Hey everyone. I got this message on one of my other lists I am
subscribed to and thought I'd forward it to all of you because I got
my CDs in the other day and think they're wonderful! Anyways, you
can get yours at http://www.freecdbooks.com. They're all free but
you still have to pay for shipping ($5) but it's way worth it.

Mary

> Greetings,
>
> My name is Neal. I am writing to let you know about my
> free CD-ROMs, including the Herbal Encyclopedia which
> contains information about thousands of herbs, their
> uses, home remedies, and more! You can quickly access
> reference material on herbal health and alternative
> treatments for most common ailments. This CD is the
> most comprehensive source of herbal information
> available, and best of all it's FREE!
>
> Also available is the amazing Course in Hypnosis CD-ROM
> which teaches you how to hypnotize anyone, quickly and
> easily. Or the Psychic Powers CD-ROM which teaches you
> how to unlock your hidden psychic gifts. And the 10,000
> Dreams Interpreted CD-ROM that shows you how to find
> the hidden meaning in your dreams.
>
> Again, they're all FREE with shipping and handling.
>
> For more information, please visit my web site:
>
> http://www.freecdbooks.com
>
> Blessings,
>
> Neal Parr
> http://www.freecdbooks.com

Hey everyone. I got this message on one of my other lists I am
subscribed to and thought I'd forward it to all of you because I got
my CDs in the other day and think they're wonderful! Anyways, you
can get yours at http://www.freecdbooks.com. They're all free but
you still have to pay for shipping ($5) but it's way worth it.

Mary

> Greetings,
>
> My name is Neal. I am writing to let you know about my
> free CD-ROMs, including the Herbal Encyclopedia which
> contains information about thousands of herbs, their
> uses, home remedies, and more! You can quickly access
> reference material on herbal health and alternative
> treatments for most common ailments. This CD is the
> most comprehensive source of herbal information
> available, and best of all it's FREE!
>
> Also available is the amazing Course in Hypnosis CD-ROM
> which teaches you how to hypnotize anyone, quickly and
> easily. Or the Psychic Powers CD-ROM which teaches you
> how to unlock your hidden psychic gifts. And the 10,000
> Dreams Interpreted CD-ROM that shows you how to find
> the hidden meaning in your dreams.
>
> Again, they're all FREE with shipping and handling.
>
> For more information, please visit my web site:
>
> http://www.freecdbooks.com
>
> Blessings,
>
> Neal Parr
> http://www.freecdbooks.com

You have  60 seconds to get your Ipod Nano here at no charge
http://www.dontwastecomehere.com/ipcnnvucdp

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060515/poultry_vaccine
_060515/20060515?hub=Health&s_name=
CTV,
Canadian Press
May 15, 2006 8:30 AM ET

Officials mull using poultry vaccine on people

TORONTO -- Is what's good for the goose good for Mr. and Mrs. Gander? Public
health authorities exploring the possibility of protecting people against an
influenza pandemic with vaccine produced for poultry say "Maybe."

The World Health Organization and others are studying whether it would be
possible to tap into the global agricultural vaccine production capacity to
help bridge the enormous gap between the amount of human flu vaccine the
world can produce and how much would be needed in a severe pandemic.

While the idea of giving people vaccine produced for poultry may seem, well,
for the birds, the proposal - advanced by eager agricultural
vaccine-makers - hasn't been dismissed out of hand.

"I think it's something that does merit consideration," says Dr. Jesse
Goodman, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Review. (Vaccines are considered biological
products.)

Goodman and others would rather not have to resort to this option, hoping a
pandemic is far enough off and new investment in novel production methods
and facilities is sufficient to vastly expand output within the human
influenza vaccine sector.

But given the current limited vaccine capacity, all sorts of options would
have to be on the table if a harsh pandemic were to strike soon. And
harnessing agriculture vaccine production is one of them, Goodman says.

"I would say our goal would be to keep an open mind about possible
approaches in an emergency," he said in an interview from Washington.

"For a medium-to long-term approach, certainly enhancing the capacity and
use of the human vaccines in my mind would be the first priority. . . .
(But) in the short-term emergency point of view . . . I think it is wise to
look at all possible approaches and alternatives."

Canada is unlikely to need to explore this option. The country has a
long-term contract for pandemic vaccine to be made at a production facility
located in Ste-Foy, Que.

But most other countries, including the United States, currently don't have
enough domestic production capacity to be able to vaccinate their citizens
during a flu pandemic - hence the outside-the-box exploration of options.

Experts say the agricultural vaccine sector's greatest potential for humans
lies as a possible source of antigen (vaccine-ready virus) for live
attenuated vaccines such as FluMist, the inhaled vaccine produced by
MedImmune Inc., headquartered in Gaithersburg, Md.

That's because antigen used in live attenuated vaccines is not put through
the investment-intensive purification and sterilization processes used in
the manufacture of inactivated (killed virus) vaccine, the type contained in
flu shots.

The production processes for live attenuated vaccine and agricultural
vaccine are quite similar, says Dr. Klaus Stohr, the WHO's special adviser
on influenza pandemic vaccine development. So are the criteria - known as
good manufacturing practices - set down for production of agricultural and
human flu vaccines.

"So theoretically - theoretically - it's conceivable that this antigen, and
there's a lot of antigen produced by the agricultural vaccine makers, could
with much less investment be transformed into live attenuated vaccines,"
Stohr says.

A MedImmune executive says the company doesn't yet know what to make of the
idea, raised at a recent meeting in Geneva hosted by the WHO.

"We're just beginning to discuss this in MedImmune and we really haven't
looked into it to be able to understand what that would mean," says Kathleen
Coelingh, senior director of scientific affairs.

"We're not ruling anything in or anything out."

Goodman says companies which make inactivated flu vaccine might also be able
increase their output by processing some antigen produced by agricultural
vaccine makers.

But Stohr says human flu vaccine makers carefully match their antigen
production to their capacity to purify, sterilize, bottle and label,
suggesting these essential downstream steps create a bottleneck around which
there is no easy or inexpensive route.

Dr. David Fedson, a retired vaccine industry executive, says there are
hitches that may limit the ability to use antigen from agricultural sources
to vastly increase the output of live attenuated vaccine as well.

FluMist, for instance, currently must be kept in a freezer until it is
administered - a factor that might limit its usefulness in some parts of the
world. As well, individual doses come pre-packaged in an inhaler, raising
questions about whether adequate numbers of additional inhalers could be
made and whether MedImmune or another company could expand capacity to
package mass numbers of extra doses.

Modifying the delivery mechanism so that the vaccine is given in the form of
nose drops could get around that potential bottleneck, Fedson says. (The
Russians have been using live attenuated vaccine delivered this way for at
least two decades.) But changing the vaccine would require regulatory
approval.

Still, Stohr insists that with few options for rapidly and affordably
increasing human flu vaccine production capacity, the notion of exploiting
agricultural antigen sources is worth further study.

"There are so many things which we have seen may not work out quickly or
will cost too much," he says.

"But here we have an option which has not been fully explored which has a
good chance or which has a greater chance of success. And if it succeeds, it
would make a profound contribution to the efforts to fill the pandemic
vaccine gap."


=============================================
News@... is a free service of the National Vaccine Information
Center and is supported through membership donations.  Learn more about
vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights
http://www.nvic.org

Become a member and support NVIC's work
                https://www.nvic.org/making%20cash%20donations.htm

To sign up for a free e-mail subscription http://www.nvic.org/emaillist.htm

To unsubscribe from this list, please go to
http://nvic.org/emaillistunsub.htm or send an email to news-request@...
and type UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the email.

NVIC is funded through individual membership donations and does not receive
government funding. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co-founder.
NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to
messages.

Wow this is amazing, this company just preappproved me on 220k! My crediit is
nothing   to be proud of, so i cant believe they gave it to me.. Anyone who
wants to check them out - http://www.wontlastlong.info/lqgi

Note: This is also the vaccine stockpiled for use on the civilian populace.


http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefen\
se&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=5814
04.25.2006

Anthrax Vaccine: A Case for Accountability

By John Richardson


The Pentagon's illegal anthrax vaccine program was the subject of one of
Hack's last columns, titled "Soldiers Shouldn't be Guinea Pigs".[i]  As
usual, he was blunt - and right.



Recently some retired generals have been equally blunt.



Retired Army BG John Batiste wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post calling
for the civilian Pentagon leadership to be held accountable for Iraq War
mistakes.[ii]



Retired Marine LtGen Greg Newbold also eloquently observed in Time Magazine
that the "commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness
and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to
execute these missions--or bury the results."[iii]



Accountability applies to generals, too



But some field grade and junior officers have observed that the blame
extends to the uniformed military leadership as well.[iv] Nowhere is that
more true than with force protection, where measures that would have stopped
bullets and IEDs were ignored while the Pentagon wasted hundreds of millions
on an unsafe -- and unnecessary -- anthrax vaccine.



If the deaths and abuses of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib were wrong, then so are the
deaths and illnesses -- of US military servicemembers -- associated with the
once mandatory DoD anthrax vaccine program.



Both of are the result of a "command climate" that willfully ignores the
law.



Since the mandatory anthrax vaccine program began in 1998, not one general
or admiral has objected to forcing troops to take an anthrax vaccine made by
a company that DoD allowed to be sold to a non-citizen, Fuad El-Hibri, who
then gave 13% ownership to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. William
Crowe in 1998 - for nothing.[v] [vi]



Even after federal Judge Emmet Sullivan declared the mandatory anthrax shot
program to be "illegal" and issued an injunction to shut it down in 2004,
not one senior officer spoke out against this illegal experiment on the
troops.[vii]



The 2002 FDA-approved package insert acknowledges both six deaths related to
anthrax vaccine and also a wide range of autoimmune disorders.[viii] In
November 2005, Newsday reported that FDA has now quietly admitted to 21
deaths.[ix] A wide range of credible media sources have reported these
adverse reactions and deaths over many years.



Yet, despite detailed investigative reports like the Newport News Daily
Press December 2005 expose', the FDA will not investigate because it is
integrally involved in covering up DoD's secret anthrax vaccine experiment.



Sevicemembers' trust betrayed



SFTT first published a detailed critique of the DoD anthrax vaccine program
on Dec 7, 1999. After 9/11, the nation was headed to war and Americans had
to trust the government's official assertions about Iraqi WMD - and the need
to protect against them.



However, the joint CIA-DIA post-invasion Iraq Survey Group (ISG) has now
made clear that Saddam had no WMD and that his biological warfare program
ended in 1996.[x] A subsequent ISG addendum report found no evidence that
the non-existent WMD had been moved to Syria or any other country.[xi] The
ISG and others have also detailed how the primary source on WMD was an Iraqi
defector, code-named "Curveball", who was never even interviewed by US
intelligence personnel.[xii] Curveball's assertions of mobile biological
weapons labs have been repeatedly discredited.[xiii] [xiv] [xv]



This should not be a surprise. In fact, the Government Accountability Office
published at least four reports between 1999-2002 that undercut DoD threat
assertions used to justify the mandatory anthrax vaccine program.[xvi]
[xvii]   CIA analysts have confirmed that the intelligence supporting these
GAO reports was willfully ignored by the White House - and by a Pentagon
intent on forcing troops to take an unsafe anthrax vaccine.[xviii]



There were no Iraqi WMD after the mid-1990's. There was no anthrax threat in
Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet a year after the Iraq War made clear there was no
WMD, the Pentagon - in violation of its own regulation mandating a
"validated threat" -- attempted to expand the mandatory anthrax vaccine
program. Why?



Go to the Pentagon's anthrax website and you'll see references to the
post-9/11 anthrax letters as another "threat" justifying anthrax shots. What
this DoD website does not say is that former Homeland Security Secretary Tom
Ridge, former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, and former White House press
secretary Ari Fleischer all publicly acknowledged that the origin of anthrax
letters was domestic, not Iraq or Al Qaeda, and was likely tied to the
government's mismanaged secret biodefense programs at Ft. Detrick and
elsewhere.[xix]



So why does the Pentagon still willfully mislead troops about the threat to
convince them to "volunteer" to take anthrax vaccine before you deploy to
Iraq, Afghanistan or Korea?



Because the DoD, likely aided by the National Institutes of Health and other
federal health agencies, is conducting a secret experiment and it needs
guinea pigs.



The anthrax vaccine experiment was described in author Gary Matsumoto's 2004
book "Vaccine-A." In a 2000 press briefing DoD vaguely acknowledged - after
years of Clinton-like denials -- that squalene was in anthrax vaccine.[xx]
But the Pentagon has continued to deny and cover-up the secret experiment -
and its deadly results.



Most servicemembers do not realize that they can be lawfully experimented
on -- without their knowledge - simply "to advance the development of a
medical product necessary to the armed forces."[xxi] The question is, did
DoD obey the law?



A few good...federal judges



Despite the recent Pentagon spin that its FDA ally has once again dutifully
declared the anthrax vaccine to be "safe and effective," the shot program
remains voluntary. Legally, DoD could once again mandate the shots. And
clearly, the absence of a threat has nothing to do with the Pentagon's
decision to vaccinate. So, why haven't they mandated the shots?



Perhaps those responsible for the anthrax vaccine program are getting
scared.



On Feb 9, 2006 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Pentagon's
attempt to overturn the federal district court injunction against mandatory
shots. While recognizing the FDA's latest ruling on the vaccine, the
appellate court sent the case back to Judge Emmet Sullivan. Like a boxing
match, this signaled the end of the first round.



The real legal fight is still ahead.



So far, the Doe v. Rumsfeld lawsuit filed by six courageous servicemembers
has focused on regulatory issues related to the FDA's unlawful licensure of
the anthrax vaccine. However, the case may now turn to what Judge Sullivan
has called the "plaintiffs' numerous substantive challenges" to the safety
and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine.



This means that the evidence of DoD's on-going cover-up of anthrax vaccine
deaths and illnesses may finally be heard in a court where DoD's spin will
not be allowed[xxii]. If so, those responsible for the anthrax vaccine
program and the criminal cover-up of its consequences will have to testify
under oath and under threat of perjury.



A separate federal lawsuit brought by Iraq War veteran Sgt Jason Adkins,
over being punished for exposing the cover-up of his adverse reaction to
anthrax vaccine at Dover AFB, may also expose law-breaking by Air Force and
senior DoD leaders. In September 2005, a federal judge denied DoD's motion
to dismiss the Adkins v. Rumsfeld lawsuit.



As these lawsuits move forward, the troops may learn - once again -- that
one of the greatest threats to military servicemembers is the Pentagon
leadership, both military and civilian. As the 1994 Senate Report 103-97 on
secret DoD experimentation noted, this is nothing new.[xxiii]



As with all secret or "black" military programs, those responsible do
whatever it takes to keep it secret - including concocting cover stories to
explain deaths.[xxiv] [xxv] [xxvi] The anthrax vaccine cover stories
willfully ignore clear acknowledgements by the a U.S. Institute of Medicine
report on Gulf War Illness that genetic risk factors, including race and
ethnicity, mean some people are more likely to become ill from anthrax
vaccine than others.[xxvii]



When the officially sanctioned mistruths and disinformation about the safety
of the anthrax vaccine results in denying servicemembers medical care and
disability payments to which they are entitled by federal law, the secret
experiment - and those who keep it secret -- violate the law.



