Check out this interview with the former Chief Medical Officer of Finland.
By Allison Gandey via Medscape Medical News
October 28, 2009 (Baltimore, Maryland) — Investigators are reporting a case of motor neuron disease after immunization with the quadrivalent vaccine Gardasil. The Merck product is designed to prevent infection with several types of human papillomavirus.
Presenting here at the 134th annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, researchers describe a case of rapidly progressive disease leading to the death of a 14-year-old girl. Symptoms began 2 months after the last dose of Gardasil.
“Pathological features support the temporal association of the clinical presentation and vaccination and provides supporting evidence that immune-mediated reactions to the nervous system are potential risks after Gardasil vaccination,” Catherine Lomen-Hoerth, MD, director of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Center at the University of California–San Francisco, told the meeting.
“Our patient received 3 doses of Gardasil with symptom onset 2 months after her last dose,” the poster presenters wrote. “Despite treatment with aggressive immunosuppression, her weakness relentlessly progressed and she died of respiratory failure 21 months after the onset of her weakness.”
Postmortem evaluations revealed widespread infiltrates of T lymphocytes and macrophages in the grey and white matter at all levels of the spinal cord. Researchers also report extensive demyelination and severe loss of motor neurons.
In September, investigators presenting at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis annual meeting reported cases of autoimmune disorders after immunization with Gardasil. Two groups presented at the meeting — one identified a case of multiple sclerosis after vaccination and the second a case of neuromyelitis optica.
Physicians and health professionals are now speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can’t focus and are depressed.
By Byron Richards, CCN
Monday, October 26, 2009
The FDA has now opened the door for widespread human experimentation during this year’s flu season, allowing an antiviral drug called Peramivir to be used even though it has not passed traditional standards of safety testing. Ever since the FDA crafted its Critical Path agenda it has been looking for excuses to expose vulnerable Americans to toxic drugs under the false pretense of the greater good for all. The H1N1 Swine Flu fear-mongering is providing the cover that the FDA needs to unleash an experiment. The new Obama FDA administration has accepted the baton pass from the recently departed Bush FDA management team (von Eschenbach, et al.).
Hypocrisy at the FDA runs deep in their culture. The organization fails to warn the public of the known immunosuppressive effects of commonly used drugs such as antacids and statins – drugs that have been shown to increase the risk for infection. At the same time, the FDA has branded all nutrition as fraud. What right does the FDA have to brand nutrition as fraud? Nutrition has been battling influenza since humans have been around. Without nutrition humans would have never survived any flu pandemic. Nutrition is harmless to human health and invaluable to survival. In the FDA’s mind it is illegal. Rather, human experimentation is now deemed legal by the FDA. It’s all about protecting and expanding the profits of Big Pharma and Big Biotech.
Like Tamiflu and Relenza, Peramivir is a neuraminidase inhibitor. Neuraminidase (the N part of H1N1) is a viral protein that must be active in order for new viruses to emerge from a virally infected cell. If it can be blocked, then viral spreading can be reduced.
Tamiflu and Relenza only bind to neuraminidase for a brief period of time, limiting their biological activity against a virus. In contrast, Peramivir binds very tightly to neuraminidase and is longer lasting – meaning it is a much more potent drug. The FDA has approved it for use in advanced Swine Flu cases that are not responding to Tamiflu or Relenza.
On the one hand, this sounds like a reasonable approach to helping people with extreme Swine Flu. What is likely to happen in actual practice is another matter entirely. Doctors will hear on the grapevine how well Peramivir seems to work and it will be used on more and more patients. And what’s wrong with that?
It is a human experiment. Human experiments are against the Nuremberg code, which has been agreed to by the world following the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Human experiments run counter to the basic decency and morality of any culture – except the culture of the FDA and its profit-driven pharmaceutical allies.
The problem with neuraminidase blocking is that there are four known human genes that utilize neuraminidase for normal and healthy cell function (NEU1, NEU2, NEU3, NEU4). The next problem is that these genes are not passive and secondary in cellular function. They regulate carbohydrate-related communication taking place on human cell membranes (glyconutrition and glycobiology). In other words, they are instrumentally involved in how cells talk to each other, as well as in many processes of a cell’s internal communication. Any neuraminidase blocking drug runs the risk of interfering with general communication needed for healthy cell function.
The adverse side effects of Tamiflu are in many cases rather extreme and include panic attacks, delusions, delirium, convulsions, depression, loss of consciousness, and even suicide. Oxford researchers have publicly warned that Tamiflu is not for children. Tamiflu is a relatively weak binder of neuraminidase.
What is going to happen when a strong binder of neuraminidase, Peramivir, latches on to the human cellular communication system based on neuraminidase genes? The FDA has no idea, but their unelected bureaucratic management team has decided in their infinite wisdom that the benefits outweigh the risks, even though they have no way of knowing. The era of sanctioned human experimentation is upon us.
