I2P

Vaccine Update – 1. Jon Rappoport 2. Freda Birrell (Sanevax) 3. Dr Judy Wilyman 4. Health Impact News

Editor’s Note: The strategies devised to market vaccines were primarily developed by Big Pharma’s in the US.
That they have been proven to be deceptive, certainly unsafe for some vaccine products (due to toxic preservatives and adjuvants) and enforced by corrupt agencies of government – has left health professionals and health consumers quite bewildered and caught in the misinformation streams flowing from  well-known medical journals to mainstream media outlets.
That Australian health systems have been caught up in this quagmire of disinformation plus its citizens being denied basic human rights through coercive legislation plus rampant political conflict of interest going right to the top of the Australian political system it seems that greed has overruled any concept of ethical behaviour and money rules the day.
Politician behaviour involving misuse of public funds for personal use and the inequity of entitlements received by politicians compared  to the rest of the population have contributed to this toxic mess.
Similar happenings in the UK and Europe created BREXIT and now the US is set to mobilise its blunt instrument (in the form of Donald Trump) in an attempt to root out this massive attack on personal freedoms engineered by mind control manipulation, supported by mainstream media.
The mess has to be resolved at its source in the US before it unravels in Australia.
And all those front organisations who have been part of this fraud, will now lose their credibility.Jon Rappoport, investigative US journalist, reports on the first shot fired:
Robert F Kennedy Jr’s devastating quotes on vaccines and the CDC
Boom—how and why the CDC can foist toxic vaccines on the American people
 
From Kennedy’s video presentation, “7 Minutes on the CDC,” Anne Dachel (Age of Autism) has transcribed excerpts.
This is explosive material, particularly because there is a chance Kennedy will head up an investigation of vaccine safety under Trump.
 
Kennedy understands the inherent conflict of interest at the CDC, which operates as a vaccine sales and marketing company, while at the same time posing as a neutral scientific body that assesses vaccine safety—AND OF COURSE, THE CDC PRESENTS AN EVER-EXPANDING SCHEDULE OF “NECESSARY” VACCINES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
 
Think of it: the CDC has the power—backed by federal and state governments, and supported by the fake-news media—to buy and sell vaccines, while deciding how many vaccines the population should submit to. What salesman wouldn’t want to work for an outfit like that?
 
Here are Kennedy’s remarks. Read them, study them, and learn the truth:
 
“The CDC is a very troubled agency, and it’s not just me saying that. There have been four separate, intensive federal investigations by the United States Congress—a three year investigation, 2001, 2002, 2003, by the United States Senate, Tom Coburn’s committee, by the Inspector General of HHS in 2008, by the Office Integrity in 2014. All of them have painted the CDC as a cesspool of corruption, of an agency that has become an absolute subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry, and that has become a sock puppet, a spokesperson, a shill for the industry.”
 
“CDC is not an independent agency. It is a vaccine company. CDC owns over twenty vaccine patents. It sells about $4.6 billion of vaccines every year. And its primary metric for success in all the departments in the agency are vaccine sales. The groups, for example the Immunization Safety Office, where the scientists who are supposed to be looking at efficacy and safety in vaccines, they are no longer a public service…agency. They are subsumed in that metric: We have to sell as many of these things as possible. And so they do things to their science to make sure that nothing interferes-no information-interferes with sales.
 
“Now there are two divisions of the vaccine branch where we worry about the corruption. The first one is called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. That is the committee that makes the decision about what new vaccines to add to the schedule.”
 
“When I was a boy, I got three vaccines. My children got sixty-nine vaccines. It changed in 1989.”
 
“Why did it change in 1989?”
 
“Because in 1986, Congress, [was] drowning in pharmaceutical industry money—pharma puts more money into lobbying than any other industry—Pharmaceutical companies have more lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are Congress people.”
 
“Do you think oil and gas has big influence in the Capitol? Well, that’s the next biggest. The pharmaceutical industry puts twice into lobbying, double the amount that the oil and gas, and four times what defense and aero space put in. So they control Congress.”
 
“In 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Act, and there were good reasons for them to pass it. …At that time vaccine companies were being sued and were threatening to stop making vaccines. [Congress] said, okay, we’re going to insulate them from lawsuits. They made it illegal to sue a vaccinecompany in this country, no matter how reckless the behavior, no matter how negligent, no matter how toxic the product, no matter how grievous the injury to the child, you cannot sue.”
 