Warriors or medics - who is really in charge?



The Joint Chiefs initially resisted political pressure to allow the anthrax
vaccine program to proceed. But in 1996, under criticism over the Khobar
Towers bombing, they placed their careers ahead of the well being of their
troops and gave in to political appointees and medical bureaucrats who knew
nothing about war.[xxviii]



Since then the military leadership has sought to use anthrax vaccine as "an
antidote to accountability" to protect themselves against failures in force
protection, while they simultaneously neglected body armor and steel-plating
for Humvees and trucks that could have saved thousands of deaths and serious
injuries in Iraq.



This was nothing less than dereliction of duty, as there is no magic shot to
immunize generals' careers.



Worse, the military leadership was silent while both active and retired
senior officers linked to the anthrax vaccine program accepted non-federal
income from private sector entities that benefit from the vaccination
program. Would this be tolerated if an operational officer took money from a
manufacturer of tanks, ships, or aircraft?



In contrast to the generals and the Major (Dr.) Burns clones who do their
bidding, in 2001 one brave military physician, Air Force Captain John Buck,
refused the vaccine, was court-martialed, convicted, fined $21,000 -- and
was then given an honorable discharge because the Pentagon leadership knew
his objections to the vaccine were legitimate.



Perhaps one general or admiral will finally have the guts to acknowledge
what is now obvious:



that the anthrax vaccine experiment, justified by willful mistruths about
the threat, was morally and ethically wrong;



that the on-going cover-up of the deaths and illnesses associated with the
anthrax vaccine is criminal and should be prosecuted under the UCMJ; and,



  that the military leaderships' years of silence and unwillingness to
protect the warriors from the Pentagon's medical bureaucrats has been
cowardly.



Therefore, taking the anthrax vaccine isn't patriotic, or a sign of loyalty
to the chain of command. It is simply aiding and abetting a crime by a
Pentagon leadership, during both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, that
has had no respect for either the law -- or for the soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines who serve them.



Those responsible must now be held accountable.



Until there is full accountability, if you are asked to "volunteer" for the
anthrax vaccine, follow former First Lady Nancy Reagan's advice about
illegal drugs: "Just Say No."







John Richardson is a retired USAF Reserve lieutenant colonel, a 1991 Gulf
War veteran, and served as a policy analyst on the Joint Staff (J-5) from
1992-1998.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Hack's Target, "Soldiers Shouldn't be Guinea Pigs", Apr 11, 2005.



[ii] "A Case for Accountability," Washington Post, Apr 21, 2006.



[iii] "Why Iraq Was a Mistake," Time Magazine, Apr 17, 2006.



[iv] "Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld", New York Times, April
23, 2006.



[v] The Clinton Administration quickly granted Mr. El-Hibri US citizenship
in response to the controversy over the mandatory anthrax vaccine program
that was played out in at least a dozen Congressional hearings in 1999-2000.



[vi] "Why BioPort Got a Shot in the Arm", Insight Magazine, Sep 20, 1999.



[vii] Judge Emmet Sullivan decisions:



�         Permanent injunction, Oct 27, 2004.



�         Preliminary injunction, Dec 22, 2003.



[viii] "BioThrax", FDA-approved package insert (2002).



[ix] "A Shot in the Dark?," Newsday, Nov 20, 2005.



[x] "Report Discounts Iraq Arms Threat, Inspector Says Hussein Lacked
Means", Washington Post, Oct 6, 2004.



[xi] "Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms", Washington Post,

Apr 2005.



[xii] "How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'," Los Angeles Times, Nov
20, 2005.



[xiii] "Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs' - Saddam's trucks were for
balloons, not germs," Guardian (UK) June 8, 2003



[xiv] "Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War - Administration
Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary,"
Washington Post, Apr 12, 2006.



[xv] "Iraqi Trailers Said to Make Hydrogen, Not Biological Arms," New York
Times, Aug 9, 2003.



[xvi] GAO reports addressing biological warfare and bioterrorism threat
(1999-2002):



�         GAO, "Medical Readiness: Safety and Efficacy of the Anthrax
Vaccine", T-NSIAD-99-148 (April 29, 1999).

�         GAO, "Observations on the Threat of Chemical and Biological
Terrorism", GAO/T-NSIAD-00-50, (October 20, 1999)

�         GAO, "Anthrax Vaccine: GAO's Survey of Guard and Reserve Pilots
and Aircrew", GAO-02-445 (October 23, 2002).

�         GAO, "Diffuse Security Threats: Information on Domestic U.S.
Anthrax Attacks", GAO-0-323T (Dec. 10, 2002)(not online)



[xvii] "Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs", US Government White
Paper, Feb 13, 1998



[xviii] "A Spy Speaks Out", CBS News, Apr 21, 2006.

[xix] "Report Finds Anthrax Contamination at U.S. Institute", Global
Security News, Apr 19, 2006.

[xx] Defenselink, DoD press briefing, Oct 3, 2000.



[xxi]  10 U.S. Code 980(b)): "The Secretary of Defense may waive the
prohibition in this section with respect to a specific research project to
advance the development of a medical product necessary to the armed forces
if the research project may directly benefit the subject and is carried out
in accordance with all other applicable laws."



[xxii] Assistant Secretary of Defense William Winkenwerder and Col John
Grabenstein, DoD press briefing, Dec 23, 2003.



[xxiii] See also: "Report on Search for Human Radiation Experiment Records
1944 - 1994", Department of Defense (June 1997) and "Human Radiation
Experiments: The Department of Energy Roadmap to the Story and Records",
Department of Energy (1995). .



[xxiv] "Winkenwerder: Reservist's Death Was Tragic, Unavoidable", DoD
American Forces Press Service, Nov 19, 2003



[xxv] "Teleconference Update on Southwest Asia Pneumonia Review", DoD press
briefing, Sep 9, 2003.



[xxvi] "Defense seeks emergency authority to resume anthrax vaccinations,"
GovExec.com, Dec 15, 2004.



[xxvii] Sox, et.al., Gulf War and Health: Volume 1. Depleted Uranium,
Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, and Vaccines, Institute of Medicine (IOM)
(2000) at Chapter 7 (Vaccines), pp. 267-323.



[xxviii] "Military Chiefs Back Anthrax Inoculations," Washington Post, Oct
2, 1996.



Send all comments to dwfeedback@...



Randi Airola
517-819-5926

When Good People do Nothing....

"Today Americans would be outraged if U. N. troops entered Los Angeles to
restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if
they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or
promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people
of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil.
The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this
scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee
of their well being granted to them by their world government."
~ Henry Kissinger

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

And while the Flu Pandemic Draft whips everyone in a further frenzy (see
below article)...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12358223/wid/11915773/
Chicken Little alert?  Hysteria could sap money from worse health threats
By Rebecca Cook Dube
Special to MSNBC.com
Updated: 2:49 p.m. ET April 20, 2006

Doomsday predictions about bird flu seem to be spreading faster than the
virus itself. But a small group of skeptics say the bird flu hype is
overblown and ultimately harmful to the public's health.

There's no guarantee bird flu will become a pandemic, and if it does there's
no guarantee it will kill millions of people. The real trouble, these
skeptics say, is that bird flu hysteria is sapping money and attention away
from more important health threats.
"I have a bunch of patients coming in here who are more worried about bird
flu than they are about heart disease," said Dr. Marc Siegel, an internist
and associate professor of medicine at the New York University School of
Medicine. "The fear is out of proportion to the current risk."

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institutes of Health's infectious
disease chief, recently cautioned against overreacting if the virus surfaces
in North American birds, as it is expected to do later this year.

"One migratory bird does not a pandemic make," Fauci told The Associated
Press.

Scary scenarios

It's hard to blame people for feeling skittish. The chief avian flu
coordinator for the United Nations, Dave Nabarro, said last fall he was
"almost certain" a bird flu pandemic would strike soon, and predicted up to
150 million deaths. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mike
Leavitt, advised Americans to stockpile cans of tuna fish and powdered milk
under their beds in case of an outbreak. Renowned flu expert Robert Webster
has said society needs to face the possibility that half of the population
could die in a bird flu pandemic.

"Ridiculous," scoffed Wendy Orent, an anthropologist and author of "Plague:
The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World's Most Dangerous
Disease."
She said public health officials have vastly exaggerated the potential
danger of bird flu.
Several factors make it unlikely that bird flu will become a dangerous
pandemic, Orent said: the virus, H5N1, is still several mutations away from
being able to spread easily between people; and the virus generally attaches
to the deepest part of the lungs, making it harder to transmit by coughing
or breathing.

"We don't have anything that makes us think this bug will go pandemic,"
Orent said. "Yes, it's virtually certain in human history there will be
another pandemic strain . but there's no reason for it to happen now, or 10
years from now or 20 years from now."
Public health officials counter that it's better to be safe than sorry;
better to prepare for a pandemic that never comes than to be caught
unprepared. Avian flu has killed 110 people worldwide since 2003, according
to the World Health Organization.

"Even if H5N1 does not evolve into a pandemic, the steps we are taking right
now will benefit us down the road," said Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "We simply want
people to be informed and educated about bird flu. The best antidote for
fear is information."

But public health funding is a zero-sum game, both Orent and Siegel note.
Money that's being poured into short-term bird flu preparations isn't
available for long-term fixes that would, for example, increase hospitals'
ability to handle a surge of patients in a national emergency.

"People have been riding this for all they can get," said Orent. "We don't
need to make this into something it's not in order to get what we need,
which is a better public health system."

All the eggs in one basket?

And while everyone is nervously watching bird flu progress through Asia and
Europe, some experts worry another bug could sneak up and bite us.

"Preparation is fine, but short-term hysteria interferes with long-term
planning," Siegel said. He said he'd like to see more efforts at general
pandemic preparation - such as developing better methods for making
vaccines - rather than a laser-like focus on H5N1. "We're putting all our
eggs in one basket."

Flu virologist Adolfo Garcia-Sastre, a microbiology professor at the Mount
Sinai School of Medicine in New York, agrees that all the focus on H5N1 may
be unhealthy. As part of the team of scientists who recreated the deadly
1918 flu strain, he's glad people are paying more attention to flu but
thinks the level of worry is a bit too high. If this avian flu doesn't turn
into a pandemic, he wonders, will all these new flu-fighting measures be
tossed aside?

"Focusing only on H5N1 ... I think is a little bit shortsighted,"
Garcia-Sastre said.
Public health officials always have to walk a fine line when sounding the
alarm, said risk communications expert Peter Sandman, of Princeton, N.J., a
consultant to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of
Defense. Bird flu is a tough case because it's both scary and unlikely.
People see-saw between overreacting because the potential threat is
horrific, and under-reacting because the threat is also unlikely.

"When you look at a risk that's horrific but not likely, it's hard to know
how to think about it," Sandman said.

Sandman said public health officials need to do a better job of
communicating the uncertainty around bird flu - as Fauci seemed to be
attempting this week.
"It's unfair and dishonest to make it sound like we're sure H5N1 is coming
soon and it's going to kill half the population," Sandman said. "It's
equally irresponsible to say, because only a hundred people have died, it's
not a biggie. It's potentially very scary, but potentially is only
potentially."

Mixed messages

Vocabulary is part of the problem, Sandman said. The term "bird flu" is used
for the virus that is now killing birds - and has infected nearly 200 people
who came into very close contact with birds. And it's also being used to
describe a mutated virus - which hasn't yet emerged - that would spread
easily among humans.

Sandman stressed that the current "bird flu" that kills birds is not the
same as the potential "bird flu" that could cause a deadly pandemic.

"Chicken isn't a problem," he explained. "The big problem is the risk of
mutation, at which point I'm at risk from the subway seat you sat on, or the
doorknob you pulled open. After the mutation happens we should both be more
afraid of doorknobs than chicken. Before the mutation, we shouldn't be
afraid of doorknobs or chickens."
       getCSS("3088874")
Even if avian flu transforms into a human pandemic, it may be mild. The most
recent flu pandemic, in 1968, went unnoticed by everyone except scientists
because it wasn't much worse than a normal flu season in terms of illnesses
and deaths.

Government officials continue urging people to prepare by stockpiling a few
weeks' worth of food, water and medical supplies. But skeptics like Siegel
and Orent say you're better off guarding against more realistic dangers -
heart attacks, for example, or even gum disease.

"I'd worry more about flossing my teeth than I'd worry about avian flu,"
Orent said. "I want people to see what the real dangers are."
------------------------------------------------------
   CLG News <clg_news@...> wrote:
     From: "CLG News" <clg_news@...>
     To: "CLG News" <clg_news@...>
     Subject: U.S. Pandemic Draft: Federal Troops, National Guard to Maintain
Order
     Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 13:45:44 -0400


     News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
     02 May 2006
     http://www.legitgov.org/
      http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
     U.S. Pandemic Draft: Federal Troops, National Guard to Maintain
Order --Military activated to enforce travel restrictions and deliver [!?!]
vaccines and medicines 02 May 2006 According to a 228-page draft of the
government's pandemic flu plan obtained by The Associated Press, an outbreak
could lead to a variety of restrictions on movement in and around the
country, including limiting the number of international flights and
quarantining exposed travelers... The report envisions possible breakdowns
in public order and says governors might deploy National Guard troops or
request federal troops to maintain order. The military also could be
activated to enforce travel restrictions and deliver vaccines and medicines,
the report says. [See: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.]
     Address to receive newsletter: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg
     Please write to: signup@... for inquiries. lrp/mdr
     CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, General Manager. Copyright � 2006,
Citizens For Legitimate Government � All rights reserved. CLG Founder and
Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.
Randi Airola
517-819-5926
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise
their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary
right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the
country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag
the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2006_apr05.php

Dr. Yazbak, a pediatrician, now devotes his time to the research of
autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury.

Is Mandatory Vaccination Destroying An Important Bond?

By Red Flags Columnist, F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
(tlautstudy@...)

An article by human rights journalist Anai Rhoads Ford entitled "Why
signing a waiver to avoid vaccines can be considered abuse" was recently
circulated to parents' groups in the United States. (1) Originally written
in the fall of 2005, it says, "Recently, The Washington Post printed an
article (2) about vaccine waivers that could jeopardize your parental
rights. In the article was the following comment: "The American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends that doctors ask parents who refuse to vaccinate
their children to sign a waiver indicating they are aware of the risks of
refusal."

The article went on "Know Your Rights . By endorsing this particular
waiver, parents would essentially be signing an admission of neglect and/or
'abuse' for refusing vaccines. The language contained in this waiver could
put parents and caregivers in jeopardy later if they should ever find
themselves in the courts due to their child's health problems, when
confronted with child protective services, divorce, or just about any
matter pertaining to their child that could be used against the parent(s).
Please read any waiver provided by your child's doctor, daycare or school
carefully before signing. Instead, offer a formally written and signed
letter that simply states that you do not wish to vaccinate your child. If
you are unsure of the language in the waiver, buy some time by telling your
doctor or the school that you need to consult with a lawyer before signing
it."