What if there was a substance that blocked neuraminidase regarding viral activity and left human neuraminidase alone? Wow, what a breakthrough that would be. Welcome to the world of nutrition. The real fraud can be found in the management team of the FDA.
original link: www.wellnessresources.com
By Sharyl Attkisson
CBS News Exclusive: Study Of State Results Finds H1N1 Not As Prevalent As Feared
(CBS) If you’ve been diagnosed “probable” or “presumed” 2009 H1N1 or “swine flu” in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 flu.
In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all. That’s according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.
The ramifications of this finding are important. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Britain’s National Health Service, once you have H1N1 flu, you’re immune from future outbreaks of the same virus. Those who think they’ve had H1N1 flu — but haven’t — might mistakenly presume they’re immune. As a result, they might skip taking a vaccine that could help them, and expose themselves to others with H1N1 flu under the mistaken belief they won’t catch it. Parents might not keep sick children home from school, mistakenly believing they’ve already had H1N1 flu.
Why the uncertainty about who has and who hasn’t had H1N1 flu?
In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there’s an epidemic?
Some public health officials privately disagreed with the decision to stop testing and counting, telling CBS News that continued tracking of this new and possibly changing virus was important because H1N1 has a different epidemiology, affects younger people more than seasonal flu and has been shown to have a higher case fatality rate than other flu virus strains.
CBS News learned that the decision to stop counting H1N1 flu cases was made so hastily that states weren’t given the opportunity to provide input. Instead, on July 24, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, CSTE, issued the following notice to state public health officials on behalf of the CDC:
“Attached are the Q&As that will be posted on the CDC website tomorrow explaining why CDC is no longer reporting case counts for novel H1N1. CDC would have liked to have run these by you for input but unfortunately there was not enough time before these needed to be posted (emphasis added).”
By Sewell Chan & Anemona Hartocollis
Under pressure, the Paterson administration on Thursday evening backed away from a health regulation that would compel hundreds of thousands of health care workers and hospital volunteers to be vaccinated for seasonal and swine flu.
Claudia Hutton, a spokeswoman for the State Department of Health, said in an interview on Thursday night, “Since the vaccine is so scarce right now and since the virus has proved especially difficult for pregnant women and young people — there have been deaths — we felt that the best use of the scarce amount of vaccine right now is for those populations.”
In August, the state health commissioner, Dr. Richard F. Daines, issued a regulation ordering health care workers to be vaccinated by Nov. 30 or face fines. But last week, a judge in Albany halted enforcement of the rule in response to a lawsuit filed by three nurses who asserted that the requirement violated their civil rights.
However, Gov. David A. Paterson insisted that its reversal was unrelated to the lawsuit or the temporary restraining order issued by the judge.
Instead, the governor pointed to a statement by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which said that only about 23 percent of the anticipated vaccine supply would be available by month’s end. “As a result, we need to be as resourceful as we can with the limited supplies of vaccine currently coming into the state and make sure that those who are at the highest risk for complications from the H1N1 flu receive the first vaccine being distributed right now in New York State,” Mr. Paterson said in a statement. (New York is estimated to receive 6 percent to 7 percent of the national vaccine supply, based on its population.)
Terence L. Kindlon, a lawyer for the three nurses, said on Thursday evening, “This is a good result, because the decision whether or not to be vaccinated is one that should be made by the individual. That’s all we ever wanted to establish here: the right to make that choice.”
original link: www.nytimes.com
By Alison Rose Levy via The Integrative Health Outlook
In following the vaccine debate, I’ve observed what seem like two completely different versions of reality. For those perplexed by this, here’s a brief guide to a basic issue underlying this long-standing controversy: biological individuality. If properly understood, it can create the ground for reconciliation.
Have you ever noticed that feet come in all shapes and sizes?
Why do you adore spicy food while your beloved hates it?
How come your friend can handle a lot more alcohol than you?
So whence cometh the assumption that we’re all completely unique on the outside, but exactly the same inside?
Most people don’t even react to coffee the same way!
If my calm and collected pal Charlie drinks any caffeine whatsoever, he morphs into a jittery Mr. Hyde–complete with road rage. My friend Lynn sleeps like a baby even after an evening expresso. Me? If I drink caffeine after lunch, I’m up watching Sex and the City re-runs until 1 A.M.
Our differing reactions to coffee are just one of thousands that reveal that what’s going on inside of each one of us is just as distinct as our outer appearance. Scientists call this biochemical individuality.
Excepting water, no food, drug, or substance is good for all of the people all of the time. What’s helpful for some, can be useless or harmful for others. Yet medical research tends towards majority rule. If it’s statistically proven to work for some, then we leap forward to assume it must be great for everyone–despite all the common sense evidence about how totally unique each one of us is.