India’s Supreme Court to study violations in licensing and trials for Cervarix and Gardasil

January 9, 2013 1 Comment

Many of these young women had been coerced into accepting the vaccine

By CHRISTINA ENGLAND | VACTRUTH | JANUARY 9, 2013

On January 7, 2013, Ms. Leslie Carol Botha, Women’s Health Educator and long-time advocate for HPV vaccine safety awareness [1], released an urgent article entitled: India Women Activists Historic Writ of Petition Accepted by Supreme Court over Unethical Trialing of HPV Vaccines, Gardasil® and Cervarix®.

Based on the press release issued by Kalpana Mehta, Nalini Bhanot and V. Rukmini Rao, representing Gramya Resource Centre for Women from Andhra Pradesh, titled, “India Supreme Court Accepts Writ of Petition on Gardasil & Cervarix Licensing & Trial Violations” implicating the Drug Controller of India, PATH, ICMR and others, ordering the government of India to immediately respond. [2]

Botha outlined the course of history that led to this groundbreaking hearing, as well as the violations that occurred during the clinical trials and the undisclosed international agenda among the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to unduly influence the Indian government to adopt the vaccines for introduction in the public sector. Botha also detailed the Petitioners’ requests and reliefs as stated in the Writ of Petition, filed on October 29, 2012.

TAKING ACTION

On October 29, 2012, activists Kalpana Mehta and Nalini Bhanot, along with Dr. Rukmini Rao, President of the Gramya Resource Centre for Women in India, filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of The Constitution of India for Women. The petition was filed against:

  • Drug Controller General of India

  • Indian Council of Medical Research

  • State of Andhra Pradesh

  • State of Gujarat

  • PATH International

  • GlaxoSmithKline Asia Private Limited

  • MSD Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

(A writ petition is a document filed to the court that includes an introduction to the issue and an explanation why a petition is needed as a means of preventing irreparable harm. The explanation is supported with allegations by the Petitioner and a memorandum of the issues raised.) [3]

The petition outlines a series of serious allegations regarding the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix. Petitioners Kalpana Mehta, Nalini Bhanot and Dr. Rukmini Rao reported that the two HPV vaccines were illegally brought into the states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and subsequently administered to thousands of young, vulnerable Indian children before the vaccines were known to be safe.

The three Petitioners told the court that even though the Indian government and the above organizations knew the HPV vaccines were of dubious value and of speculative benefits, they continued to allow a trial using both the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines without regard to the potential endangerment of the lives of adolescent girls.

The petition outlined how the above organizations vaccinated tens of thousands of vulnerable girls aged between 10-14 years and then abandoned them without providing any information on potential adverse reactions, scheduling follow-up examinations, or 0ffering post-vaccine treatment.

THE UNETHICAL EXPERIMENT

The vaccines were introduced to the public sector by carrying out a trial vaccinating 16,000 adolescent girls (10-14 years) in Andhra Pradesh and an equal number in Gujarat. The petitioners believed that by vaccinating children with HPV vaccines while being fully aware of the potential dangers, the organizations involved knowingly put the lives of tens of thousands of children at risk from potentially serious vaccine-related adverse reactions and death.

The Petitioners stated that the unlicensed HPV vaccines only became licensed midway through the project:

“These vaccines had not been assessed with respect to safety and efficacy for the Indian population where adolescent girls are overwhelmingly anemic and malnourished. No steps were taken to ensure the health and safety of the girls. They were not screened adequately for contraindications. On the contrary, they were told that the vaccine had no adverse effects, not even those that were acknowledged by the manufacturers. Referral and treatment of serious adverse effects was not planned and as a result, private doctors and government hospitals were not aware that the girls coming to them in serious condition were subjects of vaccine trials. No monitoring of the program was done. No course correction was made. After vaccination, the girls were dumped with no follow up.”

To further support their claims, the Petitioners shared a statement, which had been published on the WHO website:

“The short (2-3 years) post marketing surveillance periods of these vaccines do not permit final assessments of possible rare or long-term adverse effects.”  [4]

All girls were vaccinated by the U.S.-based NGO (Non Government Organization) and PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health).

