. Another serious reaction to influenza vaccines—and also unexpected—occurred in Sweden and Finland, where H1N1 influenza vaccines were associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents (about one in every 55 000 vaccinated). Subsequent investigations by governmental and non-governmental researchers confirmed the vaccine’s role in these serious events.22 23 24 25

Selling sickness: what’s in a name?

Drug companies have long known that to sell some products, you would have to first sell people on the disease. Early 20th century advertising for the mouthwash Listerine, for example, warned readers of the problem of “halitosis”—thereby turning bad breath into a widespread social concern.26 Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s, Merck launched an extensive campaign to lower the diagnostic threshold for hypertension, and in doing so enlarging the market for its diuretic drug, Diuril (chlorothiazide).27 Today drug companies suggest that we have underdiagnosed epidemics of erectile dysfunction, social anxiety disorder, and female sexual dysfunction, each with their own convenient acronym and an approved medication at the ready. Could influenza—a disease known for centuries, well defined in terms of its etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis—be yet one more case of disease mongering? I think it is. But unlike most stories of selling sickness, here the salesmen are public health officials, worried little about which brand of vaccine you get so long as they can convince you to take influenza seriously.

Marketing influenza vaccines thus involves marketing influenza as a threat of great proportions. The CDC’s website explains that “Flu seasons are unpredictable and can be severe,” citing a death toll of “3000 to a high of about 49 000 people.” However, a far less volatile and more reassuring picture of influenza seems likely if one considers that recorded deaths from influenza declined sharply over the middle of the 20th century, at least in the United States, all before the great expansion of vaccination campaigns in the 2000s, and despite three so-called “pandemics” (1957, 1968, 2009) (fig 1).⇓

View larger version:

Fig 1 Crude mortality per 100 000 population, by influenza season (July to June of the following year), for seasons 1930-31 to 2009-10, US. Data sources: Doshi P. Am J Pub Health 2008;98:939-45.

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).⇓

All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.

View larger version:

Fig 2 Proportion of specimens testing positive for influenza at World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Laboratories and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) laboratories through the United States. Data are compiled and published by CDC.28-43

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f3037

Footnotes

  • Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Yuko Hara, Tom Jefferson, and Edward Davies, for their comments.

  • Competing interests: I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: PD is a co-recipient of a UK National Institute for Health Research grant to carry out a Cochrane review of neuraminidase inhibitors (http://www.hta.ac.uk/2352). PD received €1500 from the European Respiratory Society in support of his travel to the society’s September 2012 annual congress where he gave an invited talk on oseltamivir. He is funded by an institutional training grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) #T32HS019488. AHRQ had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  • Provenance and peer review: commissioned: not externally peer reviewed.

References

  1. ↵
    Immunization Action Coalition. Honor roll for patient safety: honorees with influenza vaccination mandates. 2013 www.immunize.org/honor-roll/influenza-mandates.asp.
  2. ↵
    Gardam M, Lemieux C. Mandatory influenza vaccination? First we need a better vaccine. Canadian Med Assoc J2013. www.cmaj.ca/cgi/doi/10.1503/cmaj.122074.
  3. ↵
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Spread music, not flu. 2012. www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/young/p_spreadmusic_print.pdf.
  4. ↵
    Langmuir AD, Henderson DA, Serfling RE. The epidemiological basis for the control of influenza. Am J Public Health Nations Health1964;54:563-71.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    US Centers for Disease Control. Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP) Prevention and Control of Influenza. MMWR. 1984;33:253-60,265-6.
  6. ↵
    Grohskopf L, Uyeki T, Bresee J, Cox N. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—United States, 2012-13 influenza season. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2012;61:613-8.
    Medline
  7. ↵
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness—United States, 2013. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2013;62:32-5.
    Medline
  8. ↵
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Press Briefing Transcript: CDC Update: Flu Season and Vaccine Effectiveness. 2013. www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/t0111_flu_season.html.
  9. ↵
    NBCNews.com video: From churches to hospitals, flu precautions resound. 2013. www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/50437898.
  10. ↵
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim adjusted estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness—United States, 2013. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2013;62:119-23.
    Medline
  11. ↵
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shots aren’t just for kids. 2010. www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/updated/f-adults-shots.pdf.
  12. ↵
    Gross PA, Hermogenes AW, Sacks HS, Lau J, Levandowski RA. The efficacy of influenza vaccine in elderly persons: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Ann Intern Med1995;123:518-27.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    Nichol KL, Nordin JD, Nelson DB, Mullooly JP, Hak E. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly. N Engl J Med2007;357:1373-81.
    CrossRefMedline
  14. ↵
    Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med2005;165:265-72.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Simonsen L, Viboud C, Taylor RJ. Effectiveness of influenza vaccination. N Engl J Med2007;357:2729-30; author reply 2730-31.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    Eurich DT, Marrie TJ, Johnstone J, Majumdar SR. Mortality reduction with influenza vaccine in patients with pneumonia outside “flu” season: pleiotropic benefits or residual confounding? Am J Respir Crit Care Med2008;178:527-33.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Jackson LA, Jackson ML, Nelson JC, Neuzil KM, Weiss NS. Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors. Int J Epidemiol2006;35:337-44.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Jackson LA, Nelson JC, Benson P, Neuzil KM, Reid RJ, Psaty BM, et al. Functional status is a confounder of the association of influenza vaccine and risk of all cause mortality in seniors. Int J Epidemiol2006;35:345-52.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    Fiore AE, Uyeki TM, Broder K, Finelli L, Euler GL, Singleton JA, et al. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010;59(RR-8):1-62.
  20. ↵
    Brownlee S, Lenzer J. Does the vaccine matter? Atlantic. 2009. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/7723/.
  21. ↵
    Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2010;(7):CD001269.
  22. ↵
    Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Investigation into febrile reactions in young children following 2010 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccination. 2010. www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-seasonal-flu-100702.htm.
  23. ↵
    European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency reviews hypothesis on Pandemrix and development of narcolepsy. 2012. www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2012/10/news_detail_001636.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1.
  24. ↵
    European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency recommends restricting use of Pandemrix. 2011. www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2011/07/news_detail_001312.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1.
  25. ↵
    Miller E, Andrews N, Stellitano L, Stowe J, Winstone AM, Shneerson J, et al. Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis. BMJ2013;346:f794.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Reichert T. The erotic history of advertising. Prometheus Books; 2003.
  27. ↵
    Greene JA. Releasing the flood waters: Diuril and the reshaping of hypertension. Bulletin Hist Med2005;79:749-94.
    CrossRef
  28. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 1997-8 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions1997-1998/datafinal/wholaballregion97-98.htm.
  29. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 1998-9 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions1998-1999/datafinal/wholaballregion98-99.htm
  30. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999-2000 Influenza season summary. 2002. www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/WeeklyArchives1999-2000/99-00summary2.htm.
  31. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000-2001 Laboratory data summary for all regions. www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/regions2000-2001/wholaballregion00-01.htm.
  32. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2001-02 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2001-2002/datafinal/wholaballregion01-02.htm.
  33. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2002-03 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2002-2003/datafinal/wholaballregion02-03.htm.
  34. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2003-04 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2003-2004/datafinal/wholaballregion03-04.htm.
  35. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2004-2005 Season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2004-2005/datafinal/wholaballregion04-05.htm
  36. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2005-06 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2005-2006/datafinal/wholaballregion05-06.htm.
  37. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006-07 US influenza season summary. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2006-2007/06-07summary.htm
  38. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007-8 US Influenza season summary. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2007-2008/07-08summary.htm.
  39. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2008-9sSeason. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2008-2009/data/whoAllregt39.htm.
  40. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2009-10 Season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2009-2010/data/whoAllregt20.htm.
  41. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2010-11 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/data/whoAllregt20.htm.
  42. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2011-12 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2011-2012/data/whoAllregt39.htm.
  43. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2012-13 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2012-2013/data/whoAllregt15.htm.
  44. Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004;53(RR-6):1-40.
  45. Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB. Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54(RR-8):1-40.
  46. Smith NM, Bresee JS, Shay DK, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Strikas RA. Prevention and Control of Influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55(RR-10):1-42.
  47. Fiore AE, Shay DK, Haber P, Iskander JK, Uyeki TM, Mootrey G, et al. Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2007;56(RR-6):1-54.
  48. Fiore AE, Shay DK, Broder K, Iskander JK, Uyeki TM, Mootrey G, et al. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2008. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2008;57(RR-7):1-60.
  49. Osterholm MT. Influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness: a comprehensive review. 2011. www.preventinfluenza.org/NIVS_2011/2-osterholm_vaccine_efficacy.pdf.
  50. Layton C, Robinson T, Honeycutt A. Influenza vaccine demand: the chicken and the egg. 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20111030114731/http://aspe.hhs.gov/pic/fullreports/06/8476-4.doc