“You know how badly the pharmaceutical industry behaves when they are being sued, when there’s a whole bar of lawyers who spend their whole life looking for ways to sue the pharmaceutical industry and tell these stories to juries, and how many billions every year are won from that industry.”
 
“What do you think would happen if all of a sudden, all the lawyers disappeared, all the class action suits, all the multi district litigation, all the depositions, all the document searches, the discovery? Just gone. Nobody can sue. You can make anything you want.”
 
“And then they made it so that it was much easier to get a vaccine on the schedule than it was to get a pharmaceutical into the market. There’s no double blind placebo studies. They’re all fast tracked into the market place.”
 
“The decision is made by this group, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And you’d hope that the people who would serve on that committee would be kind of nerdy scientists who are narrowly focused on public health outcomes, but that’s not who they are. The people who serve on that committee, almost all of them, have strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.”
 
“I’ll give you an example of how this committee works. In 1999, Paul Offit sat on that committee. And when you go to this committee, when you go to their meetings, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is in one room, and then there’s a press deck in the next room. You have a whole bunch of seats there with guys who look like me, in suits. They’re Wall Street analysts, pharmaceutical analysts. They’re waiting to hear the decision. And as soon as they come out and announce which new vaccines they put on the schedule, those guys run out in the hallway and get on their cell phones, and you can watch the stocks spike. So it’s become an economic enterprise.”
 
“Paul Offit sat on the committee in 1999 that added the rota virus vaccineto the schedule. He owned a patent to a rota virus vaccine. He was then able to sell his vaccine to Merck for $186 million. He pocketed something around $29 million. He’s never allowed anybody to ask him exactly how much, but according to the formula that they use, he would have gotten at least $29 million.”
 
“That caused a little bit of a scandal in Washington, and the Inspector General of HHS was sent to investigate it. They did a complete investigation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and what they found, what they concluded was what he did was not illegal under CDC rules. Sixty-four percent of the people who sat on that committee had conflicts that were similar to Paul Offit, and ninety-seven percent might have conflicts because the rest of them never made out their conflict of interest forms. And nobody ever made them do it.”
 
“It’s very difficult when those kinds of shenanigans are going on. The American people have faith that all of these new vaccines that were added, beginning in 1989, are put there solely because this committee is concerned with public health.”
 
Got it? This is four years’ worth of university political-science curriculum in seven minutes. Well, the actual title is politicized science.
 
Every American who can read should read it.
 
This is what is really going on at America’s number-one public health agency—the agency that is also a corporation.
 

This is war against the American people from within.

Freda Birrell from the SaneVax organisation has issued a media release which illustrates the mindset of the people involved in the damage-control strategies to try and minimise and anticipate the potential for a Trump commission to finally expose the truth.

17 January 2017, Nature magazine published an editorial written by an anonymous author titled, “Trump’s vaccine-commission idea is biased and dangerous.” The first line of this editorial stated emphatically, “Scientists must fight back with the truth about the debunked link between vaccines and autism.”  The first, and most obvious question is: How did this anonymous author interpret a proposal to create a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity as an argument over vaccines and autism? Surely ‘vaccine safety and scientific integrity’ cover a much broader range of topics than the supposedly “debunked link between vaccines and autism!”

Please read this press release carefully and realise that we need a commission to investigate why so many young people worldwide are being harmed by the HPV vaccine. This investigation must be done at the highest level.

We raised this point with our Dr Sin Hang Lee, renowned molecular pathologist and this was his response:

It is about time to put together a commission to study the safety and scientific integrity of the programs for mass HPV vaccination of American adolescents.

Bias and Danger?

Remember, this is only one type of vaccine. What if the questions surrounding HPV vaccine safety, efficacy and need apply to other vaccines as well?

As a medical consumer, you must decide where the danger to the health and well-being lies.

Is the real danger in open, honest investigation of vaccine safety, efficacy and need; or is it in the unquestioning acceptance of an ever-expanding list of CDC recommended vaccines?

President Trump, on the issue of organizing an independent Vaccine Safety/Scientific Integrity Committee, the SaneVax team and HPV vaccine survivors around the world stand beside you.