DEATH AND DECEPTION

As stated in the petition, the project was discontinued only after several women’s organizations reported:

  • deaths among the participants
  • the use of vulnerable population
  • lack of informed consent

The Petitioners accused project leaders of falsification of the records and stated that the project had been carried out with severe lack of monitoring, stating that PATH and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) as well as state authorities covered up the adverse effects and deaths that have been described in the petition:

“Some of the girls died. Some suffered serious adverse effects. Some of the girls developed autoimmune diseases that would require lifelong care. The manufacturers themselves acknowledged adverse events such as anaphylactic shock, seizures and paralysis, motor neuron disease, blood clots, eye, ear and vascular problems and even death, and problems affecting the nervous system, the immune system, the musculoskeletal system, the blood and lymphatic system, the respiratory system, the gastrointestinal system and the vascular system. In the PATH project, these adverse events were grossly under reported and hidden. Records were falsified. Deaths that took place were stated as having nothing to do with the administering of the vaccines and were described as deaths due to suicides, insecticide poisoning and snake bites.” 

In an interview, Kalpana Mehta told me there had been gross anomalies in the death-related documentation, indicating a cover-up and that even the age of the girl who died failed to match the projects records. She said:

“The dates of postmortems were poorly documented and inaccurate and instead of being written on hospital stationary many had been written on plain paper without signatures.”

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The citizens of India have every right to be concerned. It appears that their government officials have fallen prey to collusion of international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PATH and WHO. They have allowed tens of thousands of young, vulnerable, rural Indian children to be involved in the HPV vaccine experiment, with no benefit.

Ms. Mehta says:

“Even a government appointed inquiry committee found gross irregularity with the consent process. Indian law provides for compensation for violation of the informed consent procedure in addition to the compensation for death and injury suffered by trial subjects. However even after two years the government has failed to act on its own inquiry.

This inquiry committee also noted that by taking vaccines free of cost from the manufacturers, the project was mired in conflict of interest. It also took strong exception to PATH ensuring itself for the project but leaving the girls uninsured.”

INFERTILITY CONCERNS

By this time, a massive 24,000 girls had already been vaccinated and, according to the petitioners, many of these young women had been coerced into accepting the vaccine. Parents were reassured, without scientific basis, that the vaccines would not impact their children’s future fertility.

Concerned about this information, the Petitioners stated:

“As of now there is alarming news of menopause setting in a 16 year-old girl from Australia, where the doctor has found Gardasil to be the only probable cause of this rarest of rare mishap.” [5]

Since the petition was submitted, yet more information on the similar plight of girls in Australia has come to light. The Sunday Telegraph has published a story, first reported in the British Medical Journal, of a previously healthy 16 year-old girl whose premature menopause may be linked to the Gardasil vaccination. [6]

According to The Telegraph, Dr. Ward told reporters that women’s fertility must be protected at all costs. Ms. Botha has been echoing Dr. Ward’s words for years. She has stressed on many occasions that vaccinating girls at menarche – the onset of menstruation, which is the most fragile reproductive time of a woman’s life – is dangerous:

“As the female hormone levels of estrogen and progesterone decrease during the premenstrual phase, the female body begins the process of releasing the uterine lining in the act of menstruation. The decrease in hormones actually affects a woman’s energy levels and her emotions. The immune system becomes more compromised, and that translates to a lowered defense system to fight off invading, foreign toxins.” [7]

CONCLUSION

There has been no evidence to suggest that any of the above crucial issues were ever considered by any of the organizations involved in these vaccination trials.

Time and again, according to the petition, PATH has denied that it carried out a trial in India. It insists that what it was doing was merely a post-licensure study. This explanation was unacceptable to the Indian government’s inquiry. It concluded that by whatever name PATH chooses to call its exercise, under the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it was indeed a clinical trial and all safeguards should have been observed. Yet PATH and WHO have hailed the trial a resounding success in order to carry on vaccinating other vulnerable communities in the third world with dangerous, potentially life-threatening vaccines.

Undeterred by the government’s silence and WHO pronouncements, the Petitioners have strongly recommended that the court cancel the product licenses for Gardasil and Cervarix and withdraw both vaccinations from the market until their safety and efficacy is proven, as per Indian regulation. Their stance on licensing resonates with democracy as the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare has indeed determined that the drug regulations currently favor pharmaceutical companies unduly, leaving consumers at the mercy of untried, irrational formulations.

Acknowledgements

The author offers her sincerest gratitude to Kalpana Mehta, Nalini Bhanot and V. Rukmini Rao for their tireless efforts to restore justice and health to vulnerable populations everywhere, especially in India at this time, and for their willingness to share their petition to the court with VacTruth.