    Read the study

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | Leave a comment

Top-ranked Seattle rock band The Refusers to open for The Black Keys at BottleRock Festival in Napa

Posted on May 2, 2013 by The Refusers

SEATTLE, May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — The Refusers – the #1 ranked indie band on Reverbnation Seattle rock – will share the stage with rock’s top acts at the BottleRock Festival in Napa on May 9th. The festival lineup includes world famous artists such as The Black Keys, Kings of Leon, Macklemore, Jane’s Addiction, The Flaming Lips, Jackson Browne, The Black Crowes, Dwight Yoakam, Violent Femmes, Joan Jett, X, Richard Thompson and many more.

(Logo:  http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130502/SF06174LOGO)

The Refusers are a high-energy rock band that performs rousing protest songs tinged with humor, satire and biting lyrics. Their music is powered by growling guitar, pounding drums, slapping bass and catchy hooks that blend elements of rock, funk and reggae into a sound that is hard-driving, accessible, informative, and addictive.

The Refusers have just released a rocking new album, “First Do No Harm.” This album directly challenges the medical system status quo by denouncing drug adverse reactions and medical errors that have become the third largest cause of death in the United States.   In a barbed lyric from the band’s recent single “Do You Want A Flu Shot”, Belkin answers emphatically “N.O.” and warns of “Big harm from Big Pharma.”

The Refusers are rocking the natural health movement by raising consumer awareness about the industry-sponsored chemical assault on our bodies – and are inspiring fans to resist the pharma-dominated paradigm promoted by the mainstream media.

In their song “Robot Factory” the band proclaims:“I found out later it was only routine, that’s how they make a human machine – those at the bottom who are way way down, get made into sprockets that go round and round.”

Don’t be a sprocket – rock it with The Refusers!

The Refusers are: Michael Belkin (guitars & vocals), Steve Newton (bass & vocals), Kevin Blackwood (drums & vocals) and Sebastian Belkin (drums & percussion).

See the Refusers’ live show on May 9th at the BottleRock Festival in Napa, CA.

Hear the Refusers new album First Do No Harm

Buy the Refusers Album

Check out The Refusers on Facebook

Media Contact:

John Wilson

JCM Artists

206 335-6192

j.wilson@jcmartists.com

SOURCE The Refusers

RELATED LINKS
http://therefusers.com/
http://bottlerocknapavalley.com

Read the article

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | 1 Comment

Congressman introduces bill requiring study of autism rate in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated

Posted on April 30, 2013 by The Refusers

MB Comment: The CDC has refused to study the autism rate in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids, because they are a captive agency of vaccine manufacturers. The former head of the CDC is now the head of Merck vaccines, the largest US vaccine manufacturer. CDC officials have been disrespectful, bumbling fools when required to testify before Congress.

The CDC is reluctant to compare autism rates in unvaxed vs. vaxed because it will likely show the same thing as the following study and survey, a huge increase in autism risk in the vaccinated. Of course such data will indict the CDC and expose their responsibility for creating the biggest epidemic in US history: Vaccine-induced autism.