The link is here:  http://sanevax.org/trumps-proposed-vaccine-commission-bias-danger/  – pdf copy attached.  Please share and circulate widely.

With best wishes

Freda Birrell, Secretary

SaneVax Inc

Dr Judy Wilyman, an Australian researcher in Australian Vaccination Policy has earned her stripes under extreme difficulty, because medical research is so compromised in academia.
A range of previously unknown  “enemies” surfaced when she completed her PhD thesis at the University of Wollongong – even before the thesis was published.
Every attempt has been made to suppress, or denigrate the quality of her research.
It is an incredible story but it represents evidence as to how  researchers in medical academia are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to protect their revenue streams and the extent of Big Pharma reach in organising front organisations to fund, manage and manipulate the entire process.
Judy’s latest commentary follows:

Vaccine Injuries, Chronic Illness and Independent Research on Vaccines
31 January 2017

Thank you to all of you who have signed up for this newsletter.
Over the next few weeks I will provide you with the medical literature on vaccination that the government and media will not present or debate.
In this newsletter I will provide you with the background to my study of vaccination completed at the University of Wollongong, Australia from 2011 – 2015.

I have been studying the vaccination topic both formally and informally since 1993 when I vaccinated my first child.
Like most people questioning vaccines, I have not come from an anti-vaccination position and the debate is not about pro- or anti-vaccination.
It is about the safety, efficacy and necessity for each vaccine on the schedule. Are they all safe? And are they all effective and necessary? In 2015 I completed a PhD at the University of Wollongong answering these questions. My thesis is titled ‘A critical analysis of the Australian Government’s rationale for its vaccination policy.’
In Chapter 7 I present a discussion of the claims made by the government about the safety and efficacy of vaccines that are not supported by scientific evidence. Here is a link to this Chapter titled “The Evidence Underpinning Claims about Vaccines”
After completing this in-depth research I am choosing not to use all the vaccines that are recommended by the government and I am promoting the right for this medical intervention to be a free and informed choice.
This means without financial coercion or manipulation.
I have adopted this position because the government has not provided evidence to support the claim that these vaccines are necessary or that they have been proven safe and effective using proper placebo controlled clinical trials. The Australian government is making claims about the safety and efficacy of vaccines that are unsupported by hard scientific evidence.

In 2007 I also completed a Master of Science (Population Health) in the Faculty of Health at UOW and this included a major research project on the use of the whooping cough vaccine to control whooping cough in Australia. My research demonstrated that the whooping cough vaccinewas introduced after the decline of deaths and serious illness to whooping cough in Australia (1950) and that the vaccine does not prevent vaccinated people from getting whooping cough.
Here is a link to this research titled “An Analysis of the Federal Government’s Pertussis (Whooping Cough) Immunisation Policy“.
I have also provided a link to a summary of this research that was published in the Public Health Association of Australia’s (PHAA) newsletter in April 2009 – An Analysis of Whooping Cough Incidence: Is the vaccine effective?
Whilst Peter McIntyre, director of the government’s vaccination research and surveillance unit (NCIRS), published a comment beside my referenced article with claims countering the evidence I presented, he did not provide a fully referenced copy of his claims made in this PHAA publication in 2009.

The University of Wollongong published my PhD thesis on its website in January 2016 but prior to publication it requested that I remove 3 Appendix’s before publication.
UOW cited ‘copyright reasons’ for this request.
However, these Appendix’s contained publicly available information and when I challenged the University the decision was reversed and it published the full thesis in March 2016.
The information that UOW wished to remove included Appendix 1: The Ingredients of Vaccines (Reference: The Australian Immunisation Handbook (Ed 9 and 10), Appendix 2: Case Study on Thimerosal (Mercury compound) in Vaccines and Appendix 3: The Australian Government NIP (Reference: Australian Government’s Immunise Australia Program (IAP) website (2013).

The potential financial Conflicts of Interest (COI) were also removed from my thesis even though the government is required to publicise these interests on their website.
Many government representatives on vaccine policy advisory boards have COI with pharmaceutical companies.
This includes the chairman of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) from 2005 – December 2014, Terry Nolan, and the directors of the National Centre of Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) from 2004 – 2015, Robert Booy and Peter McIntyre.
The public is entitled to be informed that these potential COI exist for individuals who directly advise the government on policy. The COI for members of the Australian government’s vaccine advisory boards were not presented on the government website until February 2015 after parents pressured the government to publish them.