References

1. http://holyhormones.com/womens-health/cancer-womens-health/cervical-cancer…

2.  http://holyhormones.com/womens-health/cancer-womens-health/cervical-cancer/india-supreme-court-accepts-writ-of-petition-on-gardasil-cervarix-licensing-trial-violations/

3.  http://www.ehow.com/facts_6739641_meaning-writ-petition_.html

4.  http://www.who.int/immunization/HPV_ Grad_Adol_girls.pdf

5.  http://pop.org/content/teenage-girl-becomes-infertile-after-gardasilvaccination

6.  http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/hpv-vaccine-link-to-infertility-needs-to-be-tested-says-miranda-devine/story-e6freuy9-1226528052334

7.  http://vactruth.com/2010/01/13/website-documents-over-300-gardasil-horror-stories/


Filed under Asia, English, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China brags about controlling all media outlets

January 8, 2013 Leave a comment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 8, 2013

The Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC) said on Tuesday that the government “still has absolute control” of the press and banned further protests in favor of freedom of expression which  occurred in Canton and that are the first example of nonconformity in decades shown by journalists against the regime.

“Several hostile foreign forces which have intervened in the protests,” said the note of the Party, sent to the principal leaders of the CCP and media executives, urging them to prohibit journalists from other media show their support for the publication “rebel”.

The letter responds to the strike and demonstrations led by reporters from the weekly Southern Weekly (Nanfang Zhoumo) in protest against censorship suffered in the first 2013 edition of this publication, known for its investigative journalism and its liberal editorial line.

The CCP’s statement, which echoes the South China Morning Post, says the media control of the authorities is an “unbreakable” principle.

The wording of Southern Weekly reported about the use of censorship last week which affected the editorial and other articles. Those pieces were changed or omitted to be replaced by pieces that flattered the Chinese government. The journalists demanded the resignation of the new head of government propaganda, Tuo Zhen.

After authorities denied these accusations, drafting decided to strike against this control, something that had not happened in more than two decades in Chinese media of such prestige and importance. In addition, more than 300 supporters rallied Monday outside the headquarters of the group supporting the strike, and many Internet social networks have shown their support to the protest that calls for freedom of expression.

The CCP’s statement Tuesday also came out in defense of censorship responsible for ensuring that “incidents have nothing to do with the propaganda chief of the province.” The Communist Propaganda Department also has ordered the media across the country to publish an editorial on Monday first reprinted in the newspaper Global Times, linked to the CCP, which notes that the Asian giant has “no social infrastructure to support the free press. “

“Because of the social and political reality of China, freedom of the press demanded by these people, referring to the journalists of Cantonese, simply does not exist,” said the editorial. The article also accuses several Internet pretending to be journalists at Southern Weekend “for” spreading false information and dividing the country. “

“The reform of the media in China will jointly develop with that of the country as a whole. It is a part of the great changes to come, but will never become a special area of ​​Chinese politics,” says the editorial.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Filed under Asia, English, World Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Reduce Two Leading Childhood Diseases by 50% or More without Vaccines

January 4, 2013 Leave a comment

By JEFFREY J. AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | JANUARY 4, 2012

It’s not black magic or some out-of-date belief—just good old-fashioned common sense.

Better hygiene, sanitation, and organic food are the foundations for good health. But to what degree could one of those elements (hygiene, for example) have an effect on decreasing a disease? I think finding the answer to this question and considering the evidence is valuable for parents who are considering vaccinating their children.

Why?

Mainstream health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and other such agencies in the United States use emotionally charged language to declare that vaccines—not better sanitation or hygiene— saved the world from deadly diseases.

It is for this reason that I must warn you: Those who push vaccines often trivialize or underestimate the information I am going to share with you. It completely destroys what they have been told for many years.

If you’re interested in learning more, read on.

The Gold Standard

The big secret vaccine peddlers avoid like the plague is, one amazingly simple act reduced two diseases by 50% or more. The most vital point to remember: The decrease in morbidity of—or the rate of incidence of a disease—those affected by the diseases had nothing to do with vaccines!

To get our answer, we turn to Karachi, Pakistan.

In 2002, a randomized controlled trial (a gold standard of scientific research) was performed by Dr. Stephen P. Luby in Karachi, Pakistan. The goal of the study was to assess the impact of hand washing and bathing with soap in settings where infectious diseases are leading causes of childhood disease and death. [1–3]

It is known as the Karachi Health Soap Study.

It’s noteworthy to keep in mind that the variable studied was hand washing—not improved sanitation (waste water treatment), clean drinking water, better food or storage, or even vaccines. In Karachi, sewage contaminates the drinking water and feces contaminates the environment. This is what makes the study so radically powerful!

If you want to see an overview of what was done, read on.