1) Children who receive the entire 3-shot series of Hepatitis B Vaccine have a 9x higher rate of developmental disabilities than unvaccinated children. Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years
Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, September 2008 Carolyn Gallagher* and Melody Goodman

2) Vaccinated children have higher rates of autism and ADHD than unvaccinated children.

Generation Rescue: Unvaccinated children phone survey. All vaccinated boys, compared to unvaccinated boys:

- Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.55)
- Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.24)
- Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism (RR 1.61)

************************************************************

April is Autism Awareness Month – Moving from Awareness to Action

HON. Bill Posey
Of Florida
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, April 26, 2013

I rise today to draw the attention of the Congress and the American people to the Autism epidemic that is tragically ravaging too many of America’s children.

April is Autism Awareness Month, and I am pleased to join with parents, siblings, grandparents, special education school teachers, medical care providers, and interventionists to draw attention to the rapidly expanding autism community.

When I was young, autism was virtually unheard of. In the 1980s rarely did you meet someone who knew someone with autism. Yet, in the 1990s there was an explosion of autism. Indeed, in the course of just my lifetime, Autism Spectrum Disorder has grown from a very rare condition to – according to the Centers for Disease Control – a developmental disorder affecting 1-in-50 school aged children. And, tragically, the rate for school aged boys is a disturbing 1-in-33.

On December 19, 2006, the effort to address this epidemic took a major step forward as President Bush signed into law the bipartisan Combating Autism Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Autism community to reauthorize this program next year. Though the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee each year produces a strategic plan to address Autism, the billion-dollar allocation of resources to autism has not been evenly invested among genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. I must concur with the experts who have been willing to speak out, that the epidemic increase in the rates of autism are not a ‘genetic’ epidemic. Indeed, you don’t have genetic epidemics. While there is likely a genetic component to many who have been diagnosed with Autism, we must seriously consider that there are likely several key factors in autism.

Also, so some who have suggested that the increase in Autism is due to better diagnosis, you don’t go from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 80 in three decades due to better diagnosis alone. And, if that were the case, where are the tens of thousands of autistic adults in their 40s, 50s and 60s. While better diagnosis may be a factor, common sense says there is a real increase and something is causing it.

While some may be borne with Autism, there are many parents who testify to the fact and present cases where their children were progressing normally but something triggered a regression where they lost speech, abilities, and regressed from developmental milestones that they had earlier met. Was that regression due to external factors such as medical injury, exposure to environmental toxins such as lead or mercury, or was it adverse reactions to medications that lead to high fevers, brain inflammation or seizures? We must get answers to these questions.

I was pleased to participate in a November 2012 House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the Federal Response to Autism. That was one of the most attended hearings I have participated in since coming to Washington in 2009. Indeed at this hearing it was standing room only, and overflow rooms had to be used to accommodate the public. This was a much anticipated hearing from many parents of children suffering from Autism who want clear and unbiased answers to questions surrounding the epidemic.
I, like many in Congress, were frustrated with the lackluster response from the federal witnesses, particularly the CDC witness that was evasive and took more than five months to respond to the Committee’s questions. The responses that finally arrived this month were incomplete, often evasive, and showed a complete lack of urgency on the part of the CDC. I was also disappointed that the federal government witnesses did not have the courtesy to remain at the hearing to listen to the testimony of the public panel representing non-profit organizations and academic institutions focused on Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome.

Parents, grandparents, educators, health professionals, and highly functional adults on the autism spectrum are frustrated at the federal response to this epidemic. There is much more that we could and should be doing.

Some believe that toxins like thimerosal, which is 50% ethylmercury, have played a role in the rise in autism and neurodevelopmental disabilities. In 2000 there was near universal agreement that mercury should be removed as a preservative for vaccines. Yet, today, nearly half of all annual flu vaccines, which are recommended for children and pregnant women, still contain mercury as a preservative – not simply trace amounts of mercury. It’s 2013! Why are we still injecting ethylmercury into babies and pregnant women?

I have been deeply disappointed in the failure of the CDC and the Department of Justice to see that Dr. Poul Thorsen is extradited to the United States to stand trial for orchestrating an elaborate scheme stealing more than $1 million from the CDC-Denmark grant. That money was supposed to be used to investigate the causes of autism and developmental disabilities. Instead it was diverted to personal use by Dr. Thorsen. Thorsen was a key author on 22 of the CDC’s key studies related to autism and developmental disabilities.

Before coming to Congress in 2009, I heard from some in the autism community who have advocated for a retrospective study to examine whether there are different health outcomes when comparing vaccinated children and unvaccinated children, including autism and chronic conditions. I have continued to hear these requests over the past four years. At the hearing I asked CDC if they had conducted such a study and they said they’ve done dozens of studies related to autism but never have looked at a comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated. In fact, a recent study they published compared fully vaccinated children to those who were not fully vaccinated, but for some reason it did not include data on completely unvaccinated children. Seems like common sense to do a study comparing vaccinated children vs unvaccinated and this week I was pleased to be joined by my colleague Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) in introducing H.R. 1757, The Vaccine Safety Study Act. This would direct the National Institutes of Health to conduct a retrospective study of health outcomes, including autism, of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. That should bring an answer to this decades long question.

Whether the number is 1-in-88 twelve-year-olds, or 1-in-50 school-aged children, or 1-in-33 young boys, we can all agree that the number is devastatingly high. We must overturn every stone to get to the bottom of this epidemic. We cannot afford to see this epidemic grow. We must examine every possible risk factor to protect the world’s greatest resource: our children. And, we must invest to develop the best interventions to help those who are autistic.

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | 26 Comments

Vaccine-maker Merck destroys its tarnished reputation with $1500 payment to those it killed

Posted on April 20, 2013 by The Refusers

MB comment: Merck is the same drug company that makes the Gardasil and MMR vaccines.