The Australian government’s claim that adverse events to vaccines are “rare” is false and the claim is not supported with scientific evidence (Chapter 7 p.165).
This is because the government regulator, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA), does not and never has, utilised a surveillance system that can determine the type and frequency of adverse events (AE’s) that occur after vaccination in the population.
Governments have always used a voluntary reporting system after vaccines are marketed and this system cannot determine the number of AE’s or types of AE’s that are occurring in the population that are causally related to vaccines.
Hence this data is not being collected in properly designed clinical trials prior to marketing and it is not being collected in post-marketing surveillance.
This represents a danger to public health and Australia has now mandated its vaccination policy in social welfare policies and employment situations for many adults.

Medical interventions should always be based on informed consent free of coercion and manipulation as stated in the Nuremberg code, the Geneva Declaration and the Good Medical Practice Code of Conduct for Australian medical practitioners. In the interests of children’s health and the fabric of society, please take a stand on this issue. There is nothing more important than our health.

Dr. Judy Wilyman
The Science and Politics of Australia’s Vaccination Policies
www.vaccinationdecisions.net

The Vaccine Science is Unsettled
Health Impact News

One of the more interesting aspects of the medical fraud is found where a prominent academic is wheeled out to make a statement surrounding a vaccine issue.
These people promote their message in often derogatory terms always framing their message with one-liners like “the science for vaccines is settled” and “there is no link between vaccines and autism”.
The issues are only fought as pro or anti vaccination – never as safe vaccination.
Many independent media groups publish the real information surrounding vaccines, but are constantly disrupted or harassed in getting out their message.
Donald Trump appears to be determined to break drug cartels and dangerous vaccine policy.in the US.
i2P is confident that once the wall of corruption is breached, the whole edifice will tumble globally.

The foundation of scientific research on human health is the clinical study, and the strength and reliability of conclusions reached is a direct reflection of the study methods used in that research. If the trial design is sound and the research methods followed with integrity, the results will be robust. If not, the results are going to remain open to question and interpretation.

One of the most widely repeated phrases bandied about by those who maintain that vaccines very rarely, if ever, cause injury and death is, “the science on vaccines is settled.” [1] Aside from how absurd it is to insist that any science is ever completely settled, such a statement presupposes that vaccine safety and efficacy studies have been rigorous and exhaustive and that their conclusions, therefore, are reliable and authoritative. It would be great if that were the case.

Relaxed Guidelines Weaken Vaccine Safety Data

Many consumer safety groups opposed the 21st Century Cares Act, which was pushed through Congress in December 2016. The law allows far laxer licensing standards than had previously been required for approval of a new drug, medical device or biological product, including vaccines. [2] The bill was originally proposed to allow seriously ill patients to voluntarily accept treatment with new and minimally tested drugs and medical devices by accepting the risks in exchange for hope of a cure.

Under the law’s new guidelines, producers of experimental drugs, medical devices, and ‘biological products,’ such as vaccines, are no longer required to provide evidence from large clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness but can base their conclusions on statistical analyses and observational clinical experience. [3]

With fewer rules in place to justify approval of new vaccines, it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the different types of scientific studies used in medical research in order to be better equipped to evaluate the evidence.

Research Study Types

Medical research can be broadly delineated as either primary research (original studies) or secondary research (reviews and analyses of existing studies), with innumerable sub-categories. [4] Within that overarching definition, there are three basic categories of research: experimental, clinical, and epidemiologic. They can be further sub-classified into observational or interventional studies, and, from there, the sub-types are many and can be truly daunting to categorize.

For example, observational or epidemiologic studies may include any of the following:

  • Case reports (individual patients)
  • Case control studies (retrospective analyses comparing groups of patients who do or do not have a given condition)
  • Cohort studies (analysis of groups of patients with a given condition, followed over time and compared to similar groups without that condition)
  • Systematic reviews (comparison of data from previous well-controlled clinical trials)
  • Meta-analyses (similar to systematic reviews, but with the data from previous clinical trials combined and analyzed as if they all came from one trial).