The Power of Simplicity and Education

Here are the some relevant facts you should know about the Karachi Health Soap Study[3]:

  • 25 neighborhoods were either given an antibacterial soap (containing 1.2% triclocarban) or plain soap.
  • 11 neighborhoods were the control. In other words, no hygiene promotion occurred, and no soap was dispensed in these neighborhoods.
  • Both the antibacterial soap and plain soap looked and smelled identical.
  • Both types of soap were packaged identically in generic white wrappers. Neither the fieldworkers nor the families knew whether the soaps were antibacterial or plain.
  • Fieldworkers reviewed with the families the health problems that resulted from contaminated hands and provided them with specific hand-washing instructions.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged households to wash their hands after defecation, after cleaning an infant who had defecated, before preparing food, before eating, and before feeding infants.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged participants to bathe once a day with soap and water.

Here’s what happened next…

Dramatic Decrease in Diseases

Remember my warning in the beginning of the article about the information being dismissed? As you will see, the results are very dramatic.

As noted by the study, in the first 6 months not much change or variation (only 6%) was noted between the different groups. In the graph below, the biggest change came in the second half of the year.

karachi-statistics

The results of the study were analyzed after 51 weeks.

  • Primary diarrhea outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 47% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
    • Plain soap: 52% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
  • Primary respiratory outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 45% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group
    • Plain soap: 50% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group

It is essential to reemphasize, the World Health Organization lists pneumonia (lower-respiratory infection) and diarrhea as the number 1 and number 2 diseases, which kill more than 3.5 million children worldwide each year. [3–5]

This seems to be in harmony with the principle that Antoine Bechamp—and even Weston Price—wrote about many years ago: The health of the host is everything. The disease is nothing. [6]

Considering that the people in the Karachi study drank the same water, ate the same foods, had the same indoor plumbing (or lack thereof), etc., a significant question has to be asked. If simple hand washing can decrease the morbidity of diarrhea and pneumonia by 50% or more, what happens when better sanitation facilities, food storage, and quality of food are introduced?

Even more important, I’d think there would be comparative data on the effectiveness of hand washing and vaccines. But if that were to happen—given the safety track record of soap versus vaccines—the entire vaccine program would receive a severe death blow.

What we know is when the standard of living increases, mortality and morbidity rates fall.

As an example, mortality rates (not morbidity) in the United States decreased prior to the introduction of vaccines (notice there was not a vaccine for scarlet fever).

united-states-mortality-rates

What could cause such an intense drop in mortality rates? It obviously wasn’t the vaccines. If vaccines caused a 50% drop in morbidity or mortality rate of a disease within a 6-month period, the media would broadcast it all over the news, singing the praises and benefits of getting injected.

The irony of this study is that the Centers for Disease Control provided some funding and reviewed the data. Here’s an excerpt from the study:

The balance of the funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Inclusion of soap trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services. These data were presented in part at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, GA, USA, in February, 2004. [3]

So, now you know that some people at the Centers for Disease Control know. But here’s the clincher.

Vaccine Pushers

The Centers for Disease Control recommend the following vaccines in the United States to prevent the very same diseases discussed above.

For diarrhea: RotaTeq® (RV5) and Rotarix® (RV1). [7]

For pneumonia: Pneumococcal, haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis (whooping cough), varicella (chickenpox), measles, and influenza (flu) vaccine. [8]

Does the Centers for Disease Control mention washing hands as a means of prevention? Sure—in passing.

They say something to the effect that good hygiene is important, but is not enough to control the spread of the disease. They recommend vaccines.

handwashing-karachi-e1356757852356Then again, you might want to consider why the CDC is so adamant about recommending vaccines. For example, this is from an article on Mercola.com:

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned millions of dollars as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine … The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine— effectively, to vote himself rich. [9]

Could the deep ties to the pharmaceutical companies be the reason the CDC puts more emphasis on vaccines? Considering the evidence presented in the Karachi Health Soap Study, which would you choose—better hygiene or a vaccine?

Conclusion

What’s the moral of the story?

The data revealed by Stephen P. Luby in the Karachi Health Soap Study is nothing short of spectacular. Children who washed their hands and skin with plain soap had 52% less diarrhea and 50% less pneumonia. Good hygiene has a significant impact on decreasing disease, and I think it is something we take for granted in the United States.

Please remember this point: If better nutrition and sanitation were added as components of this or a future study, I suspect that Karachi, Pakistan, would see a more dramatic drop in diseases, much like in the United States—and I would highly encourage such efforts.

Just imagine the implications of a comparative study being performed between hygiene practices and vaccines for decreasing disease. What do you think the outcome would be? My money would be on hygiene practices being the clear winner.

Here’s the shocking reality.

You hold in your hands the real power and master key to good health. It doesn’t come through the tip of a needle.

References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_evidence
  3. Luby, Stephen P., Mubina Agboatwalla, Daniel R. Feikin, John Painter, Ward Billhimer, Arshad Altaf, and Robert M. Hoekstra.“Effect of Handwashing on Child Health: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” The Lancet 366, no. 9481 (July 16, 2005): 225–233. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66912-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023513
  4. WHO Pneumonia Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs331/en/
  5. WHO Diarrhoeal Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/
  6. http://www.naturalnews.com/030384_Louis_Pasteur_disease.html
  7. http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/about/prevention.html
  8. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Pneumonia/
  9. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/vaccine-doctor-given-at-least-30-million-dollars-to-push-vaccines.aspx

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Special Reports Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

1,742 new reasons to avoid Infanrix Hexa vaccine cocktail

December 28, 2012 Leave a comment

By CHRISTINA ENGLAND | VACTRUTH | DECEMBER 28, 2012

Last week, VacTruth reported details of the 1,271 page confidential GlaxoSmithKline document, regarding their six-in-one vaccine. More confidential papers have recently been leaked to the press. The Belgian website Initiative Citoyeene  reported both leaked documents.

The latest confidential document concerns the Prevenar 13 vaccine, a pneumococcal vaccine manufactured by Pfizer (now merged with Wyeth). [1] This vaccine replaced the original 2010 vaccine Prevenar, which, as reported by the manufacturer, has actually increased, rather than decreased, serious infections.

The Prevenar 13 protects infants against Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria which can lead to cases of meningitis, bacteraemia (an infection of the blood), pneumonia and ear infections. [2] It is usual for the six-in-one vaccination Infanrix Hexa and the Prevenar 13 vaccine to be administered to small babies at the same time.

According to the leaked confidential Wyeth (Pfizer) documents and a reply from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), both the manufacturer and the agency are aware of a significantly higher number of adverse neurological events in children vaccinated with both Prevenar 13 AND Infanrix Hexa, as per the Belgian vaccination schedule at ages two months and four months.

 THE FIRST SET OF LEAKED DOCUMENTS

First, let’s revisit the leaked confidential document regarding the Infanrix Hexa vaccine information, which I revealed just days ago on VacTruth. I exposed a hidden GlaxoSmithKline document that had been leaked to the press, revealing 36 infant deaths. [3]

The document, titled Confidential To Regulatory Authorities Infanrix Hexa Summary Bridging Report [4] stated that between October 23, 2009, and October 22, 2011, GlaxoSmithKline received a total of 1,742 reports of adverse events, including 503 serious adverse events, after children had received the 6 in 1 vaccine, Infanrix Hexa.

(Infanrix Hexa is a 6-in-1 vaccination, which combines the Combined Diphtheria, Tetanus and Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B enhanced Inactivated Poliomyelitis and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. It is used in 92 countries worldwide.)

The GlaxoSmithKline confidential document detailed each and every one of the 1,742 adverse events. The list was so long, it required a full twenty pages. Here are some of the adverse events detailed on charts between pages 11 and 31 of their document:

  • 106 cases of cyanosis

  • 69 cases of loss of consciousness

  • 165 cases of hypotonia

  • 102 cases of hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes

  • 107 cases of convulsions

  • 20 cases of epilepsy

  • 98 cases of febrile convulsions

  • 33 cases of grand mal convulsions

  • 47 apnea attacks

  • 108 cases of vomiting

  • 43 cases of Gaze Palsy

  • 12 cases of anemia

  • 1 case of bone marrow failure

  • 6 cases of cardiac arrests

  • 53 cases of diarrhea

  • 593 cases of pyrexia (high temperature)

  • 22 cases of gait disturbance

  • 6 cases of anaphylaxis

  • 62 cases of pertussis (whooping cough)

  • 2 cases of meningitis pneumococcal

  • 3 cases of arthritis

  • 16 cases of muscle twitching

  • 22 cases of tremors

  • 264 cases of crying (does not indicate the severity)

  • 2 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome

  • 10 cases of respiratory arrest

  • 7 cases of Kawasaki’s disease

All of these adverse events occurred after the child received the Infanrix Hexa vaccination, some just hours after being vaccinated. I am sure you will agree that these documented facts make extremely uncomfortable reading.

However, if this information is not disturbing enough, in the document, GlaxoSmithKline revealed on page twenty a total of 68 cases of vaccination failure! This fact proves that, not only does their vaccine appear to cause death, injury and illness in multiple children, but that this vaccine failed to give any “protection” at all to at least 68 children.

The document was signed by Safety Scientist Vanessa Corman and Vice President, Lead Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance Dr. Felix Arellano, M.D., from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

THE SECOND SET OF LEAKED DOCUMENTS

Now, let’s continue with the shocking new papers that the Belgian website Initiative Citoyeene have revealed. They stated:

“On the 4th of January this year, at the end of the required 6-week period, two Pfizer Group Regulatory Affairs Directors, Mary Allin and Helen Edwards, sent a response to Dr. S. Spinosa of the European Medicine Agency on the topic of ‘higher number of neurologic events reported in Italy following the coadministration of Pevenar 13 and hexavalent vaccines.’ The two directors specified at the end of this letter that based on data supplied, they did not feel there was any need to modify the vaccine’s reference safety information (RSI), in other words, its package insert.”

So, let’s take a closer look at one of the confidential reports that Initiative Citoyenne has been quoting. This confidential document reveals that over a two-year period, 22 deaths were reported, representing 2.6% of the total number of cases and a total of 51 reported cases of lack of efficacy, or vaccination failure! [4]

BRAIN DAMAGE AND DEATH

The next section relates to reports of neurological events.

The Master of Health Administration (MAH), was asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), to provide a cumulative review of neurological reactions in those cases, which were reported to have received Prevenar 13 concomitantly (at the same time) with hexavalent (6-in-1) vaccine.

The MAH reported that during the two-year period between July 10, 2009, and July 9, 2011, a total of 1,691 cases of adverse events were reported after the Prevenar 13 vaccine. Of those adverse events, 312 cases (18%) were indicative of neurological reactions. [5] The 1,691 cases were then divided in three different datasets. The Initiative Citoyenne website explained the findings:

“An important fact is that Pfizer assessed the respective frequency of neurologic accidents in three different groups of children: those who had all received only the Prevenar 13 on the same day, those who had received both the Prevenar 13and other vaccines on the same day and those who had received both the Prevenar 13 and a hexavalent vaccine on the same day.

Of the 934 children who had only received the Prevenar 13 and experienced adverse effects, 87 displayed neurologic events (87/934 = 9%).

Of the 287 children who had received the Prevenar 13 plus other vaccines on the same day, and experienced adverse effects, 62 had had neurologic episodes (62/287 = 21%).

Of the 470 children who received the Prevenar 13 plus a hexavalent vaccine, on the same day, and reported adverse effects, 163 had experienced neurologic reactions (163/470 = 34%!!). It is therefore clear that the concomitant administration of several vaccines, particularly those recommended in the Belgian vaccine schedule (Prevenar 13 alongside Infanrix Hexa), multiplies the risk of neurologic reactions including serious and potentially irreversible adverse events!”

To describe the enormity of the situation, they further stated, in easy-to-understand terms:

“To grasp the extent of the problem, just remember that the Belgian annual birth rate is approximately 128,000, a very large majority of whom receive BOTH the Prevenar and the Infanrix Hexa. A simple calculation reveals therefore that the annual number of serious adverse effects, taking ONLY this vaccine into account, could be 3% x 128,000 births = 3,840 children!”

MORE REASONS TO AVOID THIS SIX-IN-ONE VACCINE

Interestingly, the Prevenar 13 leaflet mentioned earlier states reasons why your child should not be given Prevenar 13:

“Your child should not have Prevenar 13 if he or she has ever had an allergic reaction to pneumococcal or DIPTHERIA VACCINES, or any of the ingredients listed at the end of this leaflet.”

Despite this warning, the Prevenar 13 vaccine is often given at the same time the Infanrix Hexa vaccine, which includes a diptheria component! These vaccines are recommended from as early as six weeks of age, according to the leaflet, at which time a parent would not know whether their child was allergic to the diptheria component or not.

One Belgian child who lost her life as a consequence of being given several vaccinations in one visit, which included the Infanrix Hexa vaccine together with Prevenar, was Stacy Sirjacobs. Stacy was an eight week-old premature twin who died in December 2011. [6]

These vaccines were given to Stacy despite advice given by the European Medicines Agency in their ANNEX I SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS for Infanrix Hexa report which stated:

“When Infanrix Hexa is co-administered with Prevenar (pneumococcal saccharide conjugated vaccine, adsorbed), the physician should be aware that data from clinical studies indicate that the rate of febrile reactions was higher compared to that occurring following the administration of Infanrix Hexa alone.”
 [7]

Furthermore, the document contained information about administering the vaccine to premature infants:

“Limited data in 169 premature infants indicate that Infanrix Hexa can be given to premature children. However, a lower immune response may be observed and the level of clinical protection remains unknown.

The potential risk of apnea and the need for respiratory monitoring for 48-72h should be considered when administering the primary immunisation series to very premature infants (born ≤ 28 weeks of gestation) and particularly for those with a previous history of respiratory immaturity.”

TROUBLING QUESTIONS

The European Medicines Agency offered warnings about administering the vaccine concomitantly with another vaccine and cautioned health care providers to consider the additional risks of vaccinating premature infants. Then why was little Stacy, a baby born one month prematurely, delivered by Caesarean section, resuscitated at birth, who spent the next four days in an incubator, given these vaccinations and then sent home without any extra advice?

Her death was a tragedy, yet babies are still dying and being neurologically damaged on a regular basis. The proof is in the manufacturer’s report in black and white. The drug companies know, the regulatory agencies know and worse still, our governments know.

Slowly, day-by-day, the depth of their corruption is being uncovered. Parents are not being told the truth, they are being deceived and lied to and the price they pay is extremely high.

CONCLUSION

These adverse events were being reported as far back as 2009.  So, why are these two vaccines still being recommended for babies as young as 6 weeks old? Surely, the most sensible and responsible action would be for the manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer to suspend the use of these vaccines until their use can be shown to be reliable, effective, and safe. Instead, this information is being hidden from the public.

Furthermore, the mainstream media is so quiet you could hear a pin drop. Dr. Rebecca Carley, an expert specializing vaccine-induced diseases syndromes, has often stated on her radio shows that vaccinations are the ‘True Weapons of Mass Destruction,” and the evidence contained in these leaked, confidential documents shows she could be right.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the website Initiative Citoyenne for bravely revealing the truth.

The staff at VacTruth wishes to express their heartfelt condolences to the family of Stacy Sirjacobs and other families whose children have suffered injuries or death following vaccination.

References

  1. Initiative Citoyenne Press Release http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/71/2012-2013…
  2. Prevenar 13 leaflet Consumer Medical Information http://www.nps.org.au/__data/assets…
  3. http://vactruth.com/2012/12/16/36-infants-dead-after-vaccine/
  4. Confidential To Regulatory Authorities Infanrix TM hexa Summary Bridging Report http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/confid.pdf
  5. Prevenar 13 PSUR 04 – Response to RSI Neurological Events PFIZER CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 Prevenar 13 Pneumococcal saccharide conjugated vaccine, 13 valent adsorbed PSUR 04 – Response to Question on Neurological events http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/3/27/09/71/2012-2013/emea-responses–Prevenar-13-Pfizer-Confidential.pdf
  6. http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/
  7. European Medicines Agency ANNEX I SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS for Infranrix Hexa http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Firearms are Confiscated, Innocents are Betrayed

December 27, 2012 Leave a comment

JPFO | DECEMBER 27, 2012

In the history of the 20th Century, there were zero wars between what we would term “democratic” countries. The wars that killed so many millions involved either (1) non-democratic vs. democratic countries, or (2) non-democratic vs. nondemocratic countries.

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by nondemocratic governments.

The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where “gun control” ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Three Elements For Human Suffering Hold the above facts in mind, and consider this three-element formula for horrific human suffering:

(1) Evil exists in the world. This concept sounds obvious, but actually there are legions of people, many of them highly-educated and highly-placed, who believe that “bad things happen because there is too much inequality of wealth and not enough education.” Many of these people cannot accept the idea that Evil exists and that people are capable of doing Evil. They prefer the “poverty, disease, and ignorance” explanation
for bad behavior.

If the concept of Evil needs proof, then consider just a few examples of terrible things done by people who are not poor and not ignorant: (a) when government leaders develop written plans to persecute and exterminate a disfavored group, and then carry them out; (b) when a parent methodically goes from room to room strangling or drowning or stabbing several children; (c) when a young adult straps on a bomb and boards a city bus carrying people to work or school, detonates the bomb, and kills dozens of the people
and seriously maims dozens more.

(2) Imbalance of Power Creates Opportunities for Evil. This point should be obvious, too. On the micro level, consider the Carlie Bruscia case. Remember how a security video camera caught the act of the predator contacting Carlie, then grabbing her by the wrist and taking her away. This is just one example, but it makes the point. Carlie was 12. The predator was 35 or so and a strong male. The predator was probably three times a strong as Carlie, plus he had a plan and a motivation. Carlie had much less strength and no plan for defense. It was nearly a sure thing that the predator would win.