If your child dies or is injured by Merck’s vaccines, you

can expect to receive the same treatment Merck extends to Vioxx victims. According to OSHA head David Michael’s excellent book Doubt is Their Product, Merck killed approximately 40,000 people with Vioxx, which approaches the total US combat fatalities in the Vietnam war. Merck pled guilty to a criminal charge regarding Vioxx.

*********************************************************************************

Judge queries fairness of Vioxx settlement – Brisbane Times

April 17th, 2013

Drug company Merck has reached a $540,000 settlement with Australians who claim its arthritis drug Vioxx gave them heart problems, but a judge is questioning the fairness of the deal …

The settlement would result in the proceedings being dismissed and the matter finalised, meaning no future claims could be brought against Merck over the drug.

To be eligible for compensation, the group members would have to have suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx for a certain period.

Gerard Dalton, representing the claimants, said the successful applicants would receive a maximum of $2000 if they were alive and $1500 if they were dead …

“I don’t just consider myself to be a street sweeper,” Justice Jessup said.

“I want to know what’s really lying around and whether people’s interests or rights are being affected …

Vioxx was withdrawn from sale globally in 2004 following concerns over its side-effects.

Read the article

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | Leave a comment

Dr Wakefield: Govt. experts have conceded that MMR vaccine caused autism

Posted on April 17, 2013 by The Refusers

This is the video and transcript (below) of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s response to the UK government blaming him for the current measles outbreak.

Good morning. The first thing that I want to say is that  I did not seek out this latest media maelstrom. It came about because of an outbreak of measles in South Wales in the United Kingdom for which I have been blamed by her Majesty’s government.  So I did not seek this out but now it seems I have been denied the  opportunity to redress the allegations that have been made against me by members of the government; by members of public health and that is clearly unacceptable.

So legitimate debate about the safety of MMR vaccine and the origin of the measles epidemic in Wales have now been effectively blocked by the government insisting that the British media do not give me a time; do not allow me to respond. And that is the purpose of this. So I did not start this current fight.

The important thing to say is that back in 1996 — 1997 I was made  aware of children developing autism, regressive autism, following exposure in many cases to the measles mumps rubella vaccine. Such  was my concern about the safety of that vaccine that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles containing vaccines before they were  put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science. It really was totally below par and that has been reiterated by other authoritative sources since.

I compiled my observations into a 200 page report which am seeking to put online once I get the permission of my lawyers. And that report was the basis of my impression that the MMR vaccine was inadequately tested for safety certainly compared with the single vaccines and therefore that was the basis of my recommendation in 1998 at press conference that parents should have the option of  the single vaccines.

All I could do as a parent was to say what would I do for my child. That was the only honest answer I could give. My position on that has not changed.

So, what happened subsequently. At that time the single measles vaccine, the single vaccines were available freely on the National Health Service. Otherwise, I would not have suggested that option.  So parents, if they were legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR could go and get the single vaccines. Six months later the  British government unilaterally withdrew the importation license for the single vaccines therefore depriving parents of having these on the NHS; depriving parents who had legitimate concerns  about the safety of MMR from a choice; denying them the opportunity to protect their children in the way that they saw fit.

And I was astonished by this and I said to Dr Elizabeth Miller off  the Health Protection Agency why would you do this, if your  principal concern is to protect children from serious infectious disease. Why would you remove an option from parents who are legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR. And her answer was  extraordinary. She said to me if we allow parents the option of single vaccines it would destroy our MMR programme. In other words concern, her principal concern seemed to be full protection of the MMR programme and not protection of children.

Now were parents concerns about the safety of MMR legitimate. Did they have a reason to be concerned. The answer is unequivocally yes.

When the MMR was introduced in the UK in the late 1980s there were three brands that were introduced. Two of those three brands had to be withdrawn hurriedly four years later because they were causing meningitis in children at an unacceptable rate. In other words two thirds of the licensed vaccines in the UK had to be removed from circulation because they were dangerous.

And what is very disturbing about this and this was drawn to my attention by a government whistleblower, Dr Alistair Thores, who was working at for the Joint Committee On Vaccination And Immunisation, the regulatory body in the UK. He made it clear to  the British government that they should not use those dangerous vaccines. He made it clear to the activity prior to the licensing of the MMR in 1987. Why? Because he was brought in from Canada where they were already having problems with this vaccine under the name Trivirix, the identical vaccine to the vaccine which was  introduced into the UK under the name Pluserix. And there they had noticed that there were cases of meningitis which were far in excess of those which they had previously seen. This meningitis was being caused by the mumps strain; Urabe Am-9.

And so he advised the Joint Committee not to touch this vaccine: it was dangerous. They ignored his pleas and they went ahead and introduced it anyway. Four years later it had to be hurriedly withdrawn because it was causing precisely the complication that he had warned them off. Moreover, they were asked, David Salisbury  specifically, were asked to allocate funds to active surveillance of adverse events. For the government to go out there and to look and last doctors if they had seen cases of this meningitis. He  said no. That was denied and they relied on passive surveillance.  The spontaneous reports from doctors and hospitals. That is known to pick up perhaps 1 to 2% of true adverse reactions. In other  words it was going to inevitably underestimate the true numbers of this reaction. Hence, the delay of four years for the removal of a vaccine that should never have been licensed in the first place.

It was with that background and with that insight into the practices of the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation and I took the stand that I did on MMR. I was deeply and justifiably concerned. So the next question is beyond the fact that MMR vaccine is not safe and has not been adequately tested;  not just my opinion but the opinion of many; is does MMR vaccine cause autism.

Now this question has been answered not by me but by the courts, by the vaccine courts in Italy and in the United States of America where it appears that many children over the last 30 years have  been awarded millions of dollars for the fact that they have been brain-damaged by MMR vaccine and other vaccines and that brain-damage has led to autism. That is a fact.

Now it has been argued by the government that some poor judge has been forced into making this decision that on balance the vaccine cause the autism in the face and in contradiction to the evidence that is available, the scientific evidence. No. That is grossly misleading. Three of these cases the least; Poling, the Italian  case, and more recently the Mojabi case, were conceded by the government experts. In other words the government extrovert is,  the government themselves have conceded that the vaccine cause the autism. They didn’t fight the case. They conceded it based upon the evidence available to – all of it – that the MMR vaccine caused the child’s autism.

