Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Wakefield's Truth and Nailing Deer's Lies


Canary Party Responds To Brian Deer's Rebuttal

Thanksgiving2011






When Brian Deer was introduced at the University of Wisconsin La Crosse earlier this month to give his version of events in the Wakefield/MMR controversy,  the audience was told, "There is no debate.”   That statement was swiftly refuted by WKTV news whose top story was: "Vaccine-Autism Debate Reaches La Crosse," (See video here.)    Among the many vaccine safety advocates who had contacted university officials was Jennifer VanDerHorst-Larson, President of the Canary Party and mother to a child with regressive autism, triggered by vaccines.  Her e-mail, critical of Deer,  was also sent to Canary Party's 5,000 members. Deer posted a response to her on his personal website, and VanDerHorst-Larson has now answered him in an e-mail to the more than 30 sponsors of  Deer's lectures at La Crosse. Her hope is to enlighten the La Crosse community and others about the side of the controversy the media does not report. In the latest installment of the debate, it looks like Deer is caught the headlights. Her response, running on the Canary Party website is below:

OPEN LETTER to the Sponsors of Brian Deer’s Lectures at The University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, October 2012
Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Drs. Vijay Sabnis, James Thompson, Ted Habel, David Morris, George Kroker, Mary Morris)
Marshfield Clinic and Labs  (Brian H. Ewert, MD, C. Todd Stewart, MD, Gene R. Shaw, MD)
Gundersen Lutheran Clinic  (Jeffrey E. Thompson, MD, Julio J. Bird, MD, Mary Kuffel, MD)
U of W La Crosse Foundation, Allen Trapp, President, Greg Reichert, Asst. Chancellor
College of Science and Health, Dean Bruce Riley
Departments of Biology, Microbiology, Chemistry, English, Health Education and Promotions,Communication Studies, Exercise and Sports:
Dr. David Howard, Chair, Biology Dept., Dr. S. N. Rajagopal, Chair, Microbiology Dept., Dr. Aaron Monte, Chair, Chemistry Dept. Dr. Susan Crutchfield, Chair, English Dept. Dr. Dan Duquette, Chair, Health Education and Promotions Dr. Linda Dickmeyer, Chair, Communication Studies, Dr. Mark Gibson, Chair, Exercise and Sports Science
Faculty of the Dept. of Microbiology: Sue Anglehart, Marisa Barbknecht, Bonnie Jo Bratina, Michael Hoffman, Michael A. Lazzari, Marc A. Rott, William Schwan, Diane Sewell, Bernadette C. Taylor, Peter Wilker, Mike Winfrey
Susan Betts, Dept. of Microbiology
Premed Club,  Jordan L. Ludwigson, President
Biology Club 
Microbiology Club, William Close, President
Institute for Biomolecular Sciences
Members of Distinguished Speakers Committee
cc:        Editor, Racquet Student Newspaper, Chancellor Gow
My name is Jennifer VanDerHorst-Larson, and my open letter to university officials was singled out by Brian Deer for response. As you know, Mr. Deer recently lectured at the university about the Wakefield/MMR vaccine controversy. On his website, Mr. Deer referred to my letter as a form of “abuse.”  (Please judge for yourself if it’s abusive.) My letter.  Mr. Deer’sresponse.
I am the mother of a boy with autism who developed normally – exceeding his milestones - until he received his Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) and other vaccinations at 15 months. He reacted immediately and showed clear evidence of regression the day after his 15-month shots. By 18 months, he had lost all of his skills.  By 19 months, all he did was cry, bang his head and say “go” – his only remaining word. I was told to consider an institution for him, and he wasn’t even two.
At age 12, he is now diagnosed as severely autistic and in need of 24-hour supervision. He will never be independent. My son is also diagnosed with colitis – the bowel disease that was diagnosed in the Lancet 12 children with autism – denied by Brian Deer who spoke at La Crosse University. The gut-autism hypothesis has been placed under prolonged attack by those defending the vaccine program, including Brian Deer whose unsupported statements about the Lancet 12 children’s health  (“They don’t have bowel disease!”) have resulted in UK parents being unable to find medical help for their autistic children with bowel disease, the effects of which are profound and tragic.
High Court Judge Mitting has since rejected Mr. Deer’s claim that the 12 children were not seriously ill and did not require the medical attention they received from Professor Walker-Smith’s team at the Royal Free Hospital where Dr. Wakefield co-authored the controversial Lancet paper. 
 I am one of thousands of parents who have reported that their child (or children) regressed following vaccination. I was given the official medical explanation by Minneapolis doctors that my son’s regression was coincidental, even though no other pediatric medicine or procedure is associated with large numbers of “coincidental” reports of regression into autism.  To my knowledge, there is no case of a completely unvaccinated child developing normally and then spontaneously, dramatically regressing into autism. I think that’s significant. A retrospective, vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study would tell us more, but the government refuses to undertake such a study.
To Mr. Deer’s claim that the vaccine/autism link is a “fringe” theory put forth by “small groups of ill-informed, misguided” and “malicious people,” “desperate for attention,” I can only respond by asking you to watch this brief CBS interview of former NIH Director Dr. Bernadine Healy describing how medical authorities have refused to consider the possibility of an autism/vaccine link in susceptible children, for fear of scaring the general public.
There is also the case of Hannah Poling, a child who developed normally until she received 9 vaccine doses at one doctor’s visit. Her family will be compensated in the amount of $20 million over her lifetime by the U.S. government for her autism resulting from MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines.  The Cochrane Review is not reassuring of MMR safety either, concluding: “The design and reporting in MMR safety studies both pre- and post marketing are largely inadequate.”  Please see the last page of my letter for links to independent studies that support Dr. Wakefield’s work, including peer-reviewed papers that duplicate his original findings in five additional countries.
People who criticize vaccine safety are not “cranks, flat-earthers, conspiracy theorists, cult members, anti-vaccinationists” or “desperate-parents-looking-for-something-to-blame,” as people like Mr. Deer describe us. We are doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, police officers, scientists, business owners, students, professors…people from all walks of life who consider the current, one-size-fits-all vaccine program insufficiently tested and demonstrably unsafe. The number of vaccines has exploded in a generation –  as has autism. Little wonder the vaccine makers and doctors sought and received total indemnification from lawsuits for vaccine injury, an exemption from typical liability that has been in effect since 1988.
As I write this, Mr. Deer’s personal website is advertising “Flumist” – a flu vaccination.  As regards the $34 billion global vaccine industry, Brian Deer is far from an impartial observer. Neutral journalists are not asked to be keynote speakers at pharmaceutical conventions in luxury accommodations in the French Alps hosted by a foundation with financial links to three MMR manufacturers, as Mr. Deer was in November, 2011.
I made 12 points in my letter about Mr. Deer, and I wish to reply to his responses here. I am beginning with the final point because I believe Mr. Deer’s response to it is the simplest, most clear-cut example of how he misleads the public.
I wrote:
12. Among the more egregious of his many false statements at La Crosse was Mr. Deer's claim that Dr. Wakefield "called on parents to boycott the MMR vaccine." He in fact recommended parents request the single measles, mumps and rubella shots that were available at that time in the UK, rather than the combination shot.
Mr. Deer replied: “Ms VanDerHorst-Larson's posited distinction is devoid of difference.”
Deer’s claim that Wakefield called on parents to boycott the MMR would lead the great majority of people to conclude that Wakefield advised parents against vaccinating their children for measles, mumps and rubella. Very few members of the audience at his La Crosse lecture would be aware that in the UK in 1998, single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines were available as well as the combination shot, making the claim that “Wakefield called on parents to boycott the MMR vaccine” a lie by omission, misleading listeners to believe Wakefield was opposed to vaccinating children against these diseases.
At a press briefing, Andrew Wakefield was asked by the dean of the Royal Free medical school (Arie Zuckerman) to endorse the vaccine program which at the time included the option of single vaccines. At the briefing, Wakefield was asked what his personal opinion was, and his response, which endorsed single vaccines, was politicized by the government and the pharmaceutical industry by the removal of the single vaccine option in the following months. The removal of this option was certain to have led to a reduction in vaccination rates – for which Wakefield has received full blame.
Now back to question #1.    
1. Regarding Mr. Deer's credibility, even those unfamiliar with the details of the controversy would have to question his claim: “Neither I nor BMJ knew Wakefield was in Texas." (Dr. Wakefield has resided in Texas for 11 years and Mr. Deer has "investigated" and reported on him while he has lived in Texas.)
Mr. Deer adds a new unsupported claim – that Dr. Wakefield “looks to people such as Jennifer VanDerHorst Larson for his livelihood.” This statement is false. As for Deer’s denial of his knowledge of Wakefield’s residency, Deer’s 2009 BMJ article reveals that he had full knowledge of Wakefield living in Austin: “Wakefield has left Britain to live in Austin, Texas, where he runs a clinic…”  
Multiple references show Deer knew for certain that Wakefield was living in Texas from 2005-2010. Deer now implies that Wakefield may have moved to Minnesota in 2010 simply because he gave a talk there. Following that logic, one could infer that Mr Deer now resides in La Crosse rather than in London! The suggestion that Wakefield moved (with no evidence to back it up) appears to be an attempt to evade Dr. Wakefield’s defamation lawsuit.
As for Deer’s claim that his co-defendant, BMJ, also did not know Wakefield was in Texas, evidence that BMJ knew is contained in multiple links below. Yet, BMJ Editor Fiona Godlee testified under penalty of perjury that she did not believe anyone at BMJ ever knew Wakefield was a Texas resident. This is clearly false. http://tinyurl.com/95eujhn
My second point:
2. In his letter to the BMJ, National Whistleblower Center board member David Lewis, who examined the "Lancet 12" children's histopathological grading sheets, makes it clear that Wakefield's co-author, pathologist Amar Dhillon, did indeed diagnose colitis "in a number of children" contrary to Mr. Deer's statement at your university that none of the children had bowel disease.
Mr. Deer’s response does not disprove Dr. Lewis’ claim, but only attempts to smear him – stating that Lewis “has no qualifications in medicine or pathology.” However, editors at Annals of Internal Medicine rated Dr. Lewis in the top 10% of reviewers in 2010. Lewis was considered sufficiently qualified by Nature to have had his analysis of the Wakefield matter reported on by the prestigious international science journal.  The National Whistleblower’s Center, which Deer inaccurately portrays as a “front” for an employment firm, is called “an advocacy group” by Nature.
Lewis’ accomplishments in medical and environmental research have been covered by Nature, Science, Lancet, JAMA, National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The London Times, NPR, PBS, CBS, ABC, and BBC.
(Speaking of credentials, Deer testified under oath that part one of his BMJ series was externally peer-reviewed when in fact it was not. Dr. Harvey Marcovitch, listed as the external reviewer, was an Associate Editor of BMJ and was listed as such in an accompanying editorial in BMJ.)
In that same response, Deer thoroughly misleads the reader about the evidence of the two histopathologists writing to BMJ. Contrary to what Deer implies, both histopathologistssupported the Lancet case series findings. What they actually said can be read in the BMJ
Dr. Wakefield’s detailed explanation of how Deer misrepresented the pathology – referencing the actual documents -  can be seen in this video at the 5:30 mark (recorded at a university where Dr. Wakefield was allowed to speak): 
Regarding Deer’s claim that “five experts in the appropriate gastroenterological specialties, consulted by us, confirmed a lack of enterocolitis in the data,” it is noteworthy that when challenged by Eugenie Samuel Reich in Nature News, the most vociferous of BMJ's experts Professor Bjarnason said the forms don’t clearly support Deer/BMJ’s charges. Furthermore, not a single one of those experts responded after Dr. Dhillon defended his role in the study.
My third point:
3. Brian Deer stated at your university that Dr. Peter Fletcher was never Chief Scientific Officer of the UK Department of Health. This statement is easily proven false. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html Deer misrepresented the UK's former Chief Scientific Officer, no doubt due to Dr. Fletcher's criticisms of the MMR: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.
As Deer now concedes in his response to me, Dr. Fletcher’s correct title was Chief Scientific Officer to the Department of Health in the UK. The questioner at Deer’s lecture had omitted “Department of Health” from Fletcher’s title.  Deer could have corrected the questioner’s oversight, but he instead chose to answer in such a way as to imply that Dr. Fletcher was never a Chief Scientific Officer of any kind in the UK. The fact is, the Department of Health’s Chief Scientific Officer would have been the one concerned with issues of vaccine safety,making Fletcher’s comments on MMR extremely relevant.
Regarding  Deer’s criticism of Dr. Fletcher’s expert witness work, please see my response in #11 below.
My next point:
4. Wakefield's co-author in the Lancet Paper, Dr. John Walker Smith, was recently exonerated and had his license to practice medicine restored, showing that Deer's allegations against Wakefield and Walker Smith, which were rubber stamped by the General Medical Council, had no foundation.
The reasons Mr. Deer provides for the High Court quashing the GMC findings against Dr. John Walker-Smith are false. High Court Judge Mitting gave the GMC’s attorney Joanna Glynn every opportunity to provide the missing arguments and she did not do so. Mitting also reviewed the case to see whether there were any arguments. He did not dismiss the findings on a technical point: the GMC failed to provide the reasons in the High Court just as they had at the hearing, and Mitting was unable to find any himself. He made clear rulings about what the evidence did and did not show. The GMCs evidence simply did not support the charges which they were determined to uphold.
Virtually all of the accusations against Walker-Smith related to alleged misconduct in the Wakefield 'Lancet paper' of which Walker-Smith was senior author and clinician. Justice Mitting reviewed all the evidence relating to the charges (which were based on Deer's allegations) and could not find a basis for them. It is simply impossible to see how, if Walker-Smith did not mis-report in a paper which he signed, Wakefield could have been guilty of the same quashed accusations (with the exception of the disputed disclosure on ethical approval - where there is certainly no motive for fraud).
Deer is well aware that Walker-Smith, as the leading clinician in his field (widely known as the father of pediatric gastroenterology), had generic approval from the ethics committee of the Royal Free Hospital to retain biopsies for scientific investigation that had been taken for primarily clinical purposes, and this is what Justice Mitting said occurred. The clinical procedures required ethical approval, which was obtained, and the paper needed no ethical approval because it was simply an early report on children investigated for clinical reasons and did not require it. Deer can say that truthfully there was no approval but there was no breach of ethical guidelines, so he is quoting the judge’s findings in a deliberately misleading way. Furthermore, the judge determined that children were genuinely sick and properly investigated contrary to Deer's allegations. 
Deer is also fully aware of, but does not disclose, the reason Wakefield did not appeal: he was not covered by insurance that funded the pursuit of an appeal as Walker-Smith had been.  In fact he began an appeal but had to withdraw for lack of funding, and it currently lies in abeyance. The charges against all three were entirely based on accusations by Brian Deer.
Following the exoneration of Dr. Walker-Smith, the University College London (the parent institution to the Royal Free where Dr. Wakefield was employed) stopped its own inquiry into “the Wakefield affair” on advice of the UK Research and Integrity Office. This was despite the BMJ’s plea for the inquiry to continue. The UCL stated that such an inquiry would cost a substantial sum of money and would yield nothing conclusive. So much for Mr. Deer’s mountains of evidence against Andrew Wakefield.
Mr. Deer’s citations from popular media vilifying Dr. Wakefield prove nothing more than the workings of the news cycle – medical journals establish “facts” that are picked up and republished, unquestioned by general media which rely heavily on ad revenues from pharmaceutical companies.
Next, I wrote: 
5. Brian Deer's attacks against Wakefield began when his Sunday Times Editor, Paul Nuki, told him "Find something big" on the "MMR" as Deer himself revealed here   Nuki had a DIRECT FAMILY TIE to a government employee responsible for MMR safety. Paul Nuki is the son of Professor George Nuki who sat on the Committee on Safety in Medicines when it passed Pluserix MMR vaccine as safe for use in 1987.
Deer accused me of altering his words even though I provided the link to the quote. I can only refer readers to the link and ask you to draw your own conclusions. I consider it noteworthy that Deer’s sentence denying the cited quote also contains a personal attack against me: an “embittered anti-vaccine campaigner.”
Deer responds that Nuki senior was a rheumatologist, which is irrelevant; he was on the Committee on Safety in Medicines when GSK’s Pluserix MMR vaccine was approved for use. It is also irrelevant that Pluserix was licensed throughout the world, as it and similar products using the Urabe strain of the mumps virus have been withdrawn in many places including Canada, Japan, Brazil and Italy.  Point of fact: the British licensing authority was warned of the dangerous adverse effects of Pluserix (which subsequently had to be withdrawn) in November 1987, nearly a year before the vaccine was introduced in the UK.  Pluserix caused meningitis in children in the UK just as it had in children in Canada. This medical scandal is passed over by Deer who merely states that Pluserix was licensed worldwide.
Nuki junior subsequently moved from the Sunday Times to head the main National Health Service website 'NHS Choices'. He was also co-opted to a Department of Business committee advising on how to control science journalism.
 My sixth point:
6. In February 2009, Sunday Times proprietor James Murdoch was appointed to the board of MMR manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline with a brief to “help to review external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation.”  This was swiftly followed by new attacks on Andrew Wakefield’s reputation by Deer and other Times Newspaper journalists.
Deer replies that the Murdoch family could not have instigated the original investigation. However, I never made any such claim. I clearly stated that it was the new torrent of allegations in 2009, closely following on the heels of Murdoch's appointment to the GSK board– with a brief to help protect the group's reputation, for which he was paid substantial sums of money – that’s in question.
Mr. Deer claims James Murdoch was not the proprietor of The Sunday Times and had no editorial responsibility. The fact is, Murdoch took “direct responsibility for the strategic and operational development of News Corporation’s television, newspaper, and related digital assets in Europe…” according to his Wikipedia entry. He was direct boss of the Eastern Empire including Times Newspapers. He’s described in The Telegraph as having “control of British daily newspapers The Times and The Sun, weekly papers The Sunday Times…” This would clearly include influence over editorial content.  The fact that Deer has “never heard of any Murdoch family member expressing any view about vaccines” is completely irrelevant.
My next point:
7. Mr. Deer failed to disclose that he was privately the author of at least three complaints to the General Medical Council that later took away Wakefield's license. Violating journalistic ethics, Deer had created the very news that he later covered. (GMC created a letter a year later stating Deer was not listed as the complainant.)
Deer usually defends this accusation in this manner: “Malicious liars and cranks fabricated the suggestion that I was reporting my own allegations.” (Last comment): 
But this time, Deer states that he was not the complainant because the GMC itself was the complainant. However, the letter showing GMC as the complainant was produced a full year after Deer made at least three formal complaints against the three doctors, and it was also stated that he had done so in a High Court ruling of Mr Justice Eady, who stated:
Well before the programme was broadcast [Mr Deer] had made a complaint to the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004. In due course, on 27 August of the same year, the GMC sent the Claimant a letter notifying him of the information against him.  
Deer’s argues, “It would have been irresponsible and perverse for me to decline to produce evidence when requested by a statutory body inquiring into matters impacting on the safety of children.” However, his position was very different from a an objective, disinterested journalist being interviewed by an investigating authority: he was clearly requesting that the doctors be prosecuted by the GMC, making him a hidden key player in the very news story that he was covering. Moreover, it was a mutually beneficial arrangement with the GMC and its lawyers, ensuring that they would continue to get beneficial coverage.
My eighth point:
8. Mr. Deer also failed to disclose that there were no complaints against Wakefield by the children's families, most of whom very strongly support him, and many of whom credit his team with a diagnosis that led to effective treatment of their children's bowel disease.
Deer was unable to challenge my statement that no Lancet 12 parent complained about Wakefield to the GMC, and he instead provided the false allegation of just one parent who misinterpreted how his son’s case was represented in the Lancet paper. The parent of Child 11 falsely accuses the Lancet paper of saying his son’s autistic regression began within two weeks of his MMR vaccine, when the paper only said his son developed viral pneumonia within that time frame – a fact this parent does not dispute. Indeed, this parent blamed the MMR vaccine for his child's illness and regression that followed his child’s MMR shot, just as Wakefield reported.
Furthermore, Brian Deer misrepresented this child's developmental history, writing in the BMJ that the child's regression began two months prior to his MMR vaccine, based on an incorrect hospital discharge summary that Deer failed to fact-check (as the child's father referenced in a letter he addressed to Brian Deer). Therefore, this father's allegations against Dr. Wakefield are not correct and stand in stark contrast to the majority of the parents of the Lancet children who fully support him.
Multiple records by independent medical experts establish the facts.  Aside from the error in the discharge summary, no one – no doctor, no parent, no document – has ever said Child 11 was anything but healthy and developing normally before receiving the MMR. Only Brian Deer has stated otherwise, in the BMJ. Deer has similarly manipulated facts to make symptoms of autism appear to have existed prior to the MMR shots of the other children in the study – contrary to parent reports and medical evidence.
In his response, Deer cites Statement 4 of a consensus report of leading U.S. experts in gastroenterology as evidence that “Wakefield’s claims of having discovered a bowel disease distinctive to autism have been rejected.” However, he has misrepresented this report which does not dispute that “NLH of the ileum and colon are an abnormal finding in most children with ASDs.” Rather, it states that similar findings are known to be present in children with typical development, as well as children with food allergies and immunodeficiencies. It concludes, “The significance of these findings is unclear.” The same report laments the absence of “high-quality clinical research data.” (Who would seek or provide funding for such a study after the experiences of three of UK’s leading doctors – Walker-Smith, Murch and Wakefield?)
I then wrote:
9. The Lancet withdrew the Wakefield paper seven months after the Lancet's owner, Sir Crispin Davis, became a non-executive director of MMR manufacturer Glaxo SmithKline. His brother, Nigel Davis, was the high court judge who presided over the secret hearing to remove funding from MMR litigation. Nigel Davis then issued a statement (referring to himself in the third person): "the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother's position did not occur to him."
My letter contained one error – confusing the timing of the Lancet’s withdrawal of the Wakefield paper with the timing of the following action taken by the Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton: Dr. Horton made the false allegation on the BBC that the Lancet was unaware of Wakefield’s involvement in the MMR litigation at the time of the 1998 paper’s publication. (Horton’s correspondence with Wakefield’s law firm prior to the Lancet article being published is proof of his knowledge.) Horton took this action of distancing himself from the paper in 2004; however the paper was not retracted by the journal until the GMC findings in 2010. Horton was silent while his boss, Crispin Davis, CEO of Reed Elsevier (Lancet’s owner) made allegations about Wakefield to the House of Common Science and Technology Committee on March 1, 2004, without either disclosing his own recent appointment as director of MMR maker Glaxo SmithKline or that it was his brother, Sir Nigel (now Lord Justice) Davis, who had ruled on the MMR litigation just three days before.
Not only did Lord Justice Davis later tell an official investigation that “the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother’s position [with GSK] did not occur to him” (as he had originally briefed the press when the matter came to light) but that he did not actually know his brother held the position, which might have sounded more credible if he had stated so in the first place. He had also somehow been unaware of the Lancet editor distancing the journal from Wakefield before the hearing despite the news storm of the preceding weekend. In short, Judge Davis presided over a closed hearing appealing the Legal Service Commission’s decision to withhold funding for MMR litigation, and his reasons were not published (contrary to Deer’s claim that the hearing was not secret). Later, Judge Davis’ decision was upheld by Lord Leveson (who is now engaged in a public inquiry into media abuse in the UK), and his reasons were likewise not published. It should be noted that Leveson has in the current inquiry refused to consider concerns from parents over Brian Deer and his Sunday Times MMR investigation, and by “coincidence,” Leveson has been assisted by Queen’s Counsel Robert Jay who represented the Legal Services Commission at the Davis hearing.
Regarding the 2007 case Deer cited that was  “materially identical case to the one that failed in England in 2003,” it was not a case heard in U.S. civil court, but in “vaccine court” which is part of HHS – the government agency responsible for the safety of the vaccines they approve. That case, as well as the complete history of how thousands of autistic children in the U.S. were denied compensation for their vaccine injuries due to actions from US and UK courts, are described here.
My tenth point:
10. The chairman of the GMC panel that struck Wakefield off the medical register, Surendra Kumar, failed to disclose that he owned shares in MMR manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline.
Mr. Deer responded that on November 3, 2008, Wakefield and his two co-defendants in the GMC case formally submitted to the panel that its chairman had no conflicts of interest. However, Kumar went into the GMC hearing not having disclosed 1) that he owned shares in GSK, 2) that he had sat on the Committee of Safety in Medicines (CSM) 1996-1999, and 3) that he currently sat on two of the licensing authority committees (created after CSM was broken up c.2002). If the doctors and their attorneys protested, the entire proceeding would have to re-start from scratch which was entirely impractical. Therefore, Kumar’s conflicts were not contested. Kumar should have disqualified himself. Perhaps he knew that if all of these conflicts emerged far enough into the hearing, no action would be taken to remove him.
As for Deer’s reference to “cranks” making the conflict of interest allegation, and his link to his own article, please see #13 below about ad hominem attacks.
My 11th point:
11. Mr. Deer's opening slide at the La Crosse talk, clearly intended to refer to Wakefield, speaks volumes about Deer’s lack of neutrality: “If he wasn’t so fucking greedy, he’d a been tougher to spot.” (The only money Wakefield earned as an expert witness was donated, by him, to the Royal Free Hospital. This is well documented.)
As Mr. Deer’s response exemplifies, it’s a continuing theme of his to demonize expert witnesses who give testimony that is critical of MMR safety – Fletcher, Wakefield and others are characterized as “greedy” and worse. Deer attempts to discredit 13 of them (including world-renowned pediatric gastroenterologist Dr. John Walker-Smith) on his personal website:  And yet, expert witnesses testifying on behalf of vaccine manufacturers are left alone by Mr. Deer.  Dr. Stephen Bustin, for example, amassed £225,000 ($360,000) even before he gave evidence at the Cedillo hearing in the U.S. (in a similar case of MMR vaccine injury). That’s the equivalent of 1500 hours of work in a relatively short time period, but no challenges from Brian Deer. It’s noteworthy that in the link Deer provides to the list of experts involved in the MMR litigation, he describes their duties as “the attack on the vaccine,” belying his loyalty not to objectivity in science journalism, but to relentless promotion of the fastest growing segment of the pharmaceutical industry: vaccines.
The professional fees paid to Dr Wakefield as a medical expert over the course of his nine years involved in the MMR litigation were substantially less than that claimed by Deer. They were also substantially less than fees paid to witnesses for the MMR manufacturers.  The money was donated by Dr Wakefield to an initiative to build a new Gastroenterology Center at the Royal Free through the exploitation of proprietary technology. As the GMC lawyers wrote in an attendance note with Mr. Chengiz Tarhan, the Finance Director of the Medical School, “However, CT (Chengiz Tarhan) pointed to a letter from him to Dr. Wakefield dated June 26, 1998 where CT confirmed Dr Wakefield’s wishes that all the inventor profit from the Transfer Factor patent was to go to a charity and that the inventors would make no money for themselves whatsoever.” This is in Wakefield’s affadavit, and is therefore a public document.
Mr. Deer has also falsely reported that Dr. Wakefield failed to disclose his work as a medical expert in MMR litigation, even though he disclosed it in multiple published papers – as Wakefield cites at the 1:24:12 mark on this video  (Deer’s claim that the 12 children were brought to the Royal Free by lawyers and were not clinically referred is proven false by the chronology given by Dr. Wakefield at the  1:22:05 mark on the same video.)
In summation, I believe I’ve provided more than enough evidence to demonstrate that there are
two sides to this story – only one of which has been covered by the mainstream media  – the one that’s favorable to one of its top advertisers: the pharmaceutical industry.
If I could rewrite my original letter today, aside from correcting the error in #9, I would add one more point:
#13.  If Brian Deer has such a strong case, why does he rely on ad hominem attacks against autism parents such as myself as well as his many other critics?  If he speaks the truth about Andrew Wakefield, why the need for constant name-calling and outrageous smear attacks?  
Autism father and online journalist John Stone, who writes about the Wakefield case here  is a frequent recipient of Deer’s libelous attacks. In one instance – Deer wrote:
“… Mr Stone is stalking me… I think Mr Stone is best understood as a living example of how autistic disorders, and allied conditions, such as pathological demand avoidance syndrome, psychopathy and whathaveyou, are genetic. Certainly, if you are aware of his behaviour, you can see how hard he would run from the idea that it was the expression of his own genetic makeup that lies behind his son’s disorder.”  His comment here.
Deer frequently targets parents who criticize his work, and blames them for their children’s autism:
"And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains….” Comment 19:39:
“I genuinely think that the three individuals I was criticising – and I know who all three of them are – do need to question whether their personal behavioural issues are indicative of a better explanation for their children's issues. Certainly a lot better explanation than MMR… The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly, deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me." Final comment.
Of one of his most persistent critics, Deer writes:
 “The most startling array of particularly nauseating falsehoods were authored by a … buffoon with mental or characterological issues… [who is] published at a particularly deranged cranksite.”
Deer somehow accessed private medical records of the Lancet 12 children, posted their names on his website and distorted their medical facts to suit his agenda (for example, calling symptoms of a common ear infection an early sign of autism, thereby making the child’s autism symptoms appear to predate the child’s MMR shot). He justifies his unethical behavior by invoking “the public interest”:
The cranks and malicious liars need to beware. Medical confidentiality is not absolute. There is a balancing that needs to be performed. Confidentiality needs to be balanced against the public interest. If the overriding public interest requires that confidentiality be broken, it will be broken.”  
None of these examples is the writing of an objective journalist. But then, Brian Deer is not an objective journalist. Deer appears to be no longer employed by any news organization, has not published an article in six months and has no visible means of support aside from advertising revenues from his website. He has never reported on the funding source(s) for his attacks on Wakefield. More to the point, he has played a major role in the corruption of the scientific process that should have led to greater knowledge about autism. But just the opposite has occurred. The “elaborate fraud” was in fact initiated by individuals with an interest in vaccine industry profits – an interest that has been aided by Brian Deer.
Thank you for taking the time to read my response and for considering the other side of this controversy.   If you’d like to read the scientific studies that support a link between regressive autism and bowel disease, a link between bowel disease and measles virus, a link between measles virus and vaccination with MMR, and wider safety concerns over MMR, you won’t find them listed in TIME magazine, USA Today, Pediatrics or BMJ – all of which rely on pharmaceutical advertising. An autism father whose child regressed following his MMR has compiled many of those studies at this UK website.
To see a list of peer-reviewed papers that duplicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings in five additional countries, including the US, Italy, Venezuela, Canada and Poland go to.  A critique of the 16 epidemiological studies frequently cited to defend vaccine safety, including the MMRcan be found here.  For reference, Wakefield’s now retracted “Lancet paper” is here.
Some local parents speak about their affected children on YouTube (I am not identified in the video, but am wearing a red scarf):  Andrew Wakefield’s La Crosse press conference and Brian Deer’s lecture are also on this YouTube.
I’ve included a brief bio to give you a sense of what I do in addition to parenting a 12-year-old boy with regressive autism. I think you’ll agree, it’s not the bio of a “crank.” I’m particularly proud of the Holland Autism Center which I founded so that my son and other children with autism can maximize their potential while spending their childhoods with their parents - not in institutions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer VanDerHorst Larson, Co-founder, President, The Canary Party
Owner/CEO Vibrant Technologies; Owner, Founder, CEO Holland Autism Center and Clinic; Founding Board Chair of Children with Autism Deserve Education (CADE); Board member of Autism Recovery Foundation; Co-Founder of the Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota; 2012 National Republican delegate for Minnesota
The Holland Center is a pediatric rehabilitation treatment center. Opened in 2004, it was created to provide an integrated treatment approach to children with autism.  Holland integrates ABA, speech, occupational therapy alongside biomedical treatments for children in a chemical-free, gluten/casein/peanut-free environment.
Honors: "25 Women to Watch" Minneapolis/St.Paul Business Journal 2008, "40 Under Forty" Minneapolis/St.Paul Business Journal 2007, "Best Places to Work- 2007, 2008” and "Fast 50 Private Companies"- 2006.
The Canary Party is a movement created to stand up for the victims of medical injury, environmental toxins, and industrial foods by restoring the balance to our free and civil society and empowering consumers to make health and nutrition decisions that promote wellness.
Delivered to all sponsors via e-mails

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Why you should avoid taking vaccines.


WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID TAKING VACCINES

For the complete article please go to:
 
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
December 7, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."
Cowpox vaccine was believed able to immunize people against smallpox. At the time this vaccine was introduced, there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox. Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. A stringent compulsory smallpox vaccine program, which prosecuted those refusing the vaccine, was instituted in England in 1867. Within 4 years 97.5 % of persons between 2 and 50 had been vaccinated. The following year England experienced the worst smallpox epidemic[1]in its history with 44,840 deaths. Between 1871 and 1880 the incidence of smallpox escalated from 28 to 46 per 100,000. The smallpox vaccine does not work.
Much of the success attributed to vaccination programs may actually have been due to improvement in public health related to water quality and sanitation, less crowded living conditions, better nutrition, and higher standards of living. Typically the incidence of a disease was clearly declining before the vaccine for that disease was introduced. In England the incidence of polio had decreased by 82 % before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1956.
In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated[2]person."
There is a widely held belief that vaccines should not be criticized because the public might refuse to take them. This is valid only if the benefits exceed the known risks of the vaccines.
Do Vaccines Actually Prevent Disease?
This important question does not appear to have ever been adequately studied. Vaccines are enormously profitable for drug companies and recent legislation in the U.S. has exempted lawsuits against pharmaceutical firms in the event of adverse reactions to vaccines which are very common. In 1975 Germany stopped requiring pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Today less than 10 % of German children are vaccinated against pertussis. The number of cases of pertussis has steadily decreased[3] even though far fewer children are receiving pertussis vaccine.
Measles outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination rates over 98 % in all parts of the U.S. including areas that had reported no cases of measles for years. As measles immunization rates rise to high levels measles becomes a disease seen only in vaccinated persons. An outbreak of measles occurred in a school where 100 % of the children had been vaccinated. Measles mortality rates had declined by 97 % in England before measles vaccination was instituted.
In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic[4]in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months.
After institution of diptheria vaccination in England and Wales in 1894 the number of deaths from diptheria rose by 20 % in the subsequent 15 years. Germany had compulsory vaccination in 1939. The rate of diptheria spiraled to 150,000 cases that year whereas, Norway which did not have compulsory vaccination, had only 50 cases of diptheria the same year.
The continued presence of these infectious diseases in children who have received vaccines proves that life long immunity which follows natural infection does not occur in persons receiving vaccines. The injection process places the viral particles into the blood without providing any clear way to eliminate these foreign substances.
Why Do Vaccines Fail To Protect Against Diseases?
Walene James, author of Immunization: the Reality Behind The Myth, states that the full[5]inflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity. Prior to the introduction of measles and mumps vaccines children got measles and mumps and in the great majority of cases these diseases were benign. Vaccines "trick" the body so it does not mount a complete inflammatory response to the injected virus.
Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIDS
The incidence of Sudden Infant Death syndrome SIDS has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is age 2 to 4 months the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given a child was steadily rising to 36 per child.
Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 3½ and 19 hours of a DPT immunization. He later reported 11 new cases of SIDS death and one near miss which had occurred within 24 hours of a DPT injection. When he studied 70 cases of SIDS two thirds of these victims[6] had been vaccinated from one half day to 3 weeks prior to their deaths. None of these deaths was attributed to vaccines. Vaccines are a sacred cow and nothing against them appears in the mass media because they are so profitable to pharmaceutical firms.
There is valid reason to think that not only are vaccines worthless in preventing disease they are counterproductive because they injure the immune system permitting cancer, auto-immune diseases and SIDS to cause much disability and death.
Are Vaccines Sterile?
Dr. Robert Strecker claimed that the department of defense DOD was given $10,000,000 in 1969 to create the AIDS virus to be used as a population-reducing[7] weapon against blacks. By use of the Freedom of Information Act Dr. Strecker was able to learn that the DOD secured funds from Congress to perform studies on immune destroying agents for germ warfare.
Once produced, the vaccine was given in two locations. Smallpox vaccine containing HIV was given to 100,000,000 Africans in 1977. Over 2000 young white homosexual males in New York City were given Hepatitis B vaccine that contained HIV virus in 1978. This vaccine was given at New York City Blood Center. The Hepatitis B vaccine containing the HIV virus was also administered to homosexual males in San Francisco, Los Angeles, St.Louis, Houston and Chicago in 1978 and 1979. U.S. Public Health epidemiology studies have disclosed that these same 6 cities had the highest incidence of AIDS, Aids related Complex (ARC) and deaths rates from HIV, when compared to other U.S. cities.
When a new virus is introduced into a community. It takes 20 years for the number of cases to double. If the fabricated story that green monkey bites of pygmies led to the HIV epidemic, the alleged monkey bites in the 1940s should have produced a peak in the incidence of HIV in the 1960s at which time HIV was non existent in Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) began a African smallpox vaccination campaign in 1977 that targeted urban population centers and avoided pygmies. If the green monkey bites of pygmies truly caused the HIV epidemic the incidence of HIV in pygmies should have been higher than in urban citizens. However, the opposite was true.
In 1954 Dr. Bernice Eddy (bacteriologist) discovered live monkey viruses in supposedly sterile inactivated polio vaccine[8] developed by Dr. Jonas Salk. This discovery was not well received at the NIH and Dr. Eddy was demoted. Later Dr. Eddy, working with Sarah Stewart, discovered SE polyoma virus. This virus was quite important because it caused cancer in every animal receiving it. Yellow fever vaccine had previously been found to contain avian (bird) leukemia virus. Later Dr. Hilleman isolated SV 40 virus from both the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines.There were 40 different viruses[9] in these polio vaccines they were trying to eradicate. They were never able to get rid of these viruses ontaminating the polio vaccines. The SV 40 virus causes malignancies. It has now been identified in 43 % of cases of non-Hodgekin lymphoma[10] , 36 % of brain tumors[11] , 18 % of healthy blood samples, and 22 % of healthy semen samples, mesothiolomas and other malignancies. By the time of this discovery SV 40 had already been injected into 10,000,000 people in Salk vaccine. Gastric digestion inactivtes some of SV 40 in Sabin vaccine. However, the isolation of strains of Sabin polio vaccine from all 38 cases of Guillan Barre Syndrome[12] GBS in Brazil suggests that significant numbers of persons are able to be infected from this vaccine. All 38 of these patients had received Sabin polio vaccine months to years before the onset of GBS. The incidence of non-Hodgekin lymphoma has"mysteriouly" doubled since the 1970s.

For the complete article please go to:

The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted[19] by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future?
Compelling evidence is available that the development of the immune system after contracting the usual childhood diseases matures and renders it capable to fight infection and malignant cells in the future.
The use of multiple vaccines, which prevents natural immunity, promotes the development of allergies and asthma. A New Zealand study disclosed that 23 % of vaccinated children develop asthma , as compared to zero in unvaccinated children.
Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason.
Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choicenot a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states.
When governmental policies require vaccinations before children enter schools coercion has overruled the lack of evidence of vaccine efficacy and safety.There is no proof that vaccines work and they are never studied for safety before release. My opinion is that there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous and the only reason for their existence is to increase profits of pharmaceutical firms.
If you are forced to immunize your children so they can enter school, obtain a notarized statement from the director of the facility that they will accept full financial responsibility for any adverse reaction from the vaccine. Since there is at least a 2 percent risk of a serious adverse reaction they may be smart enough to permit your child to escape a dangerous procedure. Recent legislation passed by Congress gives the government the power to imprison persons refusing to take vaccines (smallpox, anthrax, etc). This would be troublesome to enforce if large numbers of citizens declined to be vaccinated at the same time.
Footnotes:
1 Null Gary Vaccination: An Analysis of the Health Risks- Part Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients Dec. 2003 pg 782 Mullins Eustace Murder by Injection pg 132 The National Council for Medical Research, P. O. Box 1105, Staunton, Virginia 244013 Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black April 7, 19954 de Melker HE, et al Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine Emerging Infectious Diseases 1997; 3(2): 175-8 Centers for Disease Control5 Gary Null Interview with Walene James, April 6, 19956 Torch WS Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunizations: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Neurology 1982; 32-4 A169 abstract.7 Collin Jonathan The Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients 1988 abstracted in Horowitz L. Emerging Viruses Aids & Ebola pg 1-58 Harris RJ et al Contaminant viruses in two live vaccines produced in chick cells.J Hyg (London) 1966 Mar:64(1) : 1-79 Horowitz Leonard G. Emerging Viruses AIDS & Ebola pg 48410 Vilchez RA et al Association between simian virus 40 and non-Hodgekin lymphoma Lancet 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):817-82311 Bu X A study of simian virus 40 infection and its origin in human brain tumors Zhonghu Liu Xing Bing Xue Zhi 2000 Feb;21 (1):19-2112 Friedrich F. et al temporal association between the isolation of Sabin-related poliovirus vaccine strains and the Guillan-Barre syndrome Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 1996 Jan-Feb; 38(1):55-813 Horowitz Leonard Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola pg 49214 Horowitz Leonard G Emerging Viruses: Aids & Ebola pg 378-88 Tetrahedron Inc. Suite 147, 206 North 4th Ave. Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 1-888-508-4787 tetra@tetrahedron.org15 Null, Gary Vaccination: An Anatysis of the health risks-Part 3 Townsend letter for doctors & patients Dec. 2003 pg 7816 Classen, JB et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine BMJ 1999; 319:113317 Brain 9/0118 Incao, philip M.D. Letter to representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives March 1, 1999 provided to www.garynull.com by The Natural Immunity Information Network19 Rowen Robert Your first consultation with Dr. Rowen pg 20
© 2003 Dr. James Howenstine - All Rights Reserved


Dr. James A. Howenstine is a board certified specialist in internal medicine who spent 34 years caring for office and hospital patients. Curiosity sparked a 4 year study of natural health products when 5 of his patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis were able to discontinue the use of methotrexate (chemotherapy agent) after trying an extract of New Zealand mussels for the therapy of severe rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Howenstine is convinced that natural products are safer, more effective and less expensive than pharmaceutical drugs. This research led to the publication of his book 'A Physicians Guide To Natural Health Products That Work'. This book and the recommended health products are available from www.naturalhealthteam.com and by calling 1-800-416-2806 U.S.A.  
Dr Howenstine can be reached by E-Mail atjimhow@racsa.co.cr 

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Childhood mumps protects against ovarian cancer


Mumps and ovarian cancer: modern interpretation of an historic association

Abstract

Background

Epidemiologic studies found childhood mumps might protect against ovarian cancer. To explain this association, we investigated whether mumps might engender immunity to ovarian cancer through antibodies against the cancer-associated antigen MUC1 abnormally expressed in the inflamed parotid gland.

Methods

Through various health agencies, we obtained sera from 161 cases with mumps parotitis. Sera were obtained from 194 healthy controls. We used an ELISA to measure anti-MUC1 antibodies and electro-chemiluminescence assays to measure MUC1 and CA 125. Log-transformed measurements were analyzed by t-tests, generalized linear models, and Pearson or Spearman correlations. We also conducted a meta-analysis of all published studies regarding mumps and ovarian cancer.

Results

Adjusting for assay batch, age, and sex, the level of anti-MUC1 antibodies was significantly higher in mumps cases compared to controls (p = 0.002). Free circulating levels of CA 125, but not MUC1, were also higher in cases (p = 0.02). From the meta-analysis, the pooled odds ratio estimate (and 95% CI) for the mumps and ovarian cancer association was 0.81 (0.68–0.96) (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Mumps parotitis may lead to expression and immune recognition of a tumor-associated form of MUC1 and create effective immune surveillance of ovarian cancer cells that express this form of MUC1.
Keywords: Ovarian cancer, Mumps parotitis, MUC1, CA125

Monday, October 08, 2012

World Bank Demographer on De-Population and Vaccines


Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
October 4, 2012
For the full story:
On October 2nd a retired demographer at the World Bank admitted that vaccination campaigns are an integral part of the World Bank’s population policies. John F. May, the Bank’s leading demographer from 1992 to 2012, told the French web journal Sens Public (and in turn transcribed by the think-tank May works for) that vaccination campaigns, especially in so-called “high-fertility countries”, are means to achieve population reduction in those countries. May:
“The means used to implement population policies are “policy levers” or targeted actions such as vaccination campaigns or family planning to change certain key variables.”
Defining “population policy” as “a set of interventions implemented by government officials to better manage demographic variables and to try to attune population changes (number, structure by age and breakdown) to the country’s development aspirations”, May continues to explain that the World Bank is taking up the lead role in achieving general population reduction.
It is not the first time that World Bank officials boast about their willingness to implement strict population control policies in the Third World. In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank suggests using “sterilization vans” and “camps” to facilitate its sterilization policies for the third world. The report also threatens nations who are slow in implementing the bank’s population policies with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”:
“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”, the report states.
Some of those steps are now being taken.
study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology in May of 2011 concluded that “nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (page 8).
After an in-depth study into the effects of vaccine-coverage in relation to mortality rates among infants, the authors Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman came to this disturbing conclusion and advised that “a closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential.”- but naively concluded that “All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”
The authors cannot be expected to know that, actually, that the desired goals are exactly being achieved. Their final point is significant in this regard, that they obviously were not working on the notion that vaccines were harmful and obviously drew their final conclusions on the basis of the idea that the increase in high mortality rates among infants were unintended. The opposite is the case. The World Health Organization, the World Bank, The UN environmental department, the UN Population Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and all the other arms of the creature we call the scientific dictatorship are closing in on all of humanity with mass-scale vaccination programmes and genetically engineered food.
Where the mantra used to be “to combat global warming, we need a one world government”, now it sounds something along the lines of “when we wish to eradicate poverty, we must have a global government and reduce human numbers, by the way.” Any pretext will do. More recently it were oceans in need that prompted the World Bank to initiate a global “alliance”. The same argument can of course be applied and is being applied to every other possible calamity.
Following this line of reasoning will inevitably bring you to pretexts under which global population control can be sold. Want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. The scientific community has joined the effort, attempting to sell population reduction to stop poverty and disease worldwide.
Under the guidance of Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Sachs and his protégé’s Pejman Rohani and Matthew H. Bonds wrote the paper Poverty trap formed by the ecology of infectious diseases. They write that the “poverty trap may (…) be broken by improving health conditions of the population.”
The question that arises, of course, is how to improve “health conditions”. Inanother study from 2009 Bonds and Rohani say:
““(…) the birth of a child in the poorest parts of the world represents not only a new infection opportunity for a disease, but also an increase in the probability of infection for the rest of the susceptible host population. Thus, epidemiological theory predicts that a reduction in the birth rate can significantly lower the prevalence of childhood diseases.”
Earlier that same year, Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. The study concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.
“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud”, Bonds writes.
“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”
“This model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.”
If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:
“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”