Carlie was brutally raped and murdered.

Consider the recent case where Iraqi terrorists shot down in cold blood a whole bus load of women and children. The victims were powerless compared to the terrorists. All it took then was an Evil idea, and the victims being selected. The power advantage of the aggressors made the rest easy.

Now on the macro level. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure that there was no great imbalance of power among the branches of government. In each branch of our Constitutional government there are checks and balances. Where government systems have checks and balances, and where these operate with open discussion and competition for votes, you have the sort of “democratic” society that rarely makes war on another “democratic” society. As Professor Rummel pointed out, unbalanced political power within nations is a major factor in the outbreak of wars between nations.

(3) Betrayal of Trust Multiplies the Results of Evil. This point is much more subtle because most of us do not want to think about it. It’s too painful. On the micro level, consider the doctor or nurse or medic who starts killing the patients. One doctor in Britain was believed to have murdered some 35 patients (he killed himself in jail). A male nurse in the Pacific Northwest also terminated dozens of patients. How could this happen?

Notice: in addition to the Evil idea and the imbalance of power, these victims had put themselves into a position of dependence. The patients submitted themselves willingly to the potential killer. They trusted the doctor or nurse – they willingly gave up their self defense – they created the imbalance of power – and placed their lives at the mercy of the supposed caregiver and protector. When an Evil idea formed in the minds of the caregivers and protectors, then the killing was next.

This terrible result is worse than just murder because it involves the evil of taking advantage of someone who has placed his or her trust in the killer. Many of the Jews who boarded trains bound for death camps in Nazi Germany could not allow themselves to believe that their own countrymen, their own police and army, would betray them so fatally. Children and teens often fail to even try to resist a child molester or kidnapper, because the children cannot grasp that a trusted adult could turn against them.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider “gun control” ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. “Gun control” laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively we ak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

How Can An Armed Society Help?

Now, you may ask: “Yes, but what difference would it make if the people were armed?” The answer is pretty simple: even evil people calculate the costs. Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.1

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth.2 Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.3

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.
Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations. All of these facts and observations suggest the following conclusion:
When a civilian population widely possesses firearms such as rifles, shotguns and handguns, along with ammunition for them, and the population has the training with the weapons along with the ethic of self defense, then the population is very unlikely to be conquered and persecuted either by their own government or by an invading force.

This conclusion means that lives are saved and human suffering is avoided when the population generally undertakes to prepare for its own armed defense. Stated simply: an armed population saves lives.
The data from the 20th Century suggest that millions of non-combatant lives were lost to genocide and persecution, because (a) the afflicted populations were tremendously underpowered compared to the killers, (b) the population relied solely upon their government to protect them, and (c) the government protectors either failed or actively turned against the populations.

Can All Evil Be Prevented?

Is an armed population absolutely safe from all invasion and persecution? No. But we have to consider the incentives of the aggressors. The better question is: will an invader or persecutor be more likely or less likely to attack an armed civilian population? Or, given a choice, would an invader or persecutor more often choose to afflict an armed population or an unarmed population?

It is possible to imagine scenarios where an armed population cannot do anything to protect itself against nuclear attack, for example. Such scenarios suggest only that no defense strategy is perfect, and that Evil can find a way to hurt and kill people. Overall, however, an armed population stands a much better chance of freedom from attack, persecution and slaughter than does an unarmed population.

History shows that Evil forces look for populations to enslave and annihilate. Evil selects those populations where it can operate with the least cost to itself. It is thus both a moral and practical imperative for populations to possess and learn to effectively use firearms for defense of self, family, community, and nation.

We hope this answers your question about the need and effectiveness of widespread private ownership of firearms.

Watch the film Innocents Betrayed below:

Resources

(1) Innocents Betrayed – the video documentary – makes a strong case because it presents the pictures and the flesh and blood reality of how the powerful can so easily destroy the powerless. It shows also how “gun control” laws are instrumental in paving the way for destruction.

(2) Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament is our book upon which Innocents Betrayed is based. The book does not talk about the Second Amendment – it talks about the problem of disarmed citizens vs. powerful forces, and it develops further how the rhetoric of “gun control” leads to a deadly physical and moral paralysis.

(3) Death by Government, by Professor R.J. Rummel, takes a different tack from our book. While our book focuses on the civilian disarmament issues, Prof. Rummel looks at the political systems that create the situations that make genocides and mass persecutions possible … even inevitable.

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88