So this isn’t some poor judge being forced into a position in the absence of the evidence or in contradiction to the evidence. This is the government’s own experts conceding that the MMR vaccine caused the autism, or caused brain damage in this case that led to be autism. And what we have are millions of dollars being paid out to these children to fund their autism treatment so when the  government says it is not settled cases of autism, please bear in  mind that what they’re paying for the costs of the autism treatments. The government if it says that is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

So let me turn now specifically to the measles outbreak in South Wales. The outbreak that the government is alleging is my responsibility, which is clearly in the face of the evidence from Lord Howe in Parliament and for which originally I suggested protection against measles with a single vaccines.

Now it is very important for people to bear in mind that MMR doesn’t protect against measles. Measles vaccine protects against  measles. The mumps and rubella components are irrelevant. So, if  single vaccines were available; if the government had not  withdrawn the availability of a vaccine, then there would be no  outbreak of measles in Wales, there would be no discussion of measles cases and potential measles deaths. So, the blame for this must lie on the shoulders on those who withdrew the option of the  single vaccine from the parents who were legitimately concerned about the safety of the MMR. Not because of me but what had  happened because of that vaccine long before I came on the scene.

But there is one problem. There is one contradiction. That is as Lord Howe has said in Parliament, MMR vaccine uptake is at an  all-time high. So why are we now seeing measles outbreaks in  highly vaccinated populations. It would be very interesting to find out how many of those children in the current outbreak have  actually been vaccinated. I suspect many. And this is being seen before.

One of the problems I think are encountering is that of vaccine failure; primary and secondary vaccine failure. Primary failure -  not enough children responded by developing immunity to the vaccine in the first place and secondary vaccine failure – those that do develop immunity that immunity disappears very quickly  over time. And this has been seen with mumps vaccine. The mumps fixing does not work and we are seeing similar outbreaks of measles in vaccinated populations. And this is one of the long-term problems of using live viral vaccines over time, taking  seed stock virus and repeatedly using it and using it and using it over time that it seems for some reason to lose its potency. And  what we’re seeing now what I believe is unintended unexpected consequence of long-term use of these live viral vaccines; and that is vaccine failure.

And that is something that is really concerning. It is not theoretical. It has been seen unequivocally with the mumps vaccine. And I believe we are now seeing it with measles. If that is the case then 1) blaming me for the outbreak of this measles case come measles cases in South Wales, is totally inappropriate. It is not addressing the core issue of what you do about live viral vaccine failure, because if the viruses infecting people at  an older age than the outcome may be more serious and there are no  therapeutic interventions for protecting those people from measles.

So the government has in effect put all its eggs in one basket and now we’re seeing measles come back. That is my belief.

What we face unambiguously is an epic of autism; an environmentally driven epidemic of autism now alarmingly affecting  one in 31 boys in the United States of America and I saw data from Yale just the other day from South Korea showing that one in 36 children in South Korea are affected by this lifelong severe  neurodevelopmental disorder. There is the true epidemic. Do we see attention being paid to that in anything like the same way that the media are applying attention to the measles outbreak in South Wales. No we do not. That is the true epidemic. And that is the one that we really have to deal with as a matter of urgency.

Now what I would like to do, I have been, Dr David Elliman is said that this was my fault and I understand that this morning he went  on the news and he was saying that the media were responsible for the latest sort of debate, the latest argument, by giving me some kind of voice. So he is able to make this very serious  allegation against me and then deprive me of the opportunity of  responding in the media. That is an extraordinary situation in what is supposedly a free country.

What I’m suggesting is a formal scientific debate in public in  front of an audience that is televised. And specifically Dr David Salisbury I would like to debate you because I believe you are at  the heart of this matter. I believe the decisions taken by you and by your committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and  Immunisation, lie at the heart of this matter.

There are many things to debate with you.

I’d like to debate with you specifically why you have denied repeatedly that there was any form of indemnity for the   manufacturer of the Urabe containing vaccine Pluserix when it was originally introduced; why you have denied that.

And I have here Dr Salisbury are the unredacted minutes of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation held on 7 May 1993  and here in these minutes it says “once SKB” that is SmithKline Beecham “continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without  liability”. How Dr Salisbury do you explain the term “without liability” in that context. It seems to me that this was something that was disclosed to me by your whistleblower from the government, from your own committee, who said the deal was done  with the manufacturer to exempt them from liability for introducing the vaccine that they had concerns about because there  were already having problems with it in Canada where it was then withdrawn.

I would also like to put it to you, I would like to ask you why  you felt it necessary to contact the General Medical Council and  urge them in the strongest possible terms to prosecute me more      vigourously; indeed to admonish them for not prosecuting me more vigourously. Do you feel that was an abuse of your governmental  position introducing inevitable bias into the General Medical  Council. And since you are at the heart of this matter and have been according to your curriculum vitae from the very beginning, the introduction of MMR into this country, it would seem to me that you are the perfect person to debate this in public with me.  And if we can exonerate MMR vaccine from causing the problems which I believe and many parents believe it is causing them that is all well and good. But that will only be resolved in an open scientific debate. And therefore I think that the time has come to  you and I to have that discussion.

Read the article

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | 2 Comments

New study says parents who read books and the news reject vaccines – Pediatrics Journal

Posted on April 15, 2013 by The Refusers

brainwashMB comment: This new Pediatrics study is an amusing comment on the caliber of those who blindly follow the CDC vaccination schedule (70+ doses of 16 vaccines age 0-18).

The study authors label CDC followers ‘conformists’ – an apt term. Vaccine conformists are less likely to read books, pamphlets or the news. In other words, they are less informed.

Non-conformists (those who don’t fully vaccinate) have larger social groups and are more plugged in to sources such as books, news and the internet.

In other words, sheeple follow the CDC – baa baa baa. Doctors like sheeple.

But parents who think for themselves discover something about vaccines that makes them reject the CDC vaccine schedule. Hmmmm, wonder what that is?

Doctors don’t like non-conformists who think for themselves.

So stop reading books, following the news, consulting your social networks – and become a CDC sheeple?

Naah – it’s too late. The vaccine mafia has lost control of your mind. The truth about dreadful vaccine safety and efficacy won. Propaganda lost.

Congratulations, I hope your kids avoid vaccine adverse reactions and develop a strong natural immune system that fights illness the old fashioned way.

Click play to hear the Refusers song Robot Factory


*****************************************************************************

People, networks may sway parents’ vaccine choices

Reuters Health Apr 15, 2013

‘those who chose not to fully vaccinate their children were more likely to have larger social groups and to turn to other sources, such as books, pamphlets and the Internet, for guidance.

“The take-home message from this is that the social networks for the majority of parents are extremely important in affecting vaccination decisions,” said Emily Brunson, the study’s author from Texas State University in San Marcos.

“Especially the people in the parents’ networks suggesting nonconformity is greater than anything else – including the parents’ own beliefs on vaccination,” she added …

“Nonconformers” were also more likely to seek outside sources, such as books, news programs and the Internet.

Brunson writes in the journal Pediatrics that her findings show healthcare providers are only a part of parents’ social networks.’

Read the article

Read the Pediatrics Study

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | 3 Comments

This Group of Revolutionary Mothers Is Helping Save Children from Dangerous Vaccines

Posted on April 14, 2013 by The Refusers

Apr 13th, 2013 | By              Vactruth article

TMR-Book-Cover-FinalIf you haven’t read the new book by the Thinking Moms’ Revolution (TMR), buy it now. As in today.

I got my long-awaited copy last week. I couldn’t put it down. I cried as I relived so many memories of my grandson Jake’s regression into autism after the rabies vaccine almost seven years ago. Wow. Seven years. I can’t believe it’s been that long. It felt like it was happening all over again while I was reading the stories of other families who went through the same pain. The same heartache. The same panic. The same sense of hopelessness. The same … everything.

Like thousands of other stories about vaccine-injured children who have autism and a myriad of other disorders, many of the kids in TMR’s new book had a lot in common. They were developing normally. Then, everything changed—usually after a vaccine. Their lives came to a screeching halt as they became sick and lost skills they once had. They suffered with painful, sometimes debilitating GI problems and sensory issues. They couldn’t communicate their basic needs. They couldn’t sleep. They couldn’t understand what was happening to them. Why they had to go through so many medical tests and treatments. Why their families were falling apart.

The parents also shared much in common. They suffered too, right along with their kids. They cried for them. For all the things most kids took for granted that their kids couldn’t do. For the complete loss of an even remotely normal life. Like watching their children have play dates. Going to a restaurant—or anywhere—without a meltdown. Or dropping their kids off at school and not being in agony all day wondering if they were going to have a seizure or wander off or be thrown out of school because nobody could deal with their behavior. They watched their spouses and other children suffer as they gave everything they had, including their time, energy, and money, to the sick child. They also suffered guilt. They wished they had not succumbed to their doctors’ pressure to get the vaccines. They wished they had not ignored the nagging doubts, that little voice that told them the vaccines couldn’t be safe.

But they didn’t stay there for long. They did everything possible to bring their kids back. To recover them. They tried therapy after therapy. They found support among other families going through the same thing. They pulled themselves up out of the blackest despair a family could go through and looked forward to the future. To healing their children. To tell others what vaccines did to them. To talk and write about their experiences so they could save other families from their pain. And they never gave up. Because giving up was not an option.

Every time their kids went through a regression, a piece of them died. Every time they took a step forward, no matter how small, they celebrated. They learned to focus on the positive and not dwell on the negative. They found comfort and strength and empowerment through others who were living their lives. They united in the strongest cause in the world. Saving their children.

They started a revolution. No amount of money or power that the pharmaceutical companies or doctors or government agencies or anyone else profiting from vaccines think they have can begin to compete with their cause. Ever.

They are not going away. They are not going to stop until the truth about vaccines comes out and is no longer up for debate. They will never quit.

Think About It — What Happened to These Children?

Think about it. There’s that word again. Think.

It’s simple. They were injured by the toxins in the vaccines.

Every single drug that is currently on the market or has ever been on the market can have side effects. How can this not also be true for vaccines? You can’t tell me that what is safe for one kid is safe for all kids. Everyone can’t take the same medicines. There are allergies, sensitivities, already-compromised immune systems to consider. How is it possible for vaccines, which are injected into our children’s bodies, to not have any serious side effects? Think about what’s in vaccines. Mercury, a known toxin. Along with aborted fetal cells (which means DNA), cow and monkey cells, yeast, sorbitol, gelatin, sodium chloride, egg protein, antibiotics like neomycin and gentamicin, etc., etc., etc.

Here are a few problems these children suffered:

  • “the most miserable baby, always crying and throwing temper tantrums”
  • “ear infections, random skin rashes, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting”
  • “withdrew into his own world”
  • “lost most of his forty words, stopped making eye contact, stopped playing and laughing, … developed a fascination with spinning objects, lost interest in the world around him”
  • “constant fevers, … yeast and bacterial infections”
  • “would run endlessly back and forth in a line”
  • “her beautiful babble descended into silence and morphed into a low guttural hum”
  • “at the doctor’s constantly for colds, coughs, or sores”
  • “a fever of 102, sometimes 104”
  • “stopped babbling, stopped saying mama and dada, lost all eye contact, and stopped smiling”
  • “wouldn’t respond to his name at all”
  • “would scream loudly and throw himself on the floor, slamming his head so hard that he bruised it”
  • “just spinning the wheels on the toy cars he used to play with”
  • “body was covered from head to toe, front to back, in a rash, and he was crying inconsolably”
  • “He was slow to talk, very late to walk, ended up losing what little speech he had, and struggled to make cognitive, social, and emotional gains.”
  • “morphed from a fat, happy baby to a detached and hyperactive preschooler”
  • “He started walking on his toes, flapping his hands, shaking his head from side to side, looking at things out of the corner of his eyes, spinning nonstop … and not talking.”
  • “He was sinking into his own world.”
  • “She had auditory and visual processing disorders, causing her to cry out in agony over certain noises and lights. She slept badly. She was hyperactive and frequently mouthed and licked things.”
  • “bit everyone in sight”
  • “He was easily overwhelmed and couldn’t handle chaos well. Transitioning from place to place might or might not bring a complete meltdown.”
  • “He wouldn’t do the same preschool ‘work’ that his peers were doing. There was little interaction with other children. He didn’t answer questions appropriately or look you in the eye.”
  • “He cried all day long and projectile-vomited every ounce of formula we gave him.”
  • “He stopped gaining weight, and he stopped growing at the rate he should have been. … He had very small appetite.”
  • “would walk around repeating pages out of the book”
  • “He would transition for a few seconds into maniacal laughter, but then, seamlessly and without a breath, he would go back to crying, as if in pain.”
  • “I had to sit on him to brush his teeth, to cut his nails, and to get him into his car seat.”

I think these kids sound sick. Very sick.

Think About It — What Made Them Better?

That’s simple too. In many instances, they were detoxed. They were treated medically, and they improved. That’s because autism is a medical disorder. It affects the whole body. When you treat the whole body, amazing things can happen. It can vary from child to child—not only do all kids not react the same way to a vaccine or any other drug, they don’t all react the same way to treatments and therapies. These children are proof of that. And they are proof that vaccines can make some children very sick. Vaccines can give some children autism. Simple.

Their parents tried the following:

  • homeopathy
  • hyperbaric chamber therapy
  • ABA
  • Son-Rise
  • gluten free/casein free diet
  • speech, physical, and occupational therapy
  • chelation
  • Floortime
  • vitamins, supplements, enzymes
  • chiropractic adjustments
  • glutathione
  • MB12 shots
  • antivirals, antifungals, antibiotics
  • AIT
  • vision therapy
  • acupressure

And now, here are the same kids I described earlier.

  • “… she was feeding her baby dolls and lovingly putting them to bed; she was putting her ‘little people’ down the slide while gleefully exclaiming, ‘Weee!’”
  • “My two beautiful, sweet, funny boys love to play together, love their family and friends, and are getting healthier day by day.”
  • “Potty training. Handwriting. Math. Learning letter sounds over and over again until a few words started to emerge. Playing catch. Taking shoes off. Putting clothes on. Brushing teeth.”
  • “We had a play date at our house recently with four children he’d never met before, all around his age and all playing with his toys.”
  • “a great storyteller with a wicked command of idiomatic expressions and is astoundingly good at putting difficult concepts into words”
  • “… made huge strides. He discovered his baby sister. He’s insatiably curious about the world he lives in. He asks questions about everyone and everything, as if all this time he’d been locked behind doors.”
  • “Now, I am more likely to sit with Nick face to face, trying to teach him how to put the shoes on himself, and we might share a giggle.”
  • “Mei loves her new school and teachers and has already made many friends in class. She is enjoying all of her new lessons and is more than capable of keeping up with her schoolwork and her classmates.”
  • “My son is on a soccer team with his brother and neurotypical kids. He is in cub scouts.”
  • “… we haven’t experienced one tantrum. … He will now hold our hand and allow us to take him from room to room. … Last week, he started pointing to things and verbablizing more.”
  • “He is a sweet little boy who loves toys, his siblings, and learning. He is no longer in pain and is no longer constipated. He can sit in restaurants, behaves properly in stores, and is great on an airplane. … Every day Harry is more ‘with it’ and more ‘in it’ than he was the day before.”
  • “He is sweet as pie, and when he gets in trouble, he is truly worried about it. He’s constantly creating things … He is great at math and well liked in his class.”
  • “My oldest son will be nine this month and is very close to recovery.”

I think these kids are recovering.

But wait. If you have a child who has recovered or is still recovering from autism—because recovery is a process—your doctor will tell you he never had autism to begin with. After all, he couldn’t have had autism. Because nobody recovers from autism. Right? WRONG!!!

Think about it. When your child was diagnosed after a vaccine, the same doctor probably told you the vaccine didn’t cause autism, that it was there all along, and you just didn’t notice it. Nobody did. You, your child’s teachers, your family. Nobody. But now that your child is on the road to recovery, he no longer had it to begin with. Think about it. They can’t have it both ways. They keep trying, and they have convinced a lot of people so far. But that is changing. Their days of basking in their money and power are coming to an end.

Think About It — How Can You Help?

Join the revolution.

Don’t shut up. Tell your story.

Ask questions. Read, read, read. Talk with other parents.

Go with your gut. A mother’s instinct is powerful. Follow it. When a nagging voice tells you something doesn’t sound right, something is wrong, listen to it.

What happened to these and so many other children didn’t have to happen. They should never have endured what they have endured. Don’t let it happen to anyone you know. Just … THINK.

References

The Thinking Moms’ Revolution: Autism Beyond the Spectrum. Collected by Helen Conroy and Lisa Joyce Goes. Foreword by Robert W. Sears, MD. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2013.

Read the article

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | Leave a comment

Doctors Not Informed of Harmful Effects of Medicines During Sales Visits – Science Daily

Posted on April 11, 2013 by The Refusers

Family doctors are simply pharmaceutical agents in drag. They prescribe pills and vaccines after being coached by drug company sales reps who omit any mention of adverse events.

No wonder doctors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

Clearly, physicians stamped out of this mold should be shunned if you don’t want you or your family to become a statistic.

Pediatricians are the worst of the lot. After reading this article, check out this hilarious training manual for underachieving pediatricians that coaches them in overcoming vaccine hesitancy – but doesn’t even mention the medical textbook definition of a vaccine adverse reaction (encephalitis/ encephalopathy), which is also on most vaccine package inserts under the ‘severe adverse reactions observed in post marketing experience’ section.

Bottom line: Fire your doctor if they work for a drug company instead of you.

Click Play to hear The Refusers song Unavoidably Unsafe

*********************************************************************************

ScienceDaily – Apr. 10, 2013

The majority of family doctors receive little or no information about harmful effects of medicines when visited by drug company representatives, according to an international study involving Canadian, U.S. and French physicians.

Yet the same doctors indicated that they were likely to start prescribing these drugs, consistent with previous research that shows prescribing behaviour is influenced by pharmaceutical promotion.

The study, which had doctors fill out questionnaires about each promoted medicine following sales visits, was published online today in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. It shows that sales representatives failed to provide any information about common or serious side effects and the type of patients who should not use the medicine in 59 per cent of the promotions. In Vancouver and Montreal, no potential harms were mentioned for 66 per cent of promoted medicines.

“Laws in all three countries require sales representatives to provide information on harm as well as benefits,” says lead author Barbara Mintzes of the University of British Columbia. “But no one is monitoring these visits and there are next to no sanctions for misleading or inaccurate promotion.”

Serious risks were mentioned in only six percent of the promotions, even though 57 per cent of the medications involved in these visits came with US Food and Drug Administration “black box” or Health Canada boxed warnings — the strongest drug warning that can be issued by both countries.

“We are very concerned that doctors and patients are left in the dark and patient safety may be compromised,” says Mintzes, an expert on drug advertising in UBC’s School of Population and Public Health.

Doctors in Toulouse were more likely to be told of a harmful effect in a promotional visit, compared to doctors in Canada and the U.S., according to the study. Researchers suggested that this may reflect stricter regulatory standards for promotion of medicines in France.

About the study

The UBC-led study is the most comprehensive to date of the quality of pharmaceutical sales representative promotions to family physicians.

Researchers recruited physicians to participate using random samples from lists of primary care physicians at four sites — Vancouver, Montreal, Sacramento and Toulouse. Among 704 eligible physicians contacted, 255 (36 per cent) chose to participate. Information was collected on 1,692 drug promotions at sales visits between May 2009 to June 2010.

Doctors were asked to fill out a questionnaire about the information provided for each promoted medicine following each visit they received from pharmaceutical sales representatives. Sales representatives regularly visit doctors’ offices to promote medicines by providing information, free samples and in some cases food and invitations to events. The study focused on how often information was provided about drug safety.

The team includes researchers from UBC, York University, University of Montreal, University of California, Davis and the University of Toulouse.

Read the article

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | Leave a comment

Fish oil can boost the immune system – Journal of Leukocyte Biology

Posted on April 8, 2013 by The Refusers

MB Comment: Most scientific research is obsessed with vaccination and developing new vaccines, as if disrupting the human immune system with artificial toxic vaccine adjuvants and excipients is the holy grail.

Here we have a study showing that a natural substance fish oil enhances the function of B cells, which evolve into immune memory cells that produce antibodies against specific antigens.

Do you imagine for one second that mainstream science will adopt this finding to improve human health?

Of course not, unless some corrupt Big Pharma drug company like Merck can extract some component of freely-available fish oil, give it a fishy name like Merckalatrol, raise the price by 100,000 times, require a prescription and get some lapdog, puppet government agency to recommend it.

If you interested in improving your family’s immunity why not start taking fish oil and tell Merck and your Merck-corrupted doctor to stick those toxic Merck vaccines up their own rear end?

************************************************************************************

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

New research published in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology suggests that instead of suppressing the body’s immune response, fish oil actually enhances the function of B cells

Fish oil rich in DHA and EPA is widely believed to help prevent disease by reducing inflammation, but until now, scientists were not entirely sure about its immune enhancing effects. A new report appearing in the April 2013 issue of the Journal of Leukocyte Biology, helps provide clarity on this by showing that DHA-rich fish oil enhances B cell activity, a white blood cell, challenging the notion that fish oil is only immunosuppressive. This discovery is important as it shows that fish oil does not necessarily reduce the overall immune response to lower inflammation, possibly opening the doors for the use of fish oil among those with compromised immune systems.

“Fish oil may have immune enhancing properties that could benefit immunocompromised individuals,” said Jenifer Fenton, Ph.D., M.P.H., a researcher involved in the work from the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan.

To make this discovery, researchers used two groups of mice. One group was fed a control diet, and the other was fed a diet supplemented with DHA-rich fish oil for five weeks. B cells were harvested from several tissues and then stimulated in culture. Researchers then looked for markers of B cell activation on the cell surface, B cell membrane changes, and B cell cytokine production. They found that DHA-enriched fish oil enhanced B cell activation and select antibody production, which may actually aid immune responses associated with pathogen clearance, while possibly dampening the totality of the inflammatory response.

“This work confirms similar findings on fish oil and B cells from our lab, and moves us one step closer to understanding the immune enhancing properties of EPA and DHA,” said S. Raza Shaikh, Ph.D., a researcher also involved in the work from the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at East Carolina University.

###

The Journal of Leukocyte Biology publishes peer-reviewed manuscripts on original investigations focusing on the cellular and molecular biology of leukocytes and on the origins, the developmental biology, biochemistry and functions of granulocytes, lymphocytes, mononuclear phagocytes and other cells involved in host defense and inflammation. The Journal of Leukocyte Biology is published by the Society for Leukocyte Biology.

Details: Eric A. Gurzell, Heather Teague, Mitchel Harris, Jonathan Clinthorne, Saame Raza Shaikh, and Jenifer I. Fenton. DHA-enriched fish oil targets B cell lipid microdomains and enhances in vivo and ex vivo B cell function. J Leukoc Biol April 2013 93:463-470; doi:10.1189/jlb.0812394; http://www.jleukbio.org/content/93/4/463.abstract

Read the article

Posted in Refusers Newsroom | 4 Comments