As a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) since 1963, I was
obviously disturbed. We had just driven another wedge between our patients
and us and further compromised our previous superb rapport and mutual
respect: We were asking parents to sign a potentially incriminating
document that quite possibly could be legally challenged.

I accessed the AAP web site and found a letter to parents by our new
president Eileen M. Ouellette, MD, JD, FAAP, (3) which says in part: "At
its peak before measles vaccine became available, there were more than
494,000 cases of measles in one year. Measles killed 3,000 children and
resulted in 48,000 hospitalizations annually. In 2002, thanks to
immunizations, there were 44 cases of measles reported in the U.S.

"Most parents, and many grandparents, have no personal experience of seeing
children suffer from these severe childhood illnesses: diphtheria, whooping
cough, polio, mumps, chickenpox and H. flu meningitis. Consequently, they
may not appreciate the seriousness of these diseases or wrongly believe
they no longer exist.

"It is vital that we continue to immunize our children against these
preventable diseases or else they will return. Each of these diseases,
after all, is just a plane ride away.

"Unfortunately, there is much misinformation about vaccines, some of it on
the Internet. We are pleased to provide you with accurate information about
immunizations and encourage you to discuss any questions you may have with
your pediatrician."

I thought the President's letter was kind and most appropriate - as I
expected it to be. I have not met her, but she is eminently qualified to
lead us in these difficult times and I certainly wish her all the best.
Although I believe, as she does, that we need to vaccinate children and
adults, I find the timing and number of vaccines and combination vaccines
outrageous and outright dangerous. I totally agree that parents should
discuss their children's vaccinations with their pediatricians, but I also
think that they should get the other side of the story and make informed
decisions. If pediatricians cannot consistently convince parents to
vaccinate their little ones, then maybe they, too, should review the whole
subject with an open mind. They could learn something that the vaccine
lobby has chosen not to publicize.

Although immunization and vaccination are one and the same by definition
and are often used interchangeably, I prefer the term vaccination. The
substance that we inject into a baby is a vaccine. It does result most
often in immunity but such immunity is neither guaranteed nor always long
lasting. In addition, vaccination may cause complications that could be
more serious than the disease it is supposed to prevent.

Deciding that a vaccination is needed, useful and appropriate at a given
time is a serious matter. A vaccination decision may be the most important
a parent will make. "I wish I could turn the clock back" is a sentence I
have heard quite often, unfortunately. One thing is certain: No one can
aspirate an already injected vaccine. This is why informed vaccination
decisions are so crucial.

In her letter to patients, Ouellette describes how sick she was at the age
of 8 when she developed measles. I was 24 when I contracted measles and
exposed my older sister. I was not very sick but my poor sister almost died
from complications of the disease. Three years later, as a resident in an
infectious disease hospital, I took care of a young mother who had measles
encephalitis and spent hours and hours watching over her. Thank God, she
made a remarkable recovery. I wheeled her to her station wagon on one
beautiful sunny day and had tears in my eyes when her five little children
screamed with joy: They had not seen Mom in several days. At the time,
children were not allowed in hospitals to visit. The husband, a big man,
was also sobbing when he gave me a big bear hug and tried to say "th ...
tha . thank you, doc." I have a lump in my throat remembering that day.

Although I am fully aware of the many complications reported following
vaccination, I certainly believe that appropriate vaccination against
measles is needed. It is evidently also effective: A 2005 UNICEF report
describes a decrease of almost 40 percent in cases of measles worldwide
since 1999. (4)

The statistics provided to Ouellette and quoted by her were actually
conservative as to the yearly number of cases of measles in the United
States before the introduction of the monovalent vaccine in 1963. We had,
according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 894,134
cases of measles in 1941, 799,455 cases in 1934, and 763,094 in 1958.

On the other hand, because of better hygiene and nutrition, the yearly
mortality from measles had decreased precipitously decades before the
vaccine was developed. We have had less than 3,000 deaths per year since
1938, when we had 3,296 measles-related deaths in all age groups. We have
had under 1,000 deaths from measles per year after 1946, and below 500
yearly deaths after 1958.

The following table demonstrates the change in the epidemiology of measles
and deaths from measles with improved health conditions and before the
introduction of the vaccine.
Year

Population

No Cases

Attack rate/100000

Deaths

Death rate/100000

Death-to-cases
ratio x100
1913

97227000

203690

209.499

7446

7.658

3.656
1960

179323000

441703

246.317

380

0.212

0.086

It should be noted that while the number of cases of measles and the attack
rate were remarkably higher in 1960, the number of measles-related deaths,
the death rate and the death-to-cases ratio were all substantially lower
that year than in 1913. (Source: CDC)

* * * *

Much has been made - unfortunately - of a small study from Chicago by Erin
A. Flanagan-Klygis, MD, et al, entitled "Dismissing the family who refuses
vaccines: a study of pediatrician attitudes," which was published in the
October 2005 issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. (5) The
study results were discussed in the press, on television and on the
Internet.

Flanagan-Klygis wrote, "Responses to our survey suggest that some
pediatricians, faced with vaccine refusal, may seek to end their
relationships with refusing families, citing a breakdown in trust, fear of
litigation, or lack of common commitment to 'standard' medical care for
children."

The important word in that paragraph is "may" - as in, may seek to end
their relationship. The study did not report incidents of actual patients'
discharge.

The cited arguments are also ludicrous: The fact that parents do not trust
vaccines and their makers certainly does not mean that they do not trust
their pediatricians. In addition, there cannot be any threat of litigation
if the doctor clearly documents that, in spite of his urging and careful
explanation, the parent or guardian refused to sign the permit allowing the
administration of the vaccine.

As to lack of commitment to standard medical care, who are we to tell
parents that the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
is infallible and more committed to the welfare and health of their
children than they are. To date, no one has succeeded in convincing me that
administering a vaccine that is not needed to a newborn or giving seven or
eight vaccines together to a two-month-old baby meets any reasonable
standard of good medical care.

It certainly hurts our ego when a parent disagrees with us and refuses a
vaccination, but a bruised ego does not need life-long treatment or special
education and rehabilitation. We do get over it. Unfortunately, the babies
may not fare as well if they are part of the small minority that develops a
serious complication. I was heartbroken in 1997, when a young mother asked
me not to give her newborn the hepatitis B vaccine. I told her that it was
not blood-based anymore, that I read a lot about it, that it was safe and
that I had administered it to all my grandchildren. And she said, "I have
never disobeyed you before, but I really do not want this particular
vaccine for my baby right now. I do not have the disease and he is not at
risk." I obviously respected her wishes. If she ever reads this, let me
assure her that I am now in total agreement with her. She was right!

The membership of the AAP exceeds 60,000 pediatricians. Flanagan-Klygis
mailed her survey questions to 1,004 of them; 302 responses were analyzed.

I am obviously aware that in superbly designed studies, results of such a
small sample can be reliable and safely projected. But this was not a
full-protocol study; this was only a mail survey. Not being one of the
lucky 1,004, I do not know how the questions were phrased. I am confident,
nevertheless, that the same questions stated differently can provoke
different responses. In any case, the responses (and the study) expressed
the recollections and interpretations of less than 0.5 percent of the AAP
membership.

Some 54 percent of the survey respondents had encountered a parent who had
turned down all vaccines, and 256 of the 302 (85 percent) pediatricians had
families with partial vaccine refusal within the previous 12 months.
Seventy three percent of the physicians surveyed attributed the parents'
refusal to safety concerns and 22 percent said that the parents were
concerned about the administration of multiple vaccines - all together.

Eighty two respondents (less than one-third) said they would ask the family
to leave their practice if the parents refused specific vaccines, and 116
said they would probably ask complete vaccine refusers to transfer to other
physicians.

The survey also examined the attitude of the pediatricians about
vaccinations.

An overwhelming majority (85 to 96 percent) stated that DTaP (diphtheria,
tetanus and acellular pertussis), HIB (Haemophilus influenzae type B), MMR
(measles, mumps and rubella) and IPV (inactivated poliovirus) vaccines were
extremely important.

About a third of the pediatricians surveyed ranked the hepatitis B vaccine,
the chickenpox vaccine (Varivax) and the seven-valent pneumococcal
conjugate vaccine (Prevnar) as somewhat important.

Prevnar, hepatitis B, Varivax and IPV vaccines were also judged optional by
a small percentage of responding pediatricians (4.6, 2.3, 6.6, and 0.99,
respectively).

The results of the survey raised questions:

     * Were the pediatricians who were surveyed really considering
discharging infants and children from their practices just because their
parents had safety concerns?
     * Were they actually going to discharge patients or were they just
voicing their frustration to someone/anyone who was willing to listen?
     * Were the responses reactions to the questions or to actual practice
situations?

* * * *

It is important to note that the AAP Committee on Bioethics has stated:
"Continued refusal after adequate discussion should be respected unless the
child is put at significant risk of serious harm (as, for example, might be
the case during an epidemic). Only then should state agencies be involved
to override parental discretion on the basis of medical neglect. Physician
concerns about liability should be addressed by good documentation of the
discussion of the benefits of immunization and the risks associated with
remaining unimmunized."

According to the CDC, the immunization provider plays a key role in helping
to ensure the safety and efficacy of vaccines through proper:

     * Vaccine storage and handling
     * Vaccine administration
     * Timing and spacing of vaccine doses
     * Observation of precautions and contraindications
     * Management of vaccine side effects
     * Reporting of suspected side effects
     * Communication about vaccine benefits and risks

Though mentioned last, proper communication with parents or patients is
extremely important.

The CDC recommends (verbatim):

Communicate about vaccine benefits and risks
Before you administer each dose of certain vaccines, you are required by
law to provide a copy of the most current Vaccine Information Statement
(VIS) to either the adult vaccinee or to the child's parent/legal guardian.

Be prepared to manage vaccine side effects
. Severe side effects, such as severe allergic reactions following
vaccination are extremely rare. However, any provider who administers
vaccines should have procedures in place for the emergency care of a person
who experiences an anaphylactic reaction ...

Report suspected side effects to VAERS
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national vaccine
safety monitoring program. VAERS collects information about adverse events
(possible side effects) that occur after administration of U.S. licensed
vaccines. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires healthcare
providers to report selected events occurring after vaccination to VAERS.
However, VAERS encourages reporting of any clinically significant adverse
event that occurs after administration of any vaccine licensed in the
United States, even if it is not certain that the vaccine caused the event
. (6)

Because it would be totally counter-productive, the AAP and the CDC do not
recommend discharging infants and children because their parents wish to
decline or delay certain vaccinations. It is only by keeping the children
coming back and by continuing to care for them that we can hope to convince
the parents to allow judicious vaccination.

If I were still practicing pediatrics, I certainly would not ask parents to
transfer out of my practice because they wish to delay or omit a
vaccination. I would simply write a detailed note on the chart and give the
parents time to think things over.

If the families that are discharged from pediatric practices do not find a
"sympathetic" pediatrician, they may choose to see health professionals who
do not believe in any vaccination or forgo pediatric care altogether. In
that case, it would be us, the pediatricians, who would have failed to meet
the standard of good medical care.

General practitioners and internists would not dare discharge a patient if
he or she refuses a vaccine or wishes to delay it a year or two. I can just
imagine a family physician telling a lawyer in his practice: "Go find
another doctor. How dare you not obey me? I know everything about health
and you do not. I want to give you a booster and you dare refuse. I want
you to leave my practice."

At the end of my last check-up, my doctor asked me if I wanted a flu shot.
"We have plenty of vaccine this year," he said. My surprised face quickly
brought him back to reality. "I guess not," he added gently. "I'll see you
in six months."

Recently, a dear friend accompanied his wife to a prenatal visit where she
declined the influenza vaccination that is now recommended in all
trimesters of pregnancy. The obstetrician was not too happy but he did not
"fire the patient" - possibly because the husband was also a physician and
eminently more informed about influenza vaccination during pregnancy. The
following Monday, my friend called to ask the obstetrician a question. He
was not in.  He was having a reaction to his flu shot.

*  * * *

I do not believe that our first and only function as pediatricians is to
administer vaccines. If it were, then we would not need four years of
college, four years of medical school and three years of pediatric
residency (at least). We would only need to take an evening course on
vaccine administration.

Periodic health examinations are very important by themselves. We need to
monitor growth and development, look for abnormal findings or new
pathology, follow up on existing problems and discuss diet and safety
measures. We must simply advise and assist any way we can. We should
encourage reasonable vaccination practices, answer questions and - above
all - show that we care. If we ask a parent to leave our practice, we are
missing all that and forgetting that this is still a free country.

Waivers can only compromise the rapport between doctors and patients, They
should not be used and the Academy should review the subject, as soon as
possible.

One can only imagine the office space and the personnel that will be needed
if we had to use waivers for every situation where the patient or the
parent refuses to do what we recommend.

We could actually run out of colors if we decided to color-code them:

Too many Twinkies: Blue waiver

Too much soda: Green waiver

Pregnant at 15: Purple

Refusing to wear condoms: Yellow

Still smoking: Red

I happen to think that it is more important to discover a heart murmur and
to stress that a one-year-old boy must be well strapped in a good car seat
than to give him the rubella vaccine.

I also think that I am better off spending time convincing a teenager to
drive safely, to always use a seat belt and to avoid smoking, drinking,
drugs, unprotected sex and proximity to firearms than to fly in and out of
the examining room and send my nurse in with the new whooping cough booster.

Lately, the rapport between pediatricians and parents has suffered much,
for a multitude of reasons. The flood of mandated and recommended
vaccinations may have been one.

It is our duty to do everything we can to stop any further erosion of such
an important bond. Reason must prevail.



References:

    1. Rhoads Ford, Anai. Why signing a waiver to avoid vaccines can be
considered abuse. AnaiRhoads.org, 15 November 2005. Available at:
http://www.anairhoads.org/medical/saynotovaccines.shtml
    2. Sandra G. Boodman. "Feuding Over Vaccines." Washington Post. Nov. 8,
2005.
    3. Letter from AAP President. Available at
http://www.cispimmunize.org/fam/ouelletteletter.htm
    4. Measles deaths plummet. UNICEF 3/4/2005 Available at
http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_25339.html
    5. Flanagan-Klygis EA, Sharp L, Frader JE. Dismissing the family who
refuses vaccines: a study of pediatrician attitudes. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med. 2005 Oct;159(10):929-34. PMID: 16203937
    6. Vaccine Safety: The Providers Role. CDC, National Immunization
Program. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/providers_role.htm
Randi Airola
517-819-5926
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise
their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary
right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the
country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag
the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Really, my yahoo groups name is whovian333@....  Maybe you just have
no grasp of how to use you're computer properly. Oh well.

***Hitting "reply", really doesn't require being computer savvy***

What vocabulary would that be? I'm pro vax all right. I also believe the
holocaust really occured and evolution isn't "Just a theory"

***The vocabulary of just flaming - as opposed to stating anything of
intellect. If "evolution" truly happened - (though off topic, I'll entertain
it) - then why are humans still giving birth to humans? Did evolution just
sporatically stop?***

If allen wasn't guilty why did he plead "no contest" to murdering a child?
***I'm not sure - why don't you ask him?***

Regarding smallpox - When better sanitation was introduced, all diseases
began to decline prior to vaccination being introduced. In many cases, when
the vaccine to that disease was introduced, the diseases spiked, then
declined again.  Smallpox was nearly all but eliminated prior to the
smallpox vaccine being introduced.  When it was introduced, there again, a
spike occurred.  See: http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php

**I see there's no response here***

What ever that means. It's nice to see people who see our unwillingness to
be ass raped by ole' momma nature as "messing around with"

***Perhaps you should go find a 'pro vax' list - you'll find no support
here.  What you'll find here are those that are not blind sheep.***

Hopefully you got a chance to listen to the Power Hour this morning.

Oh, and Chris...in case I forgot to post this here - don't forget to tune in tomorrow.

 

 

Listen in to Dr Tim O'Shea on syndicated radio this coming Friday at 9 am EST.  (4-21-06)  Tune in online to www.thepowerhour.com; Once on the home page just click on Listen Live

Dr Tim O'Shea - Author of The Sanctity of Human Blood, worldwide lecturer on immunology will be talking directly to the radio audience in this rare uncensored 2 hour interview with the Power Hour.

Topics for the morning interview:

- Mercury is still in vaccines, no matter what you may be hearing.
- why mercury isn't the only problem, and why it's being made to look as though it is 
- The 2006 Mandated Schedule of vaccines: 59 vaccines by age 18
- Marketing the new mumps outbreak
- Gulf War Syndrome I and II 
- blood detox from vaccine contamination
- the autism industry
- natural vs. artificial immunity

Do not tune in unless you are prepared for some very straight talk about vaccines, fully documented.

Read what others say about the seminar - 

click on Feedback at   www.thedoctorwithin.com

The show will be archived.

"I wish to recommend to you the most comprehensive book I have read over the past 25 years on this subject: The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination Is Not Immunization, by Tim O'Shea"
- Autism and the Vaccine Connection by Roy Kupsinel, MD

"I have read many books that have inspired me and have made me proud to be a doctor.

This is one made me ashamed. I was confronted by the truth of what was happening in medicine ... the role played by vaccinations over the past 100 years has been grossly exaggerated and the harm that this has done has been carefully hidden from public view." -- Abram Huffer, MD

"in all my research on vaccines .. your book was one of the very best on the topic ...  ...and watch out for the horizon ... newer and mandatory vacs .... not good ... You are right about pure blood .... that is the key" ... Ted H Spence, DDS

>From: Randi Airola <randiceaj@...>
>Reply-To: stopvaccines@yahoogroups.com
>To: stopvaccines@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [stopvaccines] Re: Smallpox
>Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
>
>List:
>   I recognize this "whovian" address - the last time I saw it, the number
>designator was "333" behind it and when I replied to it, lo and behold, "no
>user by this name" appeared. Maybe you'll be able to read this reply.
Really, my yahoo groups name is whovian333@....  Maybe you just have
no grasp of how to use you're computer properly. Oh well.
>   I'd like to say that my best guess is that this person is a "pro vax",
>however, that just can't be the case.  If that were the case, then one
>would assume the dialogue would be of something debatable.  The comment
>posed by "whovian" is anything but debatable. It lacks not only vocabulary,
>but, intellect.  Loose cannons are pro-vaxers worst nightmare.

What vocabulary would that be? I'm pro vax all right. I also believe the
holocaust really occured and evolution isn't "Just a theory"
>
>   "Whovian" - regarding your comment to me regarding Alan Yurko - if Alan
>was guilty, then, why would the coroner have lost his license due to
>botched autopsies?
If allen wasn't guilty why did he plead "no contest" to murdering a child?

>   Regarding smallpox - When better sanitation was introduced, all diseases
>began to decline prior to vaccination being introduced. In many cases, when
>the vaccine to that disease was introduced, the diseases spiked, then
>declined again.  Smallpox was nearly all but eliminated prior to the
>smallpox vaccine being introduced.  When it was introduced, there again, a
>spike occurred.  See: http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php
>
>   Below is an article that was released today - you may believe that
>vaccines are a God send - and you're entitled to your opinion - however,
>don't think that anyone can mess with mother nature, with out some sort of
>a trade-off.
What ever that means. It's nice to see people who see our unwillingness to
be ass raped by ole' momma nature as "messing around with"

At 09:19 AM 4/18/2006, CHRIS MANKEY wrote:

>I'm certainly more enlightened than you, Maggie.

And you're modest too.

>I guess if you're to moronic to understand the connection between
>the absence of smallpox in the world and the smallpox vaccine,

Gee Chrisso, why don't you tell us what that connection is.

>  then you lack the intelligence to" save yourself".

And you are worried about poor l'il ole me and you are gonna save me
from myself.  Right?


Meggie

>From: brndnms <brndnms@...>
>Reply-To: stopvaccines@yahoogroups.com
>To: stopvaccines@yahoogroups.com,stopvaccines@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [stopvaccines] Small pox
>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:25:08 -0500
>
>
>
>
>At 01:20 AM 4/18/2006, whovian333 wrote:
>
>
>
> >NOBODY in the us has died of smallpox in 20 year at all! That would
>
> >be because the vaccinations for it, WIPED IT OUT! Are you people
>
> >really this stupid? IS this group connected to the onion?
>
>
>
>Have you come to save us from ourselves, oh enlightened one?
>
>I'm certainly more enlightened than you, Maggie. I guess if you're to
>moronic to understand the connection between the absence of smallpox in the
>world and the smallpox vaccine, then you lack the intelligence to" save
>yourself".
>
>

At 01:20 AM 4/18/2006, whovian333 wrote:

>NOBODY in the us has died of smallpox in 20 year at all! That would
>be because the vaccinations for it, WIPED IT OUT! Are you people
>really this stupid? IS this group connected to the onion?

Have you come to save us from ourselves, oh enlightened one?


Meggie

more people have died
of smallpox vaccine than of smallpox in the last 20 years
in the US..

  NOBODY in the us has died of smallpox in 20 year at all! That would
be because the vaccinations for it, WIPED IT OUT! Are you people
really this stupid? IS this group connected to the onion?

----- Original Message -----
From: "VERACARE" <veracare@...>
To: "VERACARE" <veracare@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Sen Bill Frist and Cong Dennis Hastert: "Poisoning our children"_SF
Chronicle


ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/

   FYI

"Millions of American children have been brain damaged by a mercury
preservative added to vaccines. With the backing of several U.S.
Congressmen, Dr. Mark Geier is the only independent scientist to have gotten
access to the CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink, a database of adverse reactions
to vaccines. He found a very strong association between the dosage of
mercury and the incidence of neuro-development disorders, speech
difficulties, ADD, and autism in children. The increase in the number of
infant vaccines in 1991 trippled the exposure of infants to the mercury
preservative. Thimerosal is 50% ethyl mercury by weight." [Radio interview
at: http://www.policestateplanning.com/dr_geier_on_thimerosal.htm]

Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, the
Scandinavian countries followed suit in the 1990s and Great Britain in 2004.

By contrast, "Top Republicans -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.,
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill-- recently sold the future of our
children to Big Pharma for a paltry $4 bucks a pop."

Where are the protests?

The deafening silence of the American citizenry contrast sharply with the
vigorous protest rallies by illegal immigrants who took to the streets when
their welfare was threatened by Congressional yahoos--as is legitimate in a
democracy.

The link between thimerosal (Mecury) and neurological impairment has been at
the center of decades of a contentious debate: the two sides can be
characterized as the powerful, industry-funded, therefore biased contingency
of scientists and government officials on one side and independent
scientists who, armed with evidence have taken up the battle on behalf of
beleaguered families whose children have suffered neurological damage.

Indeed, the evidence has convinced many US states to either ban (as Iowa
has), or are in the process of banning thimerosal: California, Missouri,
Nebraska, and New York, among many others.  Vaccine manufacturers were
especially worried about a bipartisan national bill introduced in the US
House of Representatives (Weldon/Maloney bill) to ban thimerosal nationally.


An OPINION piece in the San Francisco Chronicle (below) reveals how the
Senate doctor and his buddy in the House secretly intervened to protect Big
Pharma: "It's worth considering why the drug companies feel they need such
treatment. Is it because they have known for decades that their product is
harmful? As we learned with Big Tobacco, denial is the first defense."

With millions in campaign contributions from the drug industry, the Senate
doctor and his buddy in the House, shamelessly legitimized a ruthless
crime-the crime of knowingly poisoning babies-while simultaneously depriving
the victims of mercury poisoning of their legal rights. "There were no
public hearings on the immunity provision, no debate, no disclosure of the
proceedings of the committee. Press coverage was virtually nonexistent."

Though the legislation will ultimately be challenged as unconstitutional,
the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA), signed by the
President, "removes the right to due process and judicial review for persons
injured by vaccines, thus granting a virtual license to kill. Under the new
law, companies making vaccines can be grossly negligent and act with wanton
recklessness and still escape liability as long as they can show that their
misconduct wasn't "willful." It is impossible to conceive of a lower
standard for the drug companies or a higher burden of proof for injured
parties."

But where are the citizens who should be rallying on behalf of infants and
children?

Below, a letter published in the journal, Pediatrics, April, 2005, by Mark
R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D.,challenges the authors of a 2004 report in Pediatrics
claiming no association between thimerosal and neurological damage.

See also, excellent overview by Robert Kennedy, Jr,  "Deadly Immunity"
Salon.com June 16, 2005:  http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm
"when a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused
autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data --
and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the
epidemic."

See extensive vaccine safety information at National Vaccine Information
Center at: http://www.909shot.com/Issues/HgCalculator.htm and
THE NATIONAL HEALTH FEDERATION : http://www.thenhf.com/about_us.html


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
veracare@...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/10
/EDGNSGUA0G1.DTL
San Francisco Chronicle
POISONING OUR CHILDREN
OPEN FORUM
Lewis Seiler, Dan Hamburg

Top Republicans -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and House
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., -- recently sold the future of our children
to Big Pharma for a paltry $4 bucks a pop.

  That's the additional cost to produce a safe vaccine, a vaccine minus the
mercury-based preservative thimerosal. Mercury is a deadly neurotoxin that
has long been known to cause serious learning disabilities and death, and is
strongly suspected in contributing to autism. According to the California
Public Schools Autism Prevalence Report for the School Years 1992-2003, the
increase in autism prevalence is systemic across the entire United States
"and should be an urgent public-health concern ...

The disease frequency of autism now surpasses that of all types of cancer
combined." The report notes a 1,086 percent cumulative growth rate of autism
over the period, with a 23 percent average annual growth rate.

A recent study published in the spring 2006 volume of the peer-reviewed
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons shows that the rate of
neurodevelopmental disorders in children has decreased following the removal
of thimerosal from most American childhood vaccines. However, only about
one-third of the 11 million children vaccinated for influenza this year will
receive mercury-free vaccines.

At the end of last year, President Bush signed the Public Readiness and
Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA), granting blanket immunity to
pharmaceutical companies for vaccine-induced injuries. The measure is a
carte blanche for industry, allowing it even to reintroduce mercury in
vaccines that are clean, and under the behest of the World Health
Organization, to continue shipping tainted vaccine to the "developing
world."
  The federal government has known enough to stop the use of mercury in
vaccines for more than a decade. Industry has known of the dangers of
thimerosal since at least 1991.
But using the preservative made the sale of vaccines more profitable. In
fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has at times seemed
just as concerned about these profits as the companies themselves. Cynics
have noted the "revolving door" between industry and government that seems
to alter the perspective of both. In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention recommended "the elimination of thimerosal as soon as
possible." In 2002, the CDC stated in a press release "all vaccines will be
thimerosal-free as soon as adequate supplies are available." Yet, last year
the CDC refused to live up to its own policy by claiming "no preference for
thimerosal-free vaccines."

Laden with millions in campaign contributions from the industry, some
members of Congress are eager to plead that Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth,
and Eli Lilly might have to close up shop if they were forced to take
responsibility for injuries caused by their products. These companies hardly
need the help. Pharmaceuticals, despite their whining about risk and R&D
costs, are some of the most profitable businesses in the country with the
median profit margin of the top 10 companies more than five times that of
all other industries on the Fortune 500 list.

In order to secure passage of the PREPA, Sens. Frist and Ted Stevens,
R-Alaska, joined by Speaker Hastert, assured their colleagues in the
House-Senate conference committee that immunity for the drug companies would
not go forward as a tack-on to the 2006 defense appropriations bill. There
were no public hearings on the immunity provision, no debate, no disclosure
of the proceedings of the committee. Press coverage was virtually
nonexistent. According to one prominent member of the committee, Rep. David
Obey, D-Wis., "That legislation was unilaterally and arrogantly inserted
into the bill after the conference was over in a blatantly abusive power
play by two of the most powerful men in Congress." Sen. Ted Kennedy,
D-Mass., called the legislation "a blank check for the industry." Sen.
Robert Byrd, D- W. Va., dean of Senate rules, opined: "There should be no
dispute. The processes leading to passage of this bill [was] an absolute
travesty."

The PREPA is unconstitutional. It removes the right to due process and
judicial review for persons injured by vaccines, thus granting a virtual
license to kill. Under the new law, companies making vaccines can be grossly
negligent and act with wanton recklessness and still escape liability as
long as they can show that their misconduct wasn't "willful." It is
impossible to conceive of a lower standard for the drug companies or a
higher burden of proof for injured parties.

  The refusal of the drug companies to take responsibility for the products
they produce, and the complicity of the highest levels of government in
their refusal, will diminish public confidence in the entire U.S.
vaccination program. Already, thousands of mothers, including our own
daughters, are fearful of having their infants and toddlers vaccinated.
The PREPA also pre-empts the laws of states, including California, which
have passed legislation outlawing mercury in childhood vaccinations.
Meanwhile, the CDC continues to send its officials into state legislatures
around the country in attempts to abort measures banning mercury.

It's worth considering why the drug companies feel they need such treatment.
Is it because they have known for decades that their product is harmful? As
we learned with Big Tobacco, denial is the first defense. Eventually, the
truth will come out about mercury and the depravity of injecting a
neurotoxin into the bodies of infants and toddlers.

  Lewis Seiler is president of Voice of the Environment. Dan Hamburg, a
former U.S. representative, is executive director.

  Page B - 7

C2006 San Francisco Chronicle
<http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/info/copyright/>
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/114/3/584
THIMEROSAL DOES NOT BELONG IN VACCINES,  PEDIATRICS,
8 September 2004
Letter to the editor:  Mark R. Geier,MD, Ph.D., geneticist/vaccinologist
THE GENETIC CENTERS OF AMERICA,

Re: THIMEROSAL DOES NOT BELONG IN VACCINES

The authors of the Andrew et al. study failed to disclose their significant
conflicts of interests to the readership of Pediatrics: Elizabeth Miller
disclosed in her 2001 publication (1) and in 2002 to the Committee on the
Safety of Medicines previously disclosed that she has received funding to
study vaccines from Aventis Pasteur, Wyeth Vaccines, SmithKline Beecham,
Baxter Health Care, North American Vaccine, Wyeth- Lederle Vaccine, and
Chiron Biocine; and Nick Andrews, Julia Stowe, and Brent Taylor all
disclosed in 2001 that they received funding to study vaccines from Wyeth
Vaccines and SmithKline Beecham (1). These companies all are or were makers
of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

This study seems disingenuous, since the British Government has announced
the removal of thimerosal from their routine childhood vaccines effective
the end of September 2004. The BBC wrote on 7 August 2004, "Vaccine scrapped
over autism fear. A vaccine containing mercury given to babies when they are
eight weeks old is to be scrapped amid fears of a link with autism. The move
follows recent research in America that suggests a connection between
mercury used to preserve whooping cough vaccine, and autism." Health
Minister John Hutton confirmed the changes stating, 'Childhood immunization
has been extremely effective in protecting children from serious-life
threatening diseases, We are continually looking at ways to improve this
program as new, more effective products become available.' We congratulate
the British Government for doing the right thing, and predict that the new
vaccine will soon result in a concomitant drop in the currently devastating
rate of neurodevelopmental disorders in England as has already potentially
been seen in California which has reported a three-consecutive quarter
decrease in the number of new cases of autism for the first time in
approximately 20 years among children receiving childhood vaccines with
reduced thimerosal content.

Unfortunately, thimerosal continues to remain in many vaccines in the US.
Influenza vaccine has been added to the routine childhood immunization
schedule, and the CDC has refused to state a preference for children to
receive thimerosal-free influenza vaccine despite their position of
encouraging the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines,

The current study was extremely underpowered in its ability to discern the
effects of thimerosal on neurodevelopmental disorders because it only
examined a maximum exposure of 75 micrograms of mercury in the first year of
life and further limited potential thimerosal exposure differences by
excluding children that had not received 75 micrograms of mercury from
childhood vaccines by age one. The study did contain analyses for tics based
upon exposure at 3, 4, and all mercury exposure, when using a reference
group of children not receiving any mercury from thimerosal-containing
childhood vaccines during the first year of life. The results of these
analyses showed that there were statistically significantly increased hazard
ratios for tics at 3 months. By comparison, there was no statistically
significant correlation between mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing
vaccines and tics by excluding children not receiving thimerosal-containing
vaccines during the first year of life. The authors provide no other
complete data for any other outcomes when employing children receiving no
mercury during the first year of life as the reference population. The tic
result in the Andrews et al. study is similar to a previous study, from the
Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database (2), indicating an apparent causal
relationship between mercury containing childhood vaccines and the
development of tics.

This study has virtually no applicability to the US experience with
thimerosal. Despite incorrect statements to the contrary by Andrews et al.,
by 4 months of age US children received approximately 2-fold higher doses of
mercury from vaccines (125 micrograms) compared to those England (75
micrograms). This study contains significant biases because sicker children
were the ones that tended to have vaccinations delayed resulting in an
apparent preventive effective for mercury on the risks of neurodevelopmental
disorders.

It has become apparent from recently emerging clinical, animal model, and
molecular evidence that thimerosal is indeed responsible for
neurodevelopmental disorders in a substantial number of children, regardless
of the findings of large population-based epidemiological studies.
Independent investigators have shown children with autistic spectrum
disorders have significantly higher body-burdens of mercury than those of
neurotypical children (3-5), a genetically susceptible mouse strain develops
autistic features, including: growth delay, reduced locomotion, exaggerated
response to novelty, increased brain size, decreased numbers of Purkinje
cells, significant abnormalities in brain architecture, affecting areas
sub-serving emotion and cognition, and densely packed hyperchromic
hippocampal neurons with altered glutamate receptors and transporters
following administration of thimerosal mimicking the US childhood
immunization schedule (6), and molecular studies in vitro have demonstrated
that acute thimerosal exposure at extremely low concentrations (i.e. at
parts-per-million or lower) (7-9), that are comparable to the expected body
distribution of mercury resulting from thimerosal-containing vaccines that
were administered in the US, can kill or significantly adversely effect
neuronal growth and development. Pharmacokinetic studies on infant primates
exposed to solutions containing similar concentrations of thimerosal, as
thimerosal-containing vaccine childhood vaccines, have shown that the
half-life of mercury in the brain of the infant primates was approximately
28 days (10). Male mice were at considerably more sensitive than females to
the neurotoxic effects of low dose alkyl mercury exposure (11). These
results were consistent with some human fetal/infant population exposures to
low doses of alkyl mercury where it has been observed that males were more
sensitive than females to psychomotor retardation. Autistic spectrum
disorders, of course, are significantly more prevalent in males than females
(12).

In conclusion, we are, and always have been, strong supporters of the US
vaccine program and of pediatricians that administer vaccines, but given the
fact that many US states now have either banned (Iowa), or are in the
process of banning thimerosal, (California, Missouri, Nebraska, and New
York, among many others) and given that fact that there is now a bipartisan
national bill introduced in the US House of Representatives (Weldon/Maloney
bill) to ban it nationally, we now strongly suggest that the United States
pediatricians should insist on giving only thimerosal- free vaccines, lest
they become involved in the terrible morass of lawsuits that are already
beginning on this issue.

References

1. Miller E, Waight P, Farrington CP, Andrews N, Stowe J, Taylor B.
Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine. Arch Dis Child
2001;84:227-9.

2. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, Lieu TA, Rhodes PH, Black SB,
Shinefield H, Chen RT; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team. Safety of
thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health
maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003;112:1039-48.

3. Bradstreet J, Geier DA, Kartzinel JJ, Adams JB, Geier MR. A case- control
study of mercury body-burden in children with autistic spectrum disorders. J
Am Phys Surg 2003;8:76-9.

4. Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby
haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol 2003;22:277-85.

5. Hu LW, Bernard JA, Che J. Neutron activation analysis of hair samples for
the identification of autism. Trans Am Nucl Soc 2003;89.

6. Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal
are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry 2004;9:833-45.

7. Baskin DS, Ngo H, Didenko VV. Thimerosal induces DNA breaks, caspase-3
activation, membrane damage, and cell death in cultured human neurons and
fibroblasts. Toxicol Sci 2003;74:361-8.

8. Waly M, Olteanu H, Banerjee R, Choi SW, Mason JB, Parker BS et al.
Activation of methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and
dopamine: a target for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal. Mol
Psychiatry 2004;9:358-70.

9. Brunner M, Albertini S, Wurgler FE. Effects of 10 known or suspected
spindle poisons in the in vitro porcine brain tubulin assembly assay.
Mutagenesis 1991;6:65-70.

10. Institute of Medicine (US). Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and
Autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2004.

11. Clarkson TW, Nordberg FJ, Sager PR. Reproductive and developmental
toxicity of metals. Scand J Work Environ Health 1985;11:145- 54.

12. Bertrand J, Mars A, Boyle C, Bove F, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Decoufle P.
Prevalence of autism in a United States population: the Brick Township, New
Jersey, investigation. Pediatrics 2001;108:1155-61.

Dr. Mark R. Geier has been a consultant and expert witness in cases
involving vaccines before the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
and in civil litigation. David A. Geier has been a consultant in cases
involving vaccines before the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
and in civil litigation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such
material is made available for educational purposes, to advance
understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and
social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without
profit.

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/ 
 
 FYI
 An Inaugural Conference on Disease-Mongering, April, 11 to 13, is being hosted by the Newcastle Institute of Public Health and School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Newcastle, Australia.  Dr. David Henry, professor of clinical pharmacology, is the spokesperson for this Conference.

An international group of experts will address the commercialization of disease and medical conditions, and such public policy issues as: When does legitimate promotion of public health become mongering of disease for profit?” Are we becoming patients for profit? That is the question knowledgeable observers are asking. Speakers will also discuss non-medical implications—such as economic and social ramifications of medicating developmental “conditions” and medicalizing normal life experiences. Drug manufacturers have been hugely successful in expanding the market for lifestyle drugs by playing on peoples fears, fantasies and cravings to be forever young and sexually better than well.   See, conference program and speaker roster at: http://www.diseasemongering.org/downloads/program.pdf

We would add several important overarching issues that were left out of the discussion:
Big Pharma money and advertising not only influence the perception of illness, the demand for drugs, and the practice of medicine, but government budgets, including health service and oversight agencies have become dependent on Big Pharma money. An out of the box analysis opened our eyes to a fundamental conflict of interest that has never been discussed. Public health policies are not merely influenced by Big Pharma; they are formulated so as to increase industry’s profits because GOVERNMENT BUDGETS are tied to this industry’s profits.

It happened when Congress passed the Prescription Drug Users Fees Act (PDUFA) in 1992 which ushered in a "fast track" drug approval process. In the first ten years following the passage of  PDUFA the FDA has received $825 million in industry “user fees.” Other government agencies have similarly become financially dependent on Big Pharma  and its marketing gimmicks such as the government approved TMAP prescribing guidelines.

With increased use of patented prescription drugs—more than 50% of Americans are taking at least one drug—and increased speed with which these drugs are being approved and marketed, the number of people killed or harmed from adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has skyrocketed. More than two million hospitalized patients in the U.S. suffered a serious ADR within a 12-month period and, of these, 106,000 died as a result of non-error ADR. “The researchers found that over 75 per cent of these ADRs were dose-dependent, which suggests they were due to the inherent toxicity of the drugs rather than to allergic reactions [1]  [2].

 Prescription drug abuse—the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that prescription medication has become the fastest-growing category of drugs being abused, with the biggest growth of abuse among people ages 12 to 24.  According to SAMHSA, after marijuana, prescription drugs are the drugs most commonly abused by teenagers. Nationally, an estimated 14% of high school seniors have used prescription drugs for non-medical reasons according to a 2004 University of Michigan survey.

But in a brilliant original analysis, Jim Amrhein shows what the crass brass knuckle economic facts are behind FDA's inaction in "Buying The Parma:"

 "It would make no fiscal sense for the FDA to derail the money train by blowing the whistle about some drugs' dangers -- even if it costs a few hundred thousand American lives each year to look the other way…"  [Stay tuned]

Underscoring the importance of the issues addressed at this conference—and the fact that most of us could not attend—PLoS Medicine has published a special issue in conjunction with the conference devoted to Disease Mongering. Eleven articles presented at the conference are accessible free at:  http://collections.plos.org/diseasemongering-2006.php

References:

1. Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins University,  Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) July 26th 2000, Vol 284, No 4.; See also,  Jason, et al. (Lazarou et al), Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients, JAMA, Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1200-05. Also Bates, David W., Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions: How Worried Should We Be? JAMA, Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1216-17.
2. See also, Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD, 2004 http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_02.htm
   

Extracts from the PLoS compilation of provocative and timely articles follow:

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
veracare@...
 
 
1. Bigger and Better: How Pfizer Redefined Erectile Dysfunction by Joel Lexchin

The Rise of Lifestyle Drugs An important emerging issue in health care is the availability of medications to treat what until recently have been regarded as the natural results of aging or as part of the normal range of human emotions. Thus, we now see treatments widely advertised for male pattern baldness and shyness. Deviating even further, drug therapy is moving out of treating diseases to providing enhancements to what had hitherto been seen as normal functioning. This evolution in the use of medications has introduced dilemmas and controversies about what are legitimate conditions and treatments for those concerned with prescription medications: is any deviation from normality fair game for treatment? What about people who have nothing medically wrong with them, but just want to feel better? Who will pay for these therapies, and what are the implications for the way we use health-care resources?

This article will examine the strategies used by Pfizer, the maker of Viagra, to ensure that the drug was seen as legitimate therapy for almost any man. Pfizer took steps to make sure that Viagra was not relegated to a niche role of just treating men who had ED due to organic causes, such as diabetes or prostate surgery.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. Medicine Goes to School: Teachers as Sickness Brokers for ADHD by Christine B. Phillips

Much of the polemic for and against psychostimulants is concerned with the part played by doctors, the prescribers of medication, in diagnosing or discounting ADHD. ADHD is, however, a disorder of educational performance, and so teachers have a critical role in advocating for the illness, and its medical treatment the roles of teachers as brokers for ADHD and its treatment, and the strategies used by the pharmaceutical industry to frame educators’ responses to ADHD.

The teacher participates in the diagnosis, and may broker different forms of treatment, or rejection of treatment.  Brokerage is not a disinterested activity: teachers may have a vested interest in detecting and managing disruptive children, or they may adhere to beliefs about learning disorders which lead them to dissuade parents of the need for treatment.  The role of the teacher as the sickness and treatment broker for

ADHD has been elaborated more clearly for ADHD than for any other childhood disorder. Teachers often agree to administer  psychostimulant medication during the school day, although there is in Australia, the UK, and the US no legal compulsion to do so. A subtle incentive for teachers to administer medication in the middle of the day may be the assurance of a tractable child in the afternoon.

An informal role also exists for teachers as “disease-spotters.” There appears to be considerable difference internationally in the alacrity with which teachers engage in disease-spotting. In a study of 491 physicians in Washington, D. C., almost half of the diagnoses of ADHD in their patients had been suggested first by teachers [9]. In the UK, on the other hand, parental concerns that a child has ADHD may be discounted by teachers [10].

How Drug Companies Influence Teachers
As teachers have some agency in diagnosing ADHD, and may in fact contest the diagnosis, the pharmaceutical industry has an interest in directing teachers toward medical treatment. Pharmaceutical companies have been able to exploit the Internet to access teachers and to influence their brokerage role. The approach to teachers tends to mirror strategies used to familiarise doctors with pharmaceuticals.

The organised penetration of the pharmaceutical industry associated with ADHD into the education domain is a new phenomenon. While there has been extensive discussion about the ethics of fast-food marketing within schools [24,25], there has been little about the consequences of the pharmaceutical industry’s infiltration of schools.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. Female Sexual Dysfunction: A Case Study of Disease Mongering and Activist Resistance by Leonore Tiefer

….“The pharmaceutical industry has taken an aggressive interest in sex”…..

The creation and promotion of “female sexual dysfunction” (FSD) is a textbook case of disease mongering by the pharmaceutical industry and by other agents of medicalization, such as health and science  journalists, healthcare professionals, public relations and advertising fi rms, contract research organizations, and others in the “medicalization industry.”  False expectations set the stage for disease mongering, a process that encourages the conversion of socially created anxiety into medical diagnoses suitable for pharmacological treatment.

Dramatic liberalization occurred after World War II as purity campaigns failed to hold back the sex-promoting impact of changes in longevity, leisure, employment and childrearing, new technology, and mass media [4]. Effective oral contraceptives and medical treatments for venereal diseases removed sexual inhibitions due to fear of pregnancy and disease. A youth culture of charged eroticism developed. Taking advantage of post-1980s deregulatory policies, the pharmaceutical industry began to redirect its pipeline to new “lifestyle drugs” and its marketing to consumer advertising. Science and medicine journalists played key roles in whetting the public’s appetite for medical news about sex by breathlessly covering each new discovery and treatment.

In the 1980s and 1990s, urologists created organizations, journals, and “sexual health clinics” that focused on men’s erection problems. In 1992, a US National Institutes of Health consensus conference on “impotence” legitimized this work. Its outcome was a 34-page document that mentioned factors involved in etiology, maintenance, and treatment such as culture, partners, and sexual techniques, but, for the most part, it reified “erection” as the essence of men’s sexuality, and called for new treatments and vastly expanded research into physiological details and treatments [8].

Creating FSD
Although journalists began calling for a “female Viagra” only days after the March 1998 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Viagra (examples of journalists’ calling for a “pink Viagra” are collected on http:⁄⁄www.fsd-alert.org/press.html), it was far from clear what medical condition Viagra was supposed to treat in women. Urologists had used the term “female sexual dysfunction” as early as 1997, referring to aspects of

genital pathophysiology that might be akin to erectile dysfunction. For the first few years, the key players in the medicalization of women’s sexual problems were a small group of urologists who capitalized on their relationships with industry and recruited many sex researchers and therapists as allies. Irwin Goldstein of Boston University, an active erectile dysfunction researcher, opened the first Women’s Sexual Health clinic in 1998 [11].  He convened the first conference on female sexual function (called “New Perspectives in the Management of Female Sexual Dysfunction”) in October 1999 in Boston. Goldstein is the editor of a journal that launched in 2004—the Journal of Sexual Medicine (http:⁄⁄jsm.issir.org)—which has already published an industry-supported supplement on FSD [12].

Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, was the main promoter of FSD from 1997 to 2004, when its quest to have Viagra approved to treat “female sexual arousal disorder” ended because of consistently poor clinical-trial results. In its public statement, Pfizer said that that several large-scale, placebo-controlled studies including about 3,000 women with female sexual arousal disorder showed inconclusive results on the efficacy of the drug [14]. Commenting on these trial results on Viagra, John Bancroft, director of the Kinsey Institute, told the BMJ: “The recent history of the study of female sexual dysfunction is a classic example of starting with some preconceived, and non-evidence based diagnostic categorisation for women’s sexual dysfunctions, based on the male model, and then requiring further research to be based on that structure. Increasingly it is becoming evident that women’s sexual problems are not usefully conceptualised in that way” [14].  Nevertheless, Viagra (and the idea that it must work for women) has been so successfully branded that it continues to be prescribed off-label for women [15].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

4. The Latest Mania: Selling Bipolar Disorder by David Healy

…“The Bipolar Child made all the difference to Heather Norris, whose mother, after reading it, challenged her physician to correct Heather’s diagnosis from ADHD, treatment of which had made her daughter worse, to the correct diagnosis of bipolar disorder. As a result, Heather, at the age of two, became the youngest child in Tarrant County, Texas, to have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.”….

….Robert Post in the 1980s suggested that anticonvulsants might stabilize moods by a comparable quenching of the kindling effect of an episode of mood disorders on the risk of further episodes [10]. It was this idea that provided a pharmacological rationale for treatment of bipolar disorders that was so attractive to pharmaceutical companies, and, in their hands, the growth of awareness of mood stabilization and of bipolar disorders was sensational.  Bipolar disorders entered the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in 1980. At the time, the criteria for bipolar I disorder (classic manic-depressive illness) involved an episode of hospitalization for mania.

Since then, the community based disorders bipolar II disorder, bipolar disorders NOS (not otherwise specified), and cyclothymia have emerged. With their emergence, estimates for the prevalence of bipolar disorders have risen from 0.1% of the population having bipolar I disorder (involving an episode of hospitalization for mania) [11] to 5% or more when the definition of bipolar disorders includes the aforementioned community disorders [12]. A range of academic institutions has also grown more interested in the condition.

Lilly, Janssen, and Astra-Zeneca, the makers of the antipsychotics olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine (Seroquel), respectively, marched in on the new territory to market these drugs for prophylaxis of bipolar disorder. This, in turn, greatly expanded the number of companies with an interest in making the “bipolar market.”

Increased prevalence estimates were based on community surveys that had no clear disability criterion, while acute treatment trials of antipsychotics for mania, and prophylactic trials of lithium for manic-depressive illness, have for the most part been conducted on bipolar I disorder. This necessarily raises the prospect that increased efforts to detect and to treat people risks crossing the line where the benefits of treatment outweigh its risks.

A slew of bipolar societies, and annual conferences, many heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies. There is a growing amount of patient Web site and patient support materials that in the case of Zyprexa state that “bipolar disorder is often a lifelong illness needing lifelong treatment; symptoms come and go, but the illness stays; people feel better because the medication is working; almost everyone who stops taking the medication will get ill again and the more episodes you have, the more difficult they are to treat” [17]. Information available from Janssen (the makers of Risperdal) states “medicines are crucially important in the treatment of bipolar disorders.  Studies over the past twenty years have shown beyond the shadow of doubt that people who receive the appropriate drugs are better off in the long term than those who receive no medicine.”

What Lies Beneath
There is, however, much less evidence than many might think to support these claims for the prophylactic drug treatment of manic-depressive illness (bipolar I). And there is almost no evidence to support such claims in the case of whatever community disorders (bipolar II, bipolar NOS, cyclothymia) are now being pulled into the manic depressive net by the lure of bipolar disorder.

With the possible exception of lithium for bipolar I disorder, there are no randomized controlled trials to show that patients with bipolar disorders in general who receive psychotropic drugs are better in the long term than those who receive no medicine [19].

One short-term, randomized, placebo controlled trial (in which patients were only followed for up to 48 weeks) that some see as a basis for claiming that olanzapine may be prophylactic in bipolar disorder [2] has been regarded by others as indicating that this drug produces a withdrawal-induced decompensation when stopped [20].   The benefit for one more (olanzapine) must be weighed against two harms associated with use of antipsychotics:

(1) a consistent body of evidence indicates that regular treatment with antipsychotics in the longer run increases mortality [22–26]; and (2) there is evidence that in placebo controlled trials of antipsychotics submitted in application for schizophrenia licenses there is a statistically significant excess of completed suicides on active treatment [27]. A range of problems associated with antipsychotics, from increased mortality to tardive dyskinesia, never show up in the short-term trials aimed at demonstrating treatment effects in psychiatry.

In North Wales before the advent of modern pharmacotherapy, patients with bipolar I disorder had on average four admissions every ten years. In contrast, against a background of a constant incidence of bipolar I disorder, and dramatic improvements in service provision, bipolar I patients show a 4-fold increase in the prevalence of admissions despite being treated with the very latest psychotropic medications [11]. This is not ordinarily what happens when treatments “work,” but quite often is what happens when treatments have effects.

The best available evidence shows that unmedicated patients with bipolar disorder do not have a higher risk of suicide.  Storosum and colleagues analyzed all placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trials of mood stabilizers for the prevention of manic/depressive episode that were part of a registration dossier submitted to the regulatory authority of the Netherlands, the Medicines Evaluation Board, between 1997 and 2003 [28]. They found four such prophylaxis trials. They compared suicide risk in patients on placebo compared with patients on active medication.

Two suicides (493/100,000 person- years of exposure) and eight suicide attempts (1,969/100,000 person-years of exposure) occurred in the group given an active drug

(943 patients), but no suicides and two suicide attempts (1,467/100,000 person-years of exposure) occurred in the placebo group (418 patients). Based on these absolute numbers from these four trials, I have calculated (see Figure S1 showing calculation, and see Figure 2) that active agents are most likely to be associated with a 2.22

times greater risk of suicidal acts than placebo (95% CI 0.5, 10.00). Based on these absolute numbers I have calculated that active agents are most likely to be associated with a 2.22 times greater risk of suicidal acts than placebo (95% CI 0.5, 10.00).

There is already the potential for creating an “epidemic” of bipolar disorder, because people are being diagnosed with the condition based on operational criteria that depend upon subjective judgements (rather than an objective criterion of disability, such as hospitalization or being off work for a month). The potential is compounded in the pediatric domain by the fact that the diagnosis is based on caregiver reports with little scope in most clinical practice for critical scrutiny of the social forces that may lead to these reports. Experts that appear willing to go so far as to accept the possibility that the first signs of bipolar disorder may be patterns of overactivity in utero [32] can only further compound these problems.

If the resulting diagnoses were provisional, aimed at researching the natural history of childhood irritability, rather than reaching diagnoses that lead on to pharmacotherapy, there might be little problem. However, drugs such as Zyprexa and Risperdal are now being used for preschoolers in America with little questioning of this development.

What might once have been thought of as sober institutions, such as Massachusetts General Hospital, have run trials of Risperdal and Zyprexa on children with a mean age of four years old [34,35].  Massachusetts General Hospital in fact recruited trial participants by running its own television adverts featuring clinicians and parents alerting parents to the fact that difficult and aggressive behavior in children aged four and up might stem from bipolar disorder.  This does more than recruit patients with a clear disorder; it suggests that everyday behavioral difficulties may be better seen in terms of a disorder.

Given that bipolar disorder in children is all but unrecognised outside the US, it seems likely that a significant proportion of these children will not meet conventional DSM criteria for bipolar I disorder. And given that it is all but impossible for a short-term trial of sedative agents in pediatric states characterized by overactivity not to show some rating scale changes that can be regarded as beneficial, the outcomes of this research are likely to appear to validate the diagnosis and increase the pressure for treatment.

The use of psychotropic medication for bipolar disorders was based on an analogy with epilepsy, rather than on demonstrations of proven clinical benefits over the long term or on the basis of a correction of a known pathophysiology. The absence of a solid theoretical or empirical basis for using psychotropic medication as “mood stabilizers” raises questions as to what lies in store for the Heather Norris’s and others of this world

exposed to these complex psychotropic agents from such a young age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5. Disease Mongering in Drug Promotion: Do Governments Have a Regulatory Role? By Barbara Mintzes

One aspect of disease mongering: activities financed by drug companies to promote sales by expanding the pool of patients potentially treated by their products, when no benefit in terms of reduced morbidity is likely. In theory, these activities are covered by national laws governing drug promotion that forbid misleading or deceptive advertising. However, enforcement is piecemeal and largely ineffective. Drug regulation remains limited in many parts of the world. In 2004, fewer than one-sixth of countries

had a well-developed system of drug regulation, and one-third had little to no regulatory capacity [2]. Although 89 countries (46%) reported active regulation of drug promotion, resources devoted to this work may be limited [3]. 

Full direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is legal in only the United States and New Zealand. However, in many other countries, unbranded disease-oriented advertising (in which no drug names are mentioned, but patients are often advised to “see your doctor”) is increasingly common. A market analyst reports that drug companies spent US$85 million on unbranded DTCA in Europe in 2004 [5]. Spending is expected to reach US$345.5 million by 2008. In 2005, the Australia–US free trade  agreement allowed unbranded advertising in Australian media to be linked to branded information on Web sites [6]. Canada introduced more lenient policies on unbranded advertising in 1996, a shift that has occurred without legislative change [7].

A claimed benefit of disease awareness campaigns is that the public becomes more aware of untreated health problems and seeks effective care at an earlier stage, leading to better health [8].

The United Kingdom Medicines Health-Care Products Regulatory Agency has issued guidelines stating that the primary purpose of disease-awareness advertising must be health education on a disease and its management, not product promotion

Paradoxically, although these newer drugs were promoted for greater gastrointestinal safety, Mamdani and colleagues found that approximately 650 more hospitalizations for gastrointestinal bleeds occurred per year after the drugs’ introduction. In their conclusion, the authors stated the following: “Although we cannot prove causation, we believe that the striking temporal correlation, biological plausibility, and lack of any other trends that would explain the association strongly suggest that the two events are directly related” [21].

Questionable New Indications
Regulatory agencies have differed in their response to manufacturers’ bids to market selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants for “premenstrual dysphoric dysfunction” (PMDD). Business analysts linked the launch of the first drug in the US for this indication, fluoxetine (Sarafem), to Eli Lilly’s pending loss of patent protection for Prozac (also fluoxetine) [24]. The European Medicines Evaluation

Agency refused to approve drugs for PMDD… Soon after Sarafem’s launch, the FDA judged a TV advert to violate US law because it failed to distinguish clearly between PMDD and premenstrual syndrome [27].

A US community survey Lacasse and Leo reviewed the evidence supporting the hypothesis that depression is caused by a serotonin defi ciency, concluding that a lack of evidence exists to support this hypothesis [31]. They questioned the FDA’s lack of attention to the claims in SSRI adverts for antidepressants that depression and anxiety disorders are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. The Irish regulatory agency has prohibited GlaxoSmithKline from making similar claims to support the use of paroxetine (Paxil) [32]. Kravitz and colleagues found more broadly that patient requests for advertised medicines could lead to off-label antidepressant prescribing for “adjustment disorder,” a disorder involving temporary distress due to a troubling life situation that rarely requires drug treatment [33].

Disease mongering by definition creates erroneous impressions of the condition a product aims to treat and the merit and safety of treatment, and frequently provokes undue anxiety or exaggerates prevalence rates. Many of the activities in Box 1 are off-label promotions.  A key question is whether there is sufficient political will among government regulatory agencies to better enforce existing regulations governing drug promotion or to introduce new solutions. Most regulatory agencies fail to treat regulation of drug promotion as a public health concern. Unless this changes, the public can expect more unfettered disease mongering warning them that without the latest treatment, life will be grim indeed……….

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6. Combating Disease Mongering: Daunting but Nonetheless Essential Iona Heath

The rhetoric surrounding disease mongering suggests that it will promote health, but the effect is in fact the opposite. Much disease mongering relies on the pathologising of normal biological or social variation and on the portrayal of the presence of risk

factors for disease as a disease state in itself. When pharmaceuticals are used
to treat risk factors, the vicious circle is completed because “anyone who takes
medicines is by defi nition a patient” [5].

Human societies are riven by the effects of greed and fear. The rise of preventive
health technologies has opened up a new arena of human greed, which responds to an enduring fear. The greed is for ever-greater longevity; the fear is that of dying. The irony and the tragedy is that the greed inflates the fear and poisons the present in the

name of a better, or at least a longer, future. Ultimately, the only way of combating disease mongering is to value the manner of our living above the timing of our dying.

For complete text of all 11 articles see: http://collections.plos.org/diseasemongering-2006.php

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Word has it that S. 1873 is making its way back into legislation.  It is
again noted that language taken from 1873 re: manufacturer indemnity was
slipped from 1873 and slipped into the DoD appropriations bill AFTER it was
already voted upon (again, thank Sen. Frist).
With 1873 coming back into the picture, I am again copying and pasting below
the shortened version of  Barb Fisher's paper re: 1873 (and the laws passed
post 9-11) below.  Please contact your Senator and tell them you oppose
1873.
The Americans' liberties are being stripped away one by one...
Please send to any and all distribution lists you may belong to.


"Bioshield II" - Legislation Threatens our Freedom



Since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the citizens of the United States
have been challenged by elevated alerts predicting bioterrorism.  The facts,
however, do not support this paranoia. In the only biological attack in our
nation's history our country was assaulted with anthrax spores that
originated from a "domestic" source according to the FBI and the White
House. We are told that we will not let the terrorists change our lives, but
that's exactly what our Government is mandating through legislation.



While the Government attempts to evade detection for misleading the American
people in policies abroad, they are diverting their attention, and ours, to
new undetectable domestic threats. The intended solutions to bioterrorism
and the risk those solutions place on our citizens needs sharp review.  In
the midst of the diversionary hype our Government is simultaneously
indemnifying itself and Biodefense manufacturers against any liability from
damages caused by their vaccines or drugs meant to protect us against these
new threats, real or not. Compliance will be mandatory.



Senator Burr (R-NC) has introduced a bill titled the "Biodefense and
Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005" (S. 1873, aka: "Bioshield
II"), co-sponsored by Senators Frist (R-TN), Enzi (R-WY) and Gregg (R-NH).
From the title, the intent appears to be for the protection of the American
people; however, upon closer scrutiny, this Act is more concerned with
protecting the pharmaceutical industry.  In fact, it strips the citizens of
the United States of their basic human rights.  Examining the facts one at a
time, S. 1873 shows us the following.  The Act:



�     Provides sweeping immunity to any manufacturer that produces any type
of countermeasure from any type of lawsuit stemming from injuries or death
that may occur to the recipient;



�   Provides a Government fund for any person that has been injured or died
as a result of any countermeasure taken, with a cap of $250,000.00 per
person, per life. If a person becomes permanently disabled, it is
unrealistic to believe that this sum will last a couple of years, let alone
a lifetime;



�     Creates a new agency, the "Biomedical Advanced Research and
Development Agency" (BARDA), which will be exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and
judicial review;



�     Determines the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to be the
sole authority on whether or not a person's injury or death resulted from
the countermeasure. The Secretary's decision is final and not subject to
judicial review.



So the Secretary authorized to declare a national emergency, would
coincidentally be the person who would review and rule on whether or not an
injury or death was the result of his/her decision, that would not be
subject to judicial review.  Such practice may be suitable in an oligarchy
but not in a democracy.  This is a significant conflict of interest.



Under "Project Bioshield", the Secretary of DHHS, an appointed, unelected
official, can declare a national emergency based on intelligence of threats
of bioterrorism/pandemics/ epidemics (whether natural outbreaks or
bioterrorism), and whether those threats are real or potential.  Should that
occur, then every American can be forced to submit to whatever
countermeasure is deemed appropriate, whether that countermeasure is FDA
approved or not.  To say the least, this is completely unenforceable.  The
Bill of Rights cannot logically coexist with such a law.



             The "Homeland Security Act of 2002", removes liability for
injuries or deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine when it is used as a
countermeasure. Currently, the product label with the Wyeth Smallpox vaccine
now carries a "black box warning" about potentially fatal dangers to the
heart.



The "Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002", proposed changes to the vaccine and drug licensure standards.
Under this Act, known as the "animal efficacy rule" (meaning that testing on
animals will be deemed sufficient), could be enacted in order to use a drug
or vaccine.  The true human cost in terms of injuries or deaths will not be
known until mass vaccination occurs.



The "Emergency Use Authorization" (EUA) allows the FDA to put into use
countermeasures that has either not been approved, or, not approved for
their intended use. The EUA has already injected the anthrax vaccine into
over 1 million of our military service members under a Department of Defense
order. This has resulted in thousands of injured individuals, 21 deaths that
are admitted, and hundreds of court-martials which have resulted in felony
convictions. A federal judge (Doe v. Rumsfeld) put an end to this mandated
illegal practice.  If however, S. 1873 is passed, there will be no judicial
review.



To ensure compliance to rapid responses, the "Model State Emergency Health
Powers Act" (MSEHPA) is an Act which allows Governors to declare an
emergency and to utilize the state militia in the control of all roads
leading into and out of the cities and the state.  It allows the Governor to
seize citizens' personal property, to arrest and detain and forcibly
examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens and/or their minor children without
informed consent.  Should death or injury occur during any of this process,
any person acting on behalf of the Government would not be held liable.



Taken as a whole or even in part, S. 1873, and the other Acts cited above
are a serious threat to our Constitution and to the liberty of all
Americans.  These Acts are a direct assault on every American's freedom.


Written by Randi Airola, randiceaj@..., and John Gowan,
jggowan@...


To read the full paper with links and references to Senator Burr's staff
regarding S. 1873, and all other Acts cited above, by Barbara Fisher, go to:

http://www.nvic.org/2005_11-15_NVIC_Sen%20Burr_BioShield%202_v7.pdf


Randi Airola
517-819-5926
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise
their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary
right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I felt this important to pass onto all... Beware:


    From: "MCC-FHC" <email@...>
Subject: Why signing a waiver to avoid vaccines can be considered abuse

Why signing a waiver to avoid vaccines can be considered abuse

by Anai Rhoads Ford

Recently, The Washington Post printed an article about vaccine waivers that
could jeopardize your parental rights.1 In the article was the following
comment: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that doctors ask
parents who refuse to vaccinate their children to sign a waiver indicating
they are aware of the risks of refusal."

Despite the fact that vaccines have been linked to asthma, autism, diabetes,
and sudden infant death syndrome, the author implied that parents are being
overly theatrical about the shots.

Know Your Rights

By endorsing this particular waiver, parents would essentially be signing an
admission of neglect and/or "abuse" for refusing vaccines. The language
contained in this waiver could put parents and caregivers in jeopardy later
if they should ever find themselves in the courts due to their child's
health problems, when confronted with child protective services, divorce, or
just about any matter pertaining to their child that could be used against
the parent(s).

Please read any waiver provided by your child's doctor, daycare or school
carefully before signing. Instead, offer a formally written and signed
letter that simply states that you do not wish to vaccinate your child. If
you are unsure of the language in the waiver, buy some time by telling your
doctor or the school that you need to consult with a lawyer before signing
it.

Know your rights-say no to vaccines. Your doctor will try to bully you-you
have the right to refuse anything you feel is harmful to your child. If your
doctor won't listen, go to another doctor who will.
Check your state's laws regarding vaccine exemptions. Most states will allow
you to avoid vaccinations if you have a religious or ethical reason.
However, keep in mind that it is your right not to disclose your faith or
your full reasons for not wanting to vaccinate your child.

Regarding School Admission

A signed document can and will be used as a legal document even in a public
school. Unfortunately, private schools have a different set of rules not
dictated by the government.
Do Vaccines Work?

Example One:

According to a report printed by The Lancet (9/21/91), a polio outbreak
began in Oman between the years of 1988 and 1989. This is significant
because a polio outbreak occurred despite the children being vaccinated
prior to the outbreak. Curiously, the region with the highest attack rate
had the highest vaccine coverage, while the region with the lowest attack
rate had the lowest vaccine coverage.

Example Two:

Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine in 1979. Why? Out of 5,140 cases
of whooping cough in 1978, it was found that 84 percent had been vaccinated
at least three times. You may find this report in the British Medical
Journal (BMJ) (283:696-697, 1981).

Pay-outs

More than $1.1 billion in claims have been paid by the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program to parents of children affected by vaccines. On
average, each family received nearly a million dollars each. Sadly, the
claims by the parents had to fit in the program's extremely narrow
definitions in order to qualify for compensation.

Naughty CDC

The majority of members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices get money from vaccine manufacturers.

They own stock in vaccine companies and get paid to conduct research.

As of 2003, the CDC has had 28 licensing agreements with companies and at
least one university for vaccines.
Vaccines once endorsed by the CDC have been pulled off the market after
infants (and even some adults) had serious reactions. People had to die for
the CDC to admit wrongdoing.

Why your doctor may not care

Your doctor gets paid by the companies that supply the vaccines for each and
every vaccine administered.
The Comprehensive Child Immunization Act of 1993 gave States more than $400
million in vaccine incentives and a $100 bounty for each child vaccinated
with the shots the federal government recommended.

You should know that, according to the February, 1981 edition of the Journal
of the American Medical Association, 90 percent of obstetricians and 66
percent of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine and, in 1990, a
British survey showed that over 50 percent of doctors in the UK rejected the
Hepititis B vaccine (BMJ, 1/27/90).

1. The article, entitled "Feuding Over Vaccines" by Sandra G.. Boodman was
printed in The Washington Post on November 8, 2005 on page F1.
�2005 Anai Rhoads Ford.

Note: If a doctor, school, daycare or public health official insists that
you vaccinate, you can insist that they sign an acceptance of liability form
in case of adverse reactions. Go to www.vaclib.org for a template for such a
form.

From the March 2006 Idaho Observer
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060321.htm
The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307
Email: observer@...
Web:  http://idaho-observer.com
          http://proliberty.com/observer/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110402193.\
html
Feuding Over Vaccines
Doctors Vexed by Parents' Refusal

By Sandra G. Boodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 8, 2005; HE01



It's a situation Northern Virginia pediatrician James R. Baugh says he and
his partners find themselves confronting with increasing regularity: A
parent, usually a mother, refuses a scheduled immunization because she has
read on the Internet that it could cause her baby to develop autism.

"My last patient just did it," said Baugh, who estimates he and his 11
partners each grapple with parents who refuse some or all immunizations
about twice a month. Most recently, he said last week, the mother of a
2-month-old said she didn't want her daughter to receive the vaccine against
measles, mumps and rubella or any other immunization federal health
officials recommend to protect children from childhood diseases, some of
them fatal.

Baugh said that in this case he did what he usually does when a parent
refuses shots. He referred the woman to a Web site maintained by the
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, a source pediatricians regard as one of
the most informative; reassured her that vaccines are safe; and reminded her
that multiple studies by prestigious scientific groups have found no
evidence that vaccines cause autism. Then he made a follow-up appointment,
hoping the mother wouldchange her mind.

"I used to get kind of angry" when parents refused to have their children
immunized, Baugh said, "but I've evolved."

His equanimity in the face of what many pediatricians say are persistent
myths that circulate on the Internet -- that mercury used as a preservative
in childhood vaccines causes autism, that the dangers of immunizations far
outweigh their benefits, and that there is a conspiracy by drug companies,
doctors and vaccine makers to conceal the harm -- is not shared by other
physicians. In a recent study, one of the first to explore the ethically
explosive issue, a large number of pediatricians said they would consider
"firing" a family that refuses some or all immunizations.

A team of pediatricians from three major Chicago medical centers surveyed
more than 300 of their colleagues around the country about their attitudes
toward vaccine refusal. Slightly more than half of pediatricians said that
in the previous year they had encountered at least one family that refused
all vaccines, while 85 percent said they'd had a parent turn down at least
one shot.

More surprising to the authors were two findings: 39 percent of those
surveyed said they would consider turning away a family that refused all
shots -- researchers had expected the number to be about 20 percent -- while
28 percent said they'd think about severing a relationship with a family
that refused some shots.

"I think it speaks to a level of frustration among pediatricians," said lead
author Erin A. Flanagan-Klygis, a pediatrician and ethicist who practices at
Rush Children's Hospital in Chicago. "There is not enough time in the world
to address parents' fears in an office visit" -- or even several visits.

Equally surprising, according to the authors, whose study was published in
the October issue of the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, were
the similarities between "dismissers" and "nondismissers." They found no
differences between the two groups in age, sex, number of years in practice
or number of patients seen per week.

Finding parents who have been cut loose by their pediatricians for refusing
vaccines is difficult. A publicist for Safe Minds, a group founded by
parents of autistic children and dedicated to removing mercury from
vaccines, said she couldn't locate any. And Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of
the National Vaccine Information Center in Vienna, who claims vaccines are
unsafe and that her son developed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
and learning disabilities after receiving a booster shot when he was 2 1/2 ,
said "parents don't want to discuss it with the media because of harassment"
by authorities.

Flanagan-Klygis noted that her study was of attitudes toward vaccine
refusal, not of physician behavior, so it remains unclear how many
pediatricians have actually dismissed patients. Several pediatricians said
they had done so, not just for refusing vaccines, but when it was clear that
trust had irretrievably broken down.

Termination, a touchy subject in medicine, is seen as particularly
problematic in pediatrics because of the fear that helpless children may be
deprived of care. Doctors are permitted to sever the relationship, according
to the code of ethics promulgated by the American Medical Association, only
after giving a patient sufficient notice and as long as other care is
available.

"One of the reasons I think we haven't heard more from pediatricians is that
[firing a patient] is not seen as a good thing to do," Flanagan-Klygis said.
"It happens -- but it also takes a lot to get kicked out of a practice."

"I think [dismissal] should be a last resort," said Douglas S. Diekema, a
Seattle pediatrician and chair of a committee on bioethics for the American
Academy of Pediatrics. Several months ago the committee recommended that
doctors ask parents who refused immunization to sign a waiver saying they
have been informed of the risks.

Dismissal is permissible, the committee concluded, "when a substantial level
of distrust develops, significant differences in the philosophy of care
emerge or poor quality of communication persists."

One of the ironies, Diekema said, is that vaccines have been so successful
that they have eradicated from the public memory the devastating effects of
childhood illnesses: paralysis from polio, blindness caused by measles,
deafness following mumps, and death that resulted from the overwhelming
infection caused by Hemophilus influenza.

"I've lost patients to things we immunize against now," said suburban
Baltimore pediatrician Daniel J. Levy, who graduated from medical school in
1975.

Flanagan-Klygis said that her interest in vaccine refusal was sparked by the
two years she spent working in a private practice in suburban Chicago.

"This came up frequently," she said. One day she asked a family to bring her
all the anti-immunization information on which they were relying. She said
she sat down and read the books and scrolled through the Web sites. "I was
blown away by how false it was," she recalled.

Flanagan-Klygis said she agreed to have a series of meetings with the
parents to discuss their concerns and referred them to reputable sources of
medical information.

"The upshot was that over a period of six months we talked about it and I
told them I really felt strongly about vaccines," she said. Ultimately they
worked out a compromise: a revised schedule of shots.

"By entering a dialogue, you allow parents to feel they're being respected,"
she said. "But what I did takes a lot of time and resources that practices
probably don't have." Nor, she added, are insurance companies likely to pay
for such appointments.

Baugh, who has offices in Herndon and Fairfax, said that when he asks
parents to sign a waiver refusing vaccination, some acquiesce and permit the
shots.

One reason he is less affronted by refusal than he might have been 20 years
ago, he said, lies in the recent history of vaccines.

"There have been some catastrophes," he said, citing the 1999 withdrawal of
RotaShield. The vaccine to prevent the gastrointestinal rotavirus was pulled
after it was linked to cases of intussusception, a serious intestinal
obstruction.

But that doesn't change Baugh's belief that vaccines are essential, one
reason his practice tries to weed out parents who object to them during the
prenatal visit. "If they say no vaccines," Baugh said, "we'll say, 'We're
not the practice for you.' "

To comment on this article, send e-mail to boodmans@....
Randi Airola
517-819-5926
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise
their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary
right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Go here:
http://www.nvic.org/state-site/NewMexico.htm

Randi Airola
517-819-5926
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise
their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary
right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: <stopvaccines@yahoogroups.com>
To: <stopvaccines@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:47 PM
Subject: [stopvaccines] Digest Number 328


There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

       1. Help I need the NM Exemption Form
            From: "The Millers" <todd_tanya_and_crew@...>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
    Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:00:05 -0000
    From: "The Millers" <todd_tanya_and_crew@...>
Subject: Help I need the NM Exemption Form

All links I have found for the New Mexico Exemption Form dont work can
anyone help me? Thanks

p.s I need this by Thursday






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




------------------------------------------------------------------------

All links I have found for the New Mexico Exemption Form dont work can
anyone help me? Thanks

p.s I need this by Thursday

Hey everyone. I got this message on one of my other lists I am
subscribed to and thought I'd forward it to all of you because I got
my Herbal Encyclopedia CD in the other day and think it's wonderful!
Anyways, you can get yours at http://www.freecdbooks.com. It's
free but you still have to pay for shipping ($5) but it's way worth
it.

Mary

> Greetings,
>
> My name is Neal. I am writing to let you know about my free Herbal
> Encyclopedia CD-ROM. It contains information about thousands of
> herbs, their uses, home remedies, and more! You can quickly access
> reference material on herbal health and alternative treatments for
> most common ailments. This CD is the most comprehensive source of
> herbal information available, and best of all it's FREE!
>
> For more information, please visit my web site:
>
> http://www.freecdbooks.com
>
> Blessings,
>
> Neal Parr
> http://www.freecdbooks.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@...>

http://www.healthsentinel.com/org_news.php?event=org_news_print_list_item&id=082

Roman Bystrianyk, "Study links vaccines containing mercury with autism",
Health Sentinel, March 10, 2006,

A 1948 article in the journal Pediatrics opens with, "Inflammatory
reactions involving various parts of the nervous system following
injections or various sera or vaccines have long been known". In that
paper they discuss 15 instances in children at Boston Children's
Hospital that developed "acute cerebral symptoms within a period of
hours after administration of pertussis vaccine."

During the same time, the 1940s to the 1950s widespread use of the DTP
vaccine (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis - more commonly know as whooping
cough) came into use. Analysis of the historical data available shows
that the recorded rate of whooping cough slowly fell coinciding with the
use of the vaccine. However, using additional historical references from
England - which maintained the most accurate historical disease
mortality records - shows that before widespread vaccination the death
rate from whooping cough had already declined by approximately 98.8
percent from its peak recorded in the 1860s.

A 1996 article in Pediatrics noted that a large controlled study, the
NCES or National Childhood Encephalopathy Study, found that, "a
significant association exists between the occurrence of acute
neurologic illness and DTP vaccination with the preceding 7 days." In
1994, an IOM (Institute of Medicine) committee concluded that the,
"balance of evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DTP
and chronic nervous system dysfunction in children whose serious acute
neurological illness occurred within 7 days of DTP vaccination."

However, a 1991 American Academy of Pediatrics report indicated that
severe problems were rare. Although half the children were reported to
be "fretful" or have fevers, severe neurological problems were reported
to be 1 in 140,000 to 1 in 300,000. Seizures were reported to be 1 in
7,500, persistent screaming as 1 in 100, and unusual, high-pitched cry
as 1 in 1,000.

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing compound that has been used since the
1930s as a preservative in many vaccines. According to the FDA (Food and
Drug Administration) website, "Over the past several years, because of
an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity
of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased
number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the
infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in
vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these
concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and
continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate
thimerosal from vaccines."

Autism is a disorder of the brain that impairs communication and social
skills. It encompasses a broad range of disorders that may range from
mild to severe. Autism, once uncommon, is now more widespread than
childhood cancer, diabetes, and Down syndrome. According to the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 1 in 166 children currently have an
autistic disorder, and 1 in 6 children have a developmental and/or
behavioral disorder.

A study published in the spring edition of Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons, examines the connection between vaccines that
contain thimerosal and autism. The authors of the study are David A.
Geier, B.A. and Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D. According to the authors the
study was thoroughly reviewed prior to publication. "Our manuscript
underwent blinded peer-review by three different peer-reviewers
including a bio-statistician/epidemiologist prior to its publication."

A great deal of debate and controversy has surrounded this one
ingredient in particular, thimerosal, as being in part responsible for
the huge increase in cases of autism. While many parents of autistic
children and activists believe that there is a link between vaccines
containing mercury, government and other officials have rejected these
claims. In 2004, the IOM (Institute of Medicine) stated that, "the
committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal
relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."

But according to the Milford Daily News a confidential CDC (Centers for
Disease Control) study in 2000 actually found that children were 2.5
times more likely to develop autism when they receive 62.5 micrograms of
mercury from vaccines at 3 months of age. The study was uncovered by an
advocacy group under the Freedom of Information Act. "They're on record
saying there's no effect from thimerosal, it's completely safe, even
though their own internal studies show it's harmful," said researcher
David Geier.

According to Geier's study, "exposure to mercury has previously been
shown to cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral
dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with autistic
disorders, and with similarities in neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters, and
biochemistry." Also that, "recent research that codes children's
behaviors, and toy play from videotapes of the toddlers' first and
second birthday parties demonstrate that the regression associated with
autistic disorders clearly manifests between the ages of 12 and 24
months, concurrent with the exposure to thimerosal-containing childhood
vaccines (TCVs)."

Citing other research the authors note that several studies have
examined the effect of thimerosal. One study examined infant monkeys
following injection of doses of mercury comparable to the amount that
U.S. children received during the 1990s. These researchers established
that, "thimerosal crosses the blood-brain barrier and results in
appreciable mercury content in tissues including the brain." Another
study examined mice after similarly being exposed to thimerosal and
found that, "autistic symptoms in a susceptible mouse strain that
included growth delay, reduced locomotion, exaggerated response to
novelty, increased brain size, and significant abnormalities in brain
architecture affecting areas subserving emotion and cognition."

In the late 1980s into the 1990s the CDC expanded the number of TCVs to
be given to children. Because of this increase a child could have
received as much as 200 micrograms (�g) of mercury during the first six
months of life. During the same time epidemic levels of
neurodevelopmental disorders (NDs) including autism were observed that,
"cannot be explained by immigration, changed diagnostic criteria, or
improved identification."

The authors hypothesized that since thimerosal has been removed from
many vaccines that this decrease in thimerosal exposure should be
accompanied with a decrease in autism and other neurodevelopmental
disorders. "Assuming a 3- to 4- year lag time between birth and
diagnosis of an ND, the peak followed by a decline in NDs would be
expected to occur around 2002 if thimerosal had a significant impact on
NDs."

Using the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and CDDS
(California Department of Developmental Services) databases, the
independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood NDs, including
autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives.

From the data the authors determine that, "overall, it appears that the
increasing and subsequent decreasing trends in the rates of NDs,
observed in both the VAERS and CDDS databases, correlate with temporal
periods when the cumulative amount of mercury in the childhood
immunization schedule expanded and later contracted." Continuing the
authors note that, "the consistency of the effects observed for the
spectrum of NDs, including autism and speech disorders, and the
agreement between the observations from two separate databases, support
the conclusion that the effect is real and not a chance observation."

Critics charge that the VAERS database cannot be used to draw any
conclusions about autism because anyone - including doctors, patients,
or lawyers - can submit reports to it. According to Milford Daily News,
Glen Nowak, spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
stated that the VAERS data "in and of itself is not a strong signal."

Responding to that criticism, the authors state that the VAERS is an
epidemiological database that was established by an act of the United
States Congress and set-up by the CDC to track adverse events reported
following vaccination and is jointly maintained by the CDC and FDA. The
VAERS has a total of approximately 200,000 adverse event reports that
have been reported following more than 1 billion doses of vaccines
administered in the United States. This probably makes the VAERS the
largest database of adverse vaccine reactions in the world.

Adverse vaccine reactions are by law required to be reported to VAERS
with a VAERS group that specifically analyzes and has published numerous
peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies based upon examination of the VAERS
database. The CDC has made official vaccine policy recommendations based
upon epidemiological assessments of the VAERS. For example, the
withdrawal of the rotavirus vaccine back in 1999 following numerous
reports of intussussception following rotavirus vaccine to the VAERS
database.

"It appears that the US CDC can analyze and publish epidemiological
assessments of the VAERS database, but when independent researchers such
as us, publish conclusions based upon epidemiological assessments of the
VAERS database, that the CDC does not agree with, than according to the
US CDC the VAERS becomes an unacceptable database to draw
epidemiological conclusions from."

"In quickly examining those who claim to dispute our results and others
that have reported an association between Thimerosal and autism, they
claim to not understand why autism increased in the US during the 1990s
(as Thimerosal was increased in US vaccines), they claim to not
understand why autism decreased in the US during the early 2000s (as
Thimerosal was decreased in US vaccines), they claim to not understand
why when comparing children that received additional doses of mercury
from Thimerosal-containing DTaP vaccine in comparison to Thimerosal-free
DTaP vaccine those children that received Thimerosal-containing DTaP
vaccines were at increased risk of developing autism, and they claim to
not understand numerous recent clinical, biochemical, genetic,
molecular, etc. studies that support the ability of Thimerosal from
vaccines administered in the US to occasion autism."

"Based upon the fact that all the previous observations have one simple
and transparent explanation, namely that Thimerosal was causing autism
in the US, and those who purported dispute the link have no cohesive
explanation for the phenomena observed, one must seriously considered
that Thimerosal was a cause of autism and other neurodevelopmental
disorders in the US."

The authors conclude their paper with, "From the data presented here and
other emerging data, it appears clear that additional research should be
undertaken concerning the effects of mercury exposure, particularly from
TCVs."





According to wikipedia.org, "Mark R. Geier, MD, PhD, is a medical doctor
based in Silver Spring, Maryland, who also holds a doctorate in genetics
and is board-certified in medical genetics and forensic medicine. He was
a researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for ten years,
and previously was a professor at Johns Hopkins University. He has
studied vaccines for more than 30 years and has published over 50
peer-reviewed papers on vaccine safety, efficacy, contamination and
policy. He has authored over 90 publications and has made several
presentations to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) on the adverse effects
of vaccinations. He and his son, David Geier, are the only independent
researchers ever to have been permitted to study the Vaccine Safety
Datalink (VSD) database of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)."

US health agencies have uniformly rejected the conclusions of the
Geiers' studies, and one of the Geiers' articles was the subject of
heavy criticism by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Geier says public
health officials are "just trying to cover it up." On the other hand,
"Mercury in Medicine Taking Unnecessary Risks", a report prepared by the
staff of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, House Committee
on Government Reform, Chaired by Dan Burton, was published in the
Congressional Record in May, 2003, stated:

"However, the Committee upon a thorough review of the scientific
literature and internal documents from government and industry did find
evidence that thimerosal did pose a risk. Thimerosal used as a
preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism epidemic. This
epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the
FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding the lack of safety data
regarding injected thimerosal and the sharp rise of infant exposure to
this known neurotoxin. Our public health agencies' failure to act is
indicative of institutional malfeasance for self-protection and
misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

SOURCE: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/ 
Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
veracare@...
 
THE ONION
Wonder Drug Inspires Deep, Unwavering Love Of Pharmaceutical Companies

March 6, 2006 | Issue 42�10

NEW YORK�The Food and Drug Administration today approved the sale of the drug PharmAmorin, a prescription tablet developed by Pfizer to treat chronic distrust of large prescription-drug manufacturers.

Pfizer executives characterized the FDA's approval as a "godsend" for sufferers of independent-thinking-related mental-health disorders.

PharmAmorin, now relieving distrust of large pharmaceutical conglomerates in pharmacies nationwide.

"Many individuals today lack the deep, abiding affection for drug makers that is found in healthy people, such as myself," Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell said. "These tragic disorders are reaching epidemic levels, and as a company dedicated to promoting the health, well-being, and long life of our company's public image, it was imperative that we did something to combat them."

Although many psychotropic drugs impart a generalized feeling of well-being, PharmAmorin is the first to induce and focus intense feelings of affection externally, toward for-profit drug makers. Pfizer representatives say that, if taken regularly, PharmAmorin can increase affection for and trust in its developers by as much as 96.5 percent.

"Out of a test group of 180, 172 study participants reported a dramatic rise in their passion for pharmaceutical companies," said Pfizer director of clinical research Suzanne Frost. "And 167 asked their doctors about a variety of prescription medications they had seen on TV."

Frost said a small percentage of test subjects showed an interest in becoming lobbyists for one of the top five pharmaceutical companies, and several browsed eBay for drug-company apparel.

PharmAmorin, available in 100-, 200-, and 400-mg tablets, is classified as a critical-thinking inhibitor, a family of drugs that holds great promise for the estimated 20 million Americans who suffer from Free-Thinking Disorder.

Pfizer will also promote PharmAmorin in an aggressive, $34.6 million print and televised ad campaign.

One TV ad, set to debut during next Sunday's 60 Minutes telecast, shows a woman relaxing in her living room and reading a newspaper headlined "Newest Drug Company Scandal Undermines Public Trust." The camera zooms into the tangled neural matter of her brain, revealing a sticky black substance and a purplish gas.

The narrator says, "She may show no symptoms, but in her brain, irrational fear and dislike of global pharmaceutical manufacturers is overwhelming her very peace of mind."

After a brief summary of PharmAmorin's benefits, the commercial concludes with the woman flying a kite across a sunny green meadow, the Pfizer headquarters gleaming in the background.

PharmAmorin is the first drug of its kind, but Pfizer will soon face competition from rival pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb. The company is developing its own pro-pharmaceutical-company medication, Brismysquibicin, which will induce warm feelings not just for drug corporations in general, but solely for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

"A PharmAmorin user could find himself gravitating toward the products of a GlaxoSmithKline or Eli Lilly," BMS spokesman Andrew Fike said. "This could seriously impede the patient's prescription-drug-market acceptance, or worse, Pfizer's profits in the long run."

"Brismysquibicin will be cheaper to produce and therefore far more affordable to those on fixed incomes," Fike added.

The news of an affordable skepticism-inhibitor was welcomed by New York physician Christine Blake-Mann, who runs a free clinic in Spanish Harlem.

"A lot of my patients are very leery of the medical establishment," Blake-Mann said. "This will help them feel better about it, and save money at the same time."

PharmAmorin's side effects include nausea, upset stomach, and ignoring the side effects of prescription drug medication.

� Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (� ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.