Different types of observational studies are variously reliable in terms of the information gleaned from them, and those mentioned here are listed essentially in order of credibility, [5] but all are more prone to bias than controlled clinical trials.

Primary Research: Clinical Trials

While preclinical studies are often done in the laboratory, first at the cellular level and, then, in animal studies, clinical trials involve human beings and are generally designed to answer a specific question about a disease or a medical intervention (such as use of a drug or vaccine).

Clinical trials are broken down into stages:

  • Phase I trials enlist very few patients and are meant to evaluate safety, including side effects and dosage if an experimental pharmaceutical product is being tested.
  • Phase II trials include a larger study population and evaluate safety and effectiveness.
  • Phase III trials are larger-scale studies that typically involve large patient populations and compare an experimental new treatment or therapy approach to either the current standard of care or non-treatment. These trials are also used to monitor the occurrence of any side effects or other safety data in large numbers of participants.
  • Phase IV trials are also known as “post-marketing surveillance studies” and involve the ongoing study of new products and medical therapies once they are FDA approved and used in the general population. [6]

Randomized clinical trials, which have been used in most Phase III and some Phase II trials, are generally considered the “gold standard” of clinical research because they minimize the chance for bias. In a randomized clinical trial, the study population is broken down into two groups, with one group receiving the experimental treatment or product and the other getting either the current standard of treatment or a “placebo” (which is supposed to be a non-bioactive or inert substance).

In some kinds of randomized trials, either the patient or the doctor/researcher knows which treatment or product is being given, which is called a “masked” or “single-blind” trial. This design ensures some degree of objectivity for investigators analyzing the results, though with one side “un-masked” trials, there is the possibility that interpretation of results could be biased.

The purest clinical trial design is the “double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” where neither the patient or physician or researcher knows in advance which treatment the subject receives, so conclusions are based purely on observational results. [7]

One of the main reasons for using epidemiologic, or observational, studies is when there are ethical questions about subjecting people to an experimental therapy. If, for example, study results appear lopsided, investigators may “un-blind” a study. If it turns out that one treatment or the other offers a clear advantage or disadvantage, the study may be halted and the more advantageous treatment substituted.

Pressing Need for Unbiased Evaluation of Vaccines

In the case of vaccines, the core assumption among mainstream medical and academic research circles is that vaccines are always better than no vaccines. This belief has confined vaccine research, for the most part, to non-interventional, observational study. [8] A prospective, randomized, double-blind study examining health outcomes of fully vaccinated versus unvaccinated children is deemed impossible to conduct because (1) withholding vaccines is considered unethical and (2) parents would not allow their child to take part in a study that would randomly assign their child to be vaccinated or unvaccinated without parental knowledge or consent.

However, it does not follow that vaccine questioners are “loons” [9] for demanding unbiased clinical studies of vaccine safety and effectiveness and investigation of health outcome differences between highly vaccinated and unvaccinated children. To the contrary, there is a compelling need for a true single-blind, placebo-controlled trial to objectively compare the overall health outcomes (not the incidence of “vaccine-preventable diseases”) of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Read the full article at TheVaccineReaction.org.

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.

References

1 All Things Considered. Science Of Vaccines Is Settled—But Politics Are More Complicated. National Public RadioFeb. 3, 2015.
2 U.S. House of Representatives. 21st Century Cures Act (July 2, 2015).
3 Fisher BL. Here Comes the 21st Century Cures Act: Say Goodbye to Vaccine Safety Science. National Vaccine Information Center July 21, 2015.
4 Rohrig B et al. Types of Study in Medical Research. Deutsch Arzteblatt Intl Apr. 10, 2009 (translated).
5 Introduction to Evidence Based Practice: Type of Study. Duke University Dec. 20, 2016.
6 What are the different types of research studies? Breast Cancer Deadline C 2013.
7 Rohrig B et al. Types of Study in Medical Research. Deutsch Arzteblatt Intl Apr. 10, 2009 (translated).
8 Weinberg GA, Szilagyi P. Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010.
9 Orac. For the anti-vaccinationists out there: The results of a real “vaxed versus unvaxed” study. Science Blogs Mar. 11, 2011.

,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *