Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Double Standard Applied by the Covid Inquiry

When Taking Evidence from John Edmunds and Carl Heneghan Yesterday Inquiry Reveals its Bias

BY KIERAN SAXON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 20, 2023

The contrast between the evidence sessions of Prof. John Edmunds (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, SAGE modeller) and Prof. Carl Heneghan at the Covid Inquiry yesterday was absolutely shocking and raises huge questions about the professionalism of the Inquiry.

The King’s Counsel in the morning spent hours questioning Edmunds in a friendly, at times obsequious manner, as he explained how misunderstood the modelling was, how it wasn’t needed to justify lockdowns – as the indicative Basic reproduction number (R0) and Indicative Fatality Rate (IFR) were enough – to justify earlier and harder lockdown measures. Yet, according to Edmunds, the modelling would still be needed in the future. Truly an “all things to all men modelling” – useful when needed to justify future lockdowns, yet hides in the corner when retrospectively scrutinised and compared with real-world data. Three key flaws in the Covid modelling have been highlighted:

  1. Over-estimation of the effect of mandatory NPIs versus under-estimation of the effect of voluntary NPIs.
  2. Over-estimation of ICU per hospitalised rates, where the Imperial College team doubled the rate of hospitalised patients going into ICU to 30% based on flawed data from China.
  3. Failure to take into account the impact of prior and innate immunity in the population, especially children and the asymptomatic.

These aren’t flaws that can be explained away by saying the scenarios changed with the reality of lockdowns. For example, ICU rates are unaffected by shelter-in-place orders and school closures.

The dangerous implication here is that the Covid Inquiry is lining us up for future restrictions based on indicative RO and IFR, a lockdown hair-trigger switch that gives more authority to the modellers.

The soft-ball questioning and praise from the Inquiry continued as the discussion moved to Summer 2020, circuit breakers and the elision from “flatten the curve” to “zero Covid”.

Then the Inquiry moved on to the Downing Street Summit, where other voices – counsel highlighting as the ‘let it rip’ brigade – were invited at short notice. The big reveal was that Angela McLean, who has replaced Sir Patrick Vallance as Chief Scientific Officer, referred to Carl Heneghan as a “f*ckwit” in a contemporaneous WhatsApp chat, while Edmunds challenged Heneghan’s epidemiological knowledge. In my view, the Inquiry raising the point in this way is indicative of a lack of professionalism.

The Inquiry was also keen to include another pet villain – Doctor Death – the sobriquet applied by McLean to refer to Rishi Sunak, for the perceived crime of pushing for Eat Out to Help Out to reinvigorate the pub and restaurant industry, and providing a much needed moral boost to the nation.

The questioning continued for hours, covering the narrative classics of Long Covid, why the Vaccine rollout should have been broader, etc., all carried out in a cosy relationship included Baroness Hallett’s freely-given praise for Edmund, Ferguson and the whole modelling team.

By contrast, the interrogation of Carl Heneghan started out with a blatant attempt to undermine his credentials, strongly re-buffed by Carl, setting a tone for the only adversarial evidence session I have seen at this Inquiry so far. Any discussion that strayed from the narrative was met with aggressive and hostile demands for ‘yes/no’ answers.

Counsel objected to Carl’s answer rightly pointing out the danger of lockdowns to care homes, as he wanted to concentrate on focused protection and the misrepresentation of it by Counsel as hermetically sealing up the old and vulnerable. The minimum of critical thinking could have told Counsel that it was about reducing risk where it was highest, rather than across the board.

Carl was challenged on his views on the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) – he broadly agreed with it, he explained, but didn’t sign at the time as he needed more evidence on the details as you would expect, before Counsel dived into the Downing Street conference call.

Carl was challenged on his definition of ‘Endemicity’ on that call (presumably Edmunds’ gotcha epidemiological point), with Counsel demanding that the spread of infection be “broad and predictable” for it to qualify as endemic, when seasonal spikes shown on a graph means it wasn’t. This was rebuffed in a strong response from Prof. Heneghan, emphasising the seasonal pattern of endemic respiratory viruses and the variability of testing data and evidence on the ground.

Carl’s response to being challenged on the “f*ckwit” comment was dignified and professional, indicating it signified a lack of professionalism from the author as well as a lack of willingness to engage in debate, and an assumption of certainty where there was great uncertainty. He further pointed out that the entire lockdown response was driven by modelling and failed to take into account empirical data or the reality on the ground. Counsel scuttled along to that favourite fallback of the lockdown zealots – Long Covid – where Carl educated the Inquiry by telling it there was no greater risk of lingering disease from Covid than from any other seasonal respiratory disease.

At this point, Counsel decided to end the very short proceedings, presumably to shield the carefully constructed narrative to live another day.

It was hard not to notice the stark contrast in the attitude and approach to the two witnesses and it raises further serious questions on the ability of this long and expensive public inquiry to professionally and impartially challenge the decision making that led to lockdowns.

Kieran Saxon is a member of UsForThem.

October 20, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Dr. McCullough Not Recommending Fall Vaccines for Healthy Adults and Children

Products are Not Compelling for Prevention of Severe COVID-19, Influenza, RSV

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse  | October 20, 2023

I appeared on American Sunrise (10/18/23) with Dr. Gina Loudon to let America know I am not recommending COVID-19 XBB.1.5 Boosters, influenza, or respiratory syncytial virus vaccines for healthy adults or children. None of these vaccines are compelling and conditions are easily treatable. The EUA COVID-19 injections have been determined to be unsafe for human use by the World Council for Health and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

None of these vaccines have compelling efficacy. For example, the RENOIR Trial in 34,284 adults tested the unadjuvanted RSVpreF vaccine at a dose of 120 μg (containing 60 μg each of RSV A and RSV B antigens) (17,215 participants) versus placebo (17,069 participants). RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two signs or symptoms occurred in 11 participants in the vaccine group and 33 participants in the placebo group, (vaccine efficacy, 66.7%; 96.66% confidence interval [CI], 28.8 to 85.8); 2 cases and 14 cases with least three signs or symptoms (vaccine efficacy, 85.7%; 96.66% CI, 32.0 to 98.7). RSV-associated acute respiratory illness occurred in 22 participants in the vaccine group and 58 participants in the placebo group, vaccine efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, 37.1 to 77.9). There were no hospitalizations or deaths mentioned in either group. Because data are sparse, we must rely on the lower limit of the confidence interval for treatment effect, which is unacceptable being far below 50% for all outcomes.

RSV, like influenza and COVID-19 are easily treatable infections at home. As you can see RSV is very rare with <1% of adults contracting the virus. Vaccinating the entire adult population is an excessive use of a poorly effective new product. For healthy persons, it is perfectly reasonable to skip fall vaccines and seek early treatment in the rare circumstance that one of these viral infections is contracted.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

October 20, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Why vaccines for children are Big Pharma’s holy grail – Part 1

This is the first article in a two-part report.

By Serena Wylde | TCW Defending Freedom | October 18, 2023

James A Shannon, director of the US National Institutes of Health 1955-68, said: ‘No vaccination can be proven safe before it is given to children.’

When he made that statement, it was still possible in the US to sue vaccine manufacturers under tort law for vaccine-induced deaths and injuries, which is no longer the case.

Today the US has the world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule and ranks as the sickest country, with the highest infant mortality, in the developed world. The UK does not lag far behind.

Vaccines carry three separate areas of potential risk. Firstly, they artificially stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies, which temporarily inhibits another part of the body’s defence mechanism. In an infant, whose immune system is just developing, this high demand of energy can in some cases overwhelm its metabolic reserves, and cause brain inflammation. The brain is the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body, followed by the gastro-intestinal tract and the immune system.

Secondly, vaccines contain chemicals, metals and drugs. Thirdly, according to the former pharmaceutical R&D executive Sasha Latypova, traditional vaccines are consistently contaminated with plant and animal proteins which hyper-sensitise the body, especially in children, giving rise to allergies.

In the US in the 1970s there were three inoculations recommended for children: the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) (DTP), polio, and the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), introduced there in 1971. The DTP which was used in the US until 1992 contained the carcinogen formaldehyde. Both the DTP and the MMR contained the preservative thimerosal, which is almost 50 per cent mercury, and in infants can pass through the blood-brain barrier.

A wave of sudden infant deaths (SIDs), severe brain injuries, seizures and other neurological problems were linked through studies to the DTP. In 1977, a study published in the Lancet established that the risks of the whole-cell pertussis used in the DTP vaccine exceeded the risks associated with wild pertussis. Six years later, in 1983, a National Institutes of Health-funded study found that Wyeth’s DTP vaccine was killing or causing severe brain damage to 1 in 300 vaccinated children.

Lawsuits against the manufacturers shot up. In 1984, the president of pharmaceutical manufacturer Lederle declared that the dollar demand of DTP lawsuits against the company was 200 times greater than their total sales of DTP vaccine in 1983. Another vaccine manufacturer, Connaught Laboratories, had damages suits filed against it in 1985/6 amounting to a billion dollars. Wyeth, now Pfizer, faced a similar plight, and bankruptcy threatened the industry as insurers withdrew their indemnity cover.

The industry therefore lobbied Congress for a liability shield from damages, which led to the passing of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, and the establishment of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 1988, administered by the US government through the Health and Human Services Department.

Parents of vaccine-injured children from 1988 were directed to apply to what is commonly referred to as the ‘Vaccine Court’ to present their cases. This was supposed to be a neutral forum where the adversarial nature of civil litigation was removed, their cases would be dealt with swiftly and compensation, where applicable, paid in a timely manner. The reality could not be more different, and how the ‘Vaccine Court’ actually operates will be described in Part 2.

Meanwhile, freed from any consequences and related costs of selling unsafe products, vaccine manufacturers wasted no time in creating new lucrative vaccines and lobbying Congress to include them in the Childhood Vaccine Schedule. That same year of 1988, Hepatitis B and the Hib vaccine, against haemophilus influenza type B, were introduced, both containing mercury-laden thimerosal. In The Real Anthony Fauci, Robert F Kennedy Jr writes that more than 450 studies attested to thimerosal’s devastating toxicity, and because testosterone amplifies the neurotoxicity of the mercury molecule, boys were disproportionately affected.

Cases of autism, ADHD, speech delay, and other neurological conditions soared, in direct parallel with the fast-expanding vaccine schedule. In 1986 autism cases in the US were approximately 1 in 2,500. By 2017 they had jumped to 1 in 36. From the three recommended vaccines in 1986, by 2017 the schedule had risen to 69 doses of 16 vaccines.

Not one paediatric vaccine has ever been tested for safety against a genuine placebo. In 2017 TV producer Del Bigtree asked the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) how it justified licensing any paediatric vaccine without first conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions in the subject group was compared with a control group receiving an inert placebo. In January 2018 the HHS replied: ‘Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine.’ 

If randomised control trials (RCTs), the so-called gold standard of safety testing, are kicked aside, how can any conclusions reached on the safety profile of a product be scientifically valid?

There are, however, real-life comparison studies between cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

As reported by RFK Jr’s Children’s Health Defense, for years American paediatrician Paul Thomas, now retired, witnessed healthy 12-month-olds regress into severe autism following the MMR vaccination, so in 2010 he devised a new, bespoke approach to the vaccination of children in his practice Integrative Pediatric.  He offered parents a comprehensive discussion and autonomy over whether to vaccinate their children as per the US schedule, selectively vaccinate them, with longer intervals between shots, or not vaccinate them at all.

As reported in TCW yesterday, he and colleague James Lyons-Weiler PhD studied the health outcomes of the children over almost ten years, and in 2020 published the results in a groundbreaking paper which showed unequivocally that unvaccinated children enjoy better health than vaccinated children. The results showed a dramatic reduction of cases of ADHD and autism. They were almost entirely absent in the unvaccinated cohort, and greatly reduced in the partially vaccinated cohort. The same applied to anaemia, asthma, allergies, dermatitis, eczema, ear and eye infections and sinusitis.

In a recent discussion with Paul Thomas, the mother of an autistic son explained that he had been developing normally until he received the MMR vaccine, when his temperature shot up, he came out in an appalling rash, and screamed incessantly while hitting his head against the wall. She said she kept telephoning her paediatrician, who said it was ‘normal’.

Dr Thomas explained that when paediatricians say it is ‘normal’, what they mean is it is ‘common’. Many in the medical profession have become so blinded by dogma that they see frequency as indicating normality and cease to recognise what is profoundly abnormal.

That one vaccine-generation child in two graduates from high school in the US taking medication for a chronic condition should be regarded as both highly abnormal and an indictment of US public health policy.

How this has been allowed is, at least in part, down to the corrupted working of the US Vaccine Court, and the total protection from liability this gives to Big Pharma and its profit driven vaccine enterprise, and I will discuss this in Part 2.

October 20, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Heart damage study adds weight to call for immediate ban on mRNA ‘vaccines’

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 19, 2023

I am really sorry to have to do this to long-established TCW readers, who must be weary of the mass of scientific evidence we have reported over nearly three years about the ineffectiveness and dangers of the Covid jabs – and the continuing lack of response from regulators.  But a peer-reviewed study out last week in the British Journal of Pharmacology provides an important piece of the puzzle of why heart damage has emerged as prominent among side-effects from the mRNA gene injections.

It shows for the first time that rat heart cells, isolated in the laboratory, become disordered 48 hours after exposure to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in ways that correlate with heart muscle damage in humans. The scientists involved, at the Giessen Institute of Physiology in Germany and the National Heart Laboratory of Semmelweis University, Hungary, say the findings mean the policy of giving people mRNA vaccines should be reconsidered. This adds even further weight to Professor Angus Dalgleish’s call for the mRNA vaccines to be banned once and for all made in these pages three weeks ago.

The vaccines were designed to induce our bodies to make a specific protein, the toxic ‘spike’ of the genetically engineered Covid virus, in the hope that this would increase our immunity to the virus. It was originally claimed that the genetic material would act only at the site of the injection, and that it would soon disappear. Both claims have been disproved, with studies showing that the nanoparticles carrying the genetic instruction for ‘spike’ travel all over the body, and can be long-lasting.

In the new study, the Moderna and Pfizer products had different, specific effects, but both altered heart cell function and structure in ‘hidden’ ways that ‘may significantly increase the risk of acute cardiac events’, the researchers say.

Commenting on the study, the US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough said yesterday: ‘There have been many drugs that have never made it to the market because they cause heart rhythm disturbances. Because the Covid-19 vaccines were rushed in development, pre-clinical cardiac toxicity studies were skipped. Now, three years into the disastrous Covid-19 vaccine campaign, we are learning that probably every person sustains some degree of heart dysfunction or damage within 48 hours of the shot . . . This and many studies support a complete moratorium on mRNA research, given these very serious findings.’

Mathematician and businessman Igor Chudov, who closely monitors Covid vaccine science, also drew attention to the study, commenting: ‘I wish this research had been done before billions of people were poisoned. Sadly, little will change now – but the truth is finally coming out.’

The finding comes after a long line of warnings about heart damage from the jabs. As early as December 2020, US physician Dr Patrick Whelan, a paediatric specialist, wrote that vaccines based on the spike protein may themselves trigger symptoms of severe Covid, including blood clots, brain inflammation and damage to the heart, liver and kidneys. He urged particular caution over giving the vaccine to children and young adults, who normally fight off the coronavirus infection in its early stages.

The following May, an international group of doctors and scientists published an appeal – the first of many – to halt mass vaccination programmes until safety issues were resolved.

A month later, in June 2021, pathologist Dr Roger Hodkinson said the vaccine should never have been released, warning that myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – was being seen increasingly in the wake of the jab, especially in young men. The long-term consequences, he said, were ‘totally unpredictable’ and never ‘mild’, as regulators were describing it. ‘It may only present 20 years later because of the reserve of the heart having been destroyed. We are talking here about cardiac arrhythmias, abnormal heartbeats, heart failure and so on . . . The bottom line is that this vaccination of everybody should stop immediately.’

The same month Dr Byram Bridle, associate professor of immunology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, said it had become clear that ‘the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation’.

And in November 2021 Dr Steven Gundry, a renowned American heart specialist, reported ‘dramatic’ biochemical changes predictive of heart trouble in most of his patients after their second mRNA jab. ‘These changes persist for at least two and a half months post second dose of vaccine,’ he wrote in an alert to the American Heart Association.

More recently, another biochemical signal of hidden heart damage in the wake of the jabs was reported last month in the journal Radiology. Patients known to be suffering from post-vaccination myocarditis show this abnormality, and a study on hundreds of symptomless patients, who were in hospital for check-ups and other reasons, found the same signal to be more common among the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. The effect was seen for up to 180 days after their second jab.

McCullough has given evidence supporting his call for a moratorium on the jabs at hearings in the US Senate and European Parliament. He has published a ‘note of concern to colleagues’ in which he says that as of August 25 this year, the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has recorded 18,015 deaths reported under the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the vaccine is related to the death. The largest autopsy study to date indicates that 73.9 per cent of deaths are directly caused or significantly contributed to by the Covid jabs, he says. Around 1,100 deaths occurred on the same day as vaccination.

His statement continues: ‘There are around 3,400 peer-reviewed manuscripts in the medical literature concerning fatal and non-fatal Covid-19 vaccine injuries including those recognized by regulatory agencies around the world such as myocarditis, neurologic injury, thrombosis, and immunologic syndromes.

‘The World Council for Health, June 11, 2022, has produced a pharmacovigilance report which is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven, calling for global market withdrawal of Covid-19 vaccines based on lack of safety.’

Citing other similar calls, he says the evidence indicates that not only are the vaccines not safe for human use, but ‘no large-scale, conclusive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated reduction in infection transmission, hospitalization or death as primary endpoints.’

Elsewhere, he has said that the moratorium should apply to all mRNA vaccines, including those being developed for other purposes, until the effects on the heart are fully studied.

October 19, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Sugar-Free, But Not Risk-Free: Popular Sweetener Linked to Heart Attack, Stroke

By Angelo DePalma, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 17, 2023

People who consume higher-than-normal quantities of erythritol, a popular sugar substitute sold under a variety of brand names, are at greater risk of having a heart attack or stroke, according to a study in Nature Medicine.

The risk of heart disease can last for years after consuming erythritol. This is concerning because “the very people who are being targeted for foods that contain erythritol” — those with diabetes, obesity, or a history of cardiovascular diseases — “are the same people who already are at increased risk for cardiovascular events,” according to one of the study’s authors.

Stanley Hazen, M.D., Ph.D., a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, led the study, which consisted of four experiments.

The first two experiments considered associations between erythritol blood levels and cardiovascular events. The third experiment found erythritol caused blood platelets to become stickier. And the fourth found ingesting erythritol raised blood levels to concerning levels for over two days.

Breaking down the study

Among 1,157 patients undergoing heart-health exams, those whose blood contained non-sugar sweeteners and their breakdown products were more likely to have a heart attack or stroke during a three-year follow-up period.

Researchers identified several artificial sweeteners in the patients’ blood, but erythritol seemed to have the strongest connection with heart attack and death.

Because the sweeteners are related chemically and several were present, researchers initially could not be sure that erythritol was to blame.

They began a second investigation among 2,149 U.S. and 833 European subjects undergoing heart tests. This time, they analyzed blood in a way that allowed them to detect only erythritol and its effects.

After categorizing subjects into four groups of increasing blood erythritol levels, those in the highest-level group were more than three times as likely to have a heart attack or stroke during the following three years.

In both the U.S. and European study groups, the highest erythritol blood levels were found in patients with the most serious heart conditions and those who went on to suffer a serious cardiac event during the study.

The risk for heart attack or stroke in the highest-level group, compared with the lowest-level group, increased by 164% for the U.S. subjects and 348% for the European subjects.

Results did not change when investigators factored in sex or existing cardiovascular risk factors like obesity or smoking.

This led Hazen to conclude that erythritol was “independently associated” with death, heart attack and stroke — meaning that consuming it is risky regardless of a person’s health status or risk factors.

In a third experiment, researchers found that adding erythritol to blood samples made platelets stickier, which could lead to increased clotting and higher heart attack and stroke risk.

Finally, investigators were interested in seeing if erythritol reached unhealthy blood levels after ingestion of a drink containing 30 grams of the sweetener — a dose typically found in one diet drink or serving of diet ice cream.

Baseline levels started low, increased a thousandfold just 30 minutes after consuming the drink, and remained elevated for more than two days. Levels surpassed thresholds established earlier in this study linked to platelet changes and a higher risk of heart problems.

The dangers of sugar alcohols

People use sugar substitutes to replace natural sweeteners like sucrose (table sugar) or fructose (the main sugar in fruit) in order to reduce or eliminate calories in drinks, snacks and other foods.

Many sugar replacements, like aspartame, saccharin and sucralose, are not found in nature but are produced in chemical plants.

Stevia is sometimes grouped with artificial sweeteners but is a natural (albeit processed) product chemically related to table sugar.

Erythritol, another natural sweetener commonly found in commercial baked goods, drinks, candies, snacks and sweetener packets, belongs to the “sugar alcohol” family, which includes mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, lactitol, isomalt and maltitol.

Sugar alcohols have long been considered safer than artificial sweeteners but recent data, including the Hazen study, suggest otherwise.

Erythritol occurs naturally but sparingly in melons, pears, grapes and in fermented foods like cheese and soy sauce. Red blood cells also naturally make very low levels of erythritol.

Erythritol is most often manufactured from corn sugar (dextrose), typically derived from genetically modified organism (GMO) cornstarch, but can also be made from wheat, maize or potatoes.

Because it is not metabolized and contains less than 6% of sugar’s calories, erythritol’s caloric contribution to foods is minimal despite being only 70% as sweet as sugar. And since it does not feed bacteria as well as sugar, erythritol does not promote dental cavities.

Some Americans consume 30 grams (a bit more than an ounce) of erythritol per day, which is a thousand times greater than what they would consume through natural foods plus the body’s own production.

U.S. and European Union regulators designate sugar substitutes as generally safe and recommend them for individuals with metabolic diseases like Type 2 diabetes and obesity.

However studies increasingly link artificial sweeteners to the very diseases sugar substitutes are meant to improve, such as weight gain, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and all-cause mortality.

Long-term safety studies on sugar substitutes, even for older sweeteners like sucralose and aspartame, are lacking.

Study strengths and weaknesses

This was a prospective, observational study, meaning investigators first observed the hypothetical cause (erythritol consumption) and looked for effects (heart attack and stroke) occurring afterward.

Establishing a potential causal relationship was therefore easier than retrospective studies, which look first at an effect and then at some exposure or event in the past that might have been the cause.

Yet on this note, Hazen was cautious: “By design, these studies can only show association and not causation.”

As the authors noted, their investigation tested subjects’ erythritol levels just once, but measuring levels at several time points may have provided better predictive value. As all subjects were undergoing testing for heart issues, the study subjects were already sicker on average than people in the general population.

Angelo DePalma, Ph.D., is a science reporter/editor for The Defender.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

October 19, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Scientists Develop Hedge Hyssop Extract for Advanced Cancer Treatment

Sputnik – 19.10.2023

Scientists from Razumovsky University – or, to give it its full name Saratov State Medical University Named After VI Razumovsky (SSMU) – have developed an innovative anti-tumor herbal medicinal product based on the gratiola officinalis, a plant commonly known as medicinal hedge hyssop.

Fundamental research has been continuing for more than a decade, and according to the researchers, it has yielded compelling results. Based on these findings, the university has received approval from the Russian Ministry of Health to conduct Phase I clinical trials.

Medicinal Hedge Hyssop (gratiola officinalis) is a wild, perennial herb widely distributed in various regions of Russia. Although it possesses toxic properties, it has been used in traditional medicine in the form of infusions, known as the “Zdrenko mixture”.

Alexander Fedonnikov, SSMU’s Vice-Rector for Science and Innovations, told Sputnik that this new hedge hyssop-based drug has no direct analogue in global pharmacopeia. He clarified that existing drugs on the market, known as cytostatic drugs, cause massive destruction of tumor cells, often accompanied by severe toxicity to the body.

However, SSMU scientists claim that their innovative herbal treatment, based on hedge hyssop, activates apoptosis – programmed cell death that occurs under normal conditions in the body’s functioning.

“According to the results of pre-clinical studies, this drug produces significantly fewer side effects and is better tolerated by the body,” Fedonnikov emphasized.

He also said that the developed extract is a candidate for the position of the world’s first-class plant-based anti-tumor medication. According to his assessment, industrial production and clinical application of this drug could become a cutting-edge import substitution technology in cancer treatment.

The process of hedge hyssop extraction was developed by scientists from the Research Institute of Fundamental and Clinical Uronephrology of the Department of Pathological Anatomy, and the Faculty of Pharmacy.

“A complex recipe was selected: the herb was mixed with alcohol, dissolved in water, chloroform, and so on. By comparing different extract fractions, we selected the most active one. This is how we obtained a phytopreparation from components with the highest biological activity,” explained Professor Natalia Polukonova.

She noted that during pre-clinical research, safety data for the drug were obtained for various types of laboratory animals, and the potential efficacy of the phytopreparation was proved.

“Our experiments on laboratory animals showed that one month of taking the obtained extract reduces the tumor’s growth rate by 70 percent. These are very promising numbers. A drug is considered potentially effective if it slows tumor development by at least 30 percent,” she added.

The university reported that the research was conducted on 10 different cancer cell lines, including kidney cancer, bladder cancer, sarcoma, liver cancer, ovarian cancer and breast cancer. Based on the results, the university obtained approval from the Russian Ministry of Health to conduct a Phase I clinical trial. It is expected that cancer patients in the late stages of the disease will participate in this trial.

“These individuals will receive comprehensive treatment, and the developed drug is planned to be prescribed as an addition to it,” SSMU explained, pointing out that in this regard, scientists are guided by global ethical practices. New anti-tumor drugs are typically first applied to patients in the advanced stages of the disease. The clinical trials will be conducted at the Mirotvortsev University Clinical Hospital No 1.

According to Saratov scientists, the availability of an extensive raw material base for collecting wild medicinal hedge hyssop, combined with the already established production technology, ensures 100 percent localization of the entire production cycle in Russia, from plant collection to the finished medicinal form.

“Medicinal plants are not just promising; they have long been a part of our medical aid kits, and they work. The successful completion of this clinical trial will allow us to proceed to further phases of research to evaluate its effectiveness and, after a series of clinical trials, complete the process of state registration,” the university’s deputy director noted. He added that with this development, the university has become a part of the Russian Ministry of Health’s federal project “Medical Science for Humanity”.

October 19, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Dear American College of Clinical Pharmacy:

By Lori Weintz | Brownstone Institute | October 17, 2023

I just sent this letter off to the Board of Regents of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy:

October 12, 2023

Dear Executive Director Maddux and Board of Regents,

During the past 3 1/2 years, I have observed the troubling pattern of silencing viewpoints that depart in any way from the official Covid narrative. Your cancelation of Dr. Vinay Prasad as a keynote speaker at the upcoming ACCP Conference is an example of this inappropriate trend.

This is America. The founding principle of America is the freedom of speech, without which none of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution matter, because they cannot be pursued. Healthy, vigorous, oppositional debate is essential to innovation and problem-solving.  Without debate there is no progress and people become afraid, first to speak, and then to think for themselves.

Alicia Lichvar states she “cannot – in good conscience – share a platform with an individual who promotes such harmful rhetoric.” Ms. Lichvar claims there is a role for critical discourse, but not as the Keynote speaker. Why not? Since when is it assumed that the speaker at a conference, or graduation ceremony, or civic event represents the viewpoint of all?

In this instance, ACCP appears to have sided with the false ideology recently stated at Twitter (X) that people are entitled to “freedom of speech, not reach.” In Ms. Lichvar’s world, people like Dr. Prasad have the right to their views, just not in public, which is no right at all.

This was the moment to clarify that your group values varied viewpoints by inviting Ms. Lichvar to share her side in a debate with Dr. Prasad, or in her own presentation. It was not a moment to say you will be “revisiting the keynote speaker vetting and selection process to ensure alignment with the expectations and values of ACCP members.” There were obviously ACCP members who wanted to hear from Dr. Prasad, or he would not have been selected as a keynote speaker in the first place.

People who are so fragile they cannot even hear a differing viewpoint to their own, especially one presented by a licensed and credentialed colleague, need a wakeup call, not coddling.

You, Mr. Maddux, Mr. Olsen, Ms. Farrington, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Blair, Mr. Hemstreet, Ms. See, Ms. Finks, Ms. Parker, Ms. Ross, Ms. Clements, and Ms. Badowski, are listed on the ACCP webpage under the dropdown menu of “Leadership.”

The role of real leaders is not to “ensure alignment with the expectations and values” of the vocal few, but rather to preserve the ability to approach problems and issues in a manner that allows for consideration of all sides. People cannot make informed, adult decisions, if they’re awash in a culture of “safety” where “words are violence,” and differing viewpoints are “harmful.”

I invite you to reconsider your roles, and the bigger picture of what is happening in our country today, so as to ensure that free speech and thought are the elevating principles of enlightenment in your organization.

Sincerely,

Lori Weintz

October 17, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Dozens And Dozens Of Doctors Team Up To Fight “Chilling Attack” On The Freedom Of Speech Of Senior Doctor

Dr Aseem Malhotra with his father Prof Kailash Chand OBE, who he believes died from a sudden cardiac arrest due to the Pfizer vaccine.
By JJ Starky | The Stark Naked Brief | October 16, 2023

In June, a group of doctors, some of whom are general practitioners (GPs), initiated legal action against the General Medical Council (GMC). The basis of their claim was the GMC’s alleged failure to address misinformation about the Covid vaccines.

The doctors, who prefer anonymity – cowards – delivered a pre-action protocol letter to the GMC, signalling their intent to pursue legal action. Earlier in January, this group had urged the regulator to assess Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s suitability to practice medicine, citing his alleged “prominent dissemination of misinformation regarding Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.”

Dr. Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, activist, and author, boasts over half a million Twitter followers, with his latest content primarily centering around the safety, or the lack there of, of the Covid vaccines.

Prior to receiving an official denial from the GMC, the doctors contended in an April letter that the regulator should determine if Dr. Malhotra’s professional conduct had been compromised by his alleged “anti-Covid-19 vaccine stance”. They stressed that inaction could jeopardise patient safety and public trust in both the medical field and the GMC.

Professor Trish Greenhalgh, an Oxford University GP, highlighted the GMC’s reluctance to tie perceived “anti-vaccine statements” to direct harm inflicted upon a patient. She emphasised the expansive reach of “misleading statements” in the era of social media, necessitating a reevaluation of the definition of “harm” in this context.

To defray the legal expenses for challenging the GMC, the group embarked on a fundraising campaign, collecting a reported £5,000.

Dr. Malhotra defended his stance, citing a commitment to evolve his position in line with new evidence. He mentioned his own early vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine and efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy, but stressed his belief that the mRNA vaccines present serious risks while noting their approval despite the absence of long-term safety data.

Earlier today, Doctors For Patients UK, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and Health Advisory & Recovery Team, issued a press release in response to the Good Law Project.

(It constitutes a bit of an ass-whopping in my opinion so I dare not summarise it. Here it is in its entirety):

Dear Editor

We, the undersigned doctors, and the campaign groups Doctors for Patients UK, UK Medical Freedom Alliance and HART, wish to publicly state our support for Dr Aseem Malhotra, a well-published academic and cardiologist who has been a popular commentator on medical and public health matters in the UK media for many years. We condemn the actions of a group of (mostly anonymous) doctors, supported by the Good Law Project (GLP), in seeking to silence and punish Dr Malhotra for speaking out about his concerns about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. This is a serious and chilling attack on the freedom of speech of a senior doctor.

Dr Malhotra is the son of the late BMA stalwart and NHS campaigner, Dr Kailash Chand. Following the unexpected death of his father from previously undetectable heart disease, Dr Malhotra made public statements highlighting his concerns that his father’s Covid-19 vaccinations were a causal factor in his death.

Despite initially endorsing and promoting the Covid-19 vaccines on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on 5th February 20212 he is now calling for an immediate suspension of the novel mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and a full investigation into their adverse effects, for reasons detailed in the 2-part, peer-reviewed paper he wrote, published in September 2022 in the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This is entirely in line with his duty as a responsible doctor, to protect the British public from the harm which he believes his family have suffered and to uphold the fundamental principle of medical ethics to “First do no harm”.

Dr Malhotra presented his concerns to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Vaccine Damage, on 20th October 2022 at Portcullis House, Westminster. His impassioned call to prioritise patient safety resulted in a group of anonymous doctors reporting him to the General Medical Council (GMC) for ‘high-profile promotion of misinformation about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines’, demanding they investigate his fitness to practice. When the GMC refused to carry out a Fitness to Practice (FtP) investigation, Dr Matt Kneale, a junior doctor in the group, instructed The Good Law Project (GLP) to begin crowdfunding for a legal action against the GMC’s decision, and launched a judicial review against the GMC in the High Court.

Dr Malhotra is a senior cardiologist, a well-established commentator and campaigner on public health issues, and a long-standing advocate for patient safety. His previous campaigns have raised awareness about heart disease, obesity, the harms of sugar, and corruption within the pharmaceutical industry. As an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, he was the lead author in this joint initiative with the BMJ to tackle the harms of overprescribing and unnecessary medical interventions. It is a mark of Dr Malhotra’s high regard for medical ethics that he felt compelled to speak publicly about his new and growing concerns of a link between Covid-19 vaccines and heart damage, despite initially endorsing the mRNA jabs.

It is deeply unsettling that the GLP, an entity funded primarily by the public, would turn its legal machinery toward silencing an ethical doctor. This is especially troubling given the organisation’s stated commitment to transparency and a better world. Rather than exerting legal force to silence professionals, should they not focus instead on compelling the full release of the Covid-19 vaccine trial data? The absence of such vital information from public and medical scrutiny is not just a lapse; it’s a serious breach of trust and a blow to patient safety.

By contesting the GMC’s decision to support Dr Malhotra’s right to free speech and not to carry out a formal FtP investigation (on the grounds that his statements were not sufficiently egregious to merit action), the legal action supported by the GLP risks undermining the resolve of medical professionals to speak candidly on serious health issues, a move that would have profound consequences for patient safety and the ethical practice of medicine.

The GLP challenge against the GMC decision is misconceived, misguided, and threatens doctors’ individual right to free speech and proper scientific debate on matters relating to protecting the public from dangerous products. It is deeply regrettable in a democratic society that instead of being applauded for his courage in raising the alarm, Dr Malhotra is being persecuted in this way.

Thousands of doctors worldwide and in the United Kingdom11 share Dr Malhotra’s reasonable concerns regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety. Many have spoken out on this issue, including the eminent US cardiologist, Dr Peter McCullough, who called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. The undersigned doctors and organisations are aware of multiple harms associated with the Covid-19 vaccines; among them frontline doctors who have reported vaccine-associated injuries and deaths in their own patients.

The list of signatories and co-signatories is something to behold:

  • Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, MRCGP (2014)
  • Dr Clare Craig BM BCh, FRCPath
  • Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG
  • Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health Medicine
  • Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, University of London; Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy
  • Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
  • Dr Ali Ajaz, MBBS, BSc, MRCPsych, PGCert, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
  • Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP (2016), MRCPCH (2013), DRCOG, General Practitioner
  • Dr Lucy Apps, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBChB, MRCGP, DCH, General Practitioner
  • Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
  • Dr Gill Breese, BSc, MBChB, DTM&H, DFFP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Rachel Brown, MBChB, LLM, CFMP, MRCPsych
  • Mr John Bunni, MBChB (Hons), Dip Lap Surg, FRCS [ASGBI Medal], Consultant Colorectal and General Surgeon
  • Dr Selena Chester, MBBS, Medical Practitioner
  • Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General Practitioner
  • Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist
  • Dr Phuoc-Tan Diep, MBChB FRCPath. Consultant Histopathologist
  • Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LLB
  • Dr Bob Gill, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
  • Dr Tony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant Surgeon
  • Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired Consultant Paediatrician
  • Dr Tim Kelly, MBBCh, BSc, Hospital Doctor
  • Dr Caroline Lapworth, MBChB, General Practitioner
  • Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
  • Dr Andrew Lees, MB BS, MRCGP, DCH, retired General Practitioner
  • Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB, MD, FRCSEd, FRCS (Gen Surg). MIHM, VR, Consultant Surgeon
  • Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP (2006), MRCGP (2007), General Practitioner
  • Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Janet Menage, MA, MBChB, retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
  • Dr Campbell Murdoch, MBChb, General Practitioner and PCN Clinical Director, Somerset
  • Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
  • Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner
  • Dr Sam McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & geriatrics
  • Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
  • Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician
  • Dr Fairoz Miller, BSc, MBBCh, MRCP (1999), MRCGP (2016), General Practitioner
  • Dr Alistair J Montgomery, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician, UKMFA Director of Medical Ethics
  • Dr Dean Patterson, Consultant Cardiologist and General Physician, MBChB, FRCP
  • Dr Jessica Robinson, Bsc (Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom
  • Dr Susannah Robinson, MBBS BSc MRCP MRCGP General Practitioner
  • Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), MRCGP (1981), DRCOG (1980), retired General Practitioner
  • Mr T. James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal and General Surgeon
  • Dr Magdalena Stasiak-Horkan, MBBS, DCH, MRCGP (2003-2017), General Practitioner
  • Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP (2012), retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Jannah van der Pol, iBSc, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
  • Dr Lucie Wilk, BSc, MD, FRCPC (2013), Consultant Rheumatologist

You can find a full copy of the press release here.

Currently working on a new exposè concerning the coordinated attempt to tarnish “conspiracist” celebrities. It is, however, proving to be more time-consuming than I originally expected. I should have it up in the next few days.

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

More circus theatre from the ‘safe and effective’ brigade

Nobel Prize awarded for mRNA vaccines

HART | OCTOBER 10, 2023

On 2nd October 2023, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman were awarded a Nobel Prize for their contribution to the design of the mRNA vaccines. Notably, the original inventor, Robert Malone was not included. Karikó and Weissman’s main contribution was to include a synthetic nucleotide – pseudouridine – to reduce immune attack, increase protein production and to increase the longevity of the mRNA. How long did they make it last you may ask? Nobody knows!

Dr Drew Weissman wrote in 2018 of his concerns regarding the “non-trivial” safety concerns of the mRNA technology. He included concerns about:

1. Where in the body mRNA would act

2. How long it would last

3. Autoimmunity

4. Toxicity of recycled pseudouridine nucleotides

5. Lipid nanoparticle toxicity

6. Clotting issues from naked RNA

Since 2020, he failed to raise concerns about any of these issues and instead advocated as if every single one of these concerns had been remedied.

They received their prize while both wearing large white face masks indicating their total lack of faith in the product.

The vice chair of the Nobel Committee claimed:

“giving a Nobel Prize for this COVID-19 vaccine may make hesitant people take the vaccine and be sure it’s very efficient and safe.”

This rather implies that the latest stunt is nothing more than a publicity/marketing exercise to ‘nudge’ consumer confidence. It is hard to imagine that anyone who resisted the billion dollar advertising campaign and behavioural nudges of 2020/2021 will be susceptible to this cheap trick. It is interesting how Ivermectin could be smeared by the FDA as being horse paste despite scientists being awarded a Nobel Prize for its use in medicine, specifically against parasitic diseases in humans. People’s thinking on these subjects is being constantly manipulated by those in power and is nothing if not entirely inconsistent.

Until recently, the most shameful Nobel Prize was awarded to the inventors of the lobotomy procedure. To avoid another similar disaster the committee has waited at least ten years before awarding a prize to ensure that breakthroughs stand the test of time. For some reason, that rule was ignored in this case. Perhaps the motivations were political. The question has to be asked as to whether these two characters are being set up to be the fall guys in due course.

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

DNA & SV40 In The #Pfizer Shot

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Vaccine and stroke – the unmentionable connection

By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 13, 2023

As reported in one of our favourite outlets, Global Health Now, the newsletter of the Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins University, we can expect a rise in stroke. It is already the second leading cause of death, and the recent Lancet Neurology Commission report predicts a 50 per cent rise by 2050, taking the worldwide total to 9.7 million deaths a year.

According to the report the underlying cause of the predicted increase is high blood pressure generally; in younger people, a rise in diabetes and obesity may increase stroke. The factors identified above are all, indeed, leading causes of stroke.

Could anything else lead to an increase in stroke? In these pages, reference has been made recently by Dr Angus Dalgleish to the now widespread use of mRNA vaccines introduced as a purported way of preventing Covid-19 infection (they didn’t). In that article, he refers to stroke from blood clotting as one dangerous and even fatal outcome of the mRNA vaccines. Dr Dalgleish says that the risk associated with mRNA vaccines is so great that their use ought to be banned. But, as a search of the Lancet report reveals, there is not a single mention of any relationship between the use of mRNA vaccines and stroke. Since Pfizer propose to develop further mRNA vaccines, for example for flu, the use of these vaccines may become even more widespread.

The omission of any mention of mRNA vaccines and their relationship to stroke is, surely, a major flaw in the Lancet report. This is strange, deliberate possibly, given how common the knowledge is that there is such a relationship. The possibility of a link has been reported, among other places, in BMJ Case Reports, medRxiv, Stroke, Medical News Today, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Disease and even in Lancet eClinical Medicine. So we know that the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines can cause stroke, and we know that the campaign to keep pushing the Covid-19 vaccines is relentless with proposals to develop further mRNA vaccines for more infectious diseases. What could possibly go wrong?

In addition to the likelihood of Covid-19 vaccines contributing to the increase in stroke, other aspects of the virtually worldwide overreaction to Covid-19, principally lockdown, undoubtedly contributed. Enforced confinement led to lower levels of physical activity and an increase in alcohol intake, among other things. As a result, levels of obesity rose, one of the contributing factors to stroke. While the imposition of lockdown may have ended, many people remain locked down in their minds, unable to leave home and suffering from depression. The working from home ‘pandemic’ is also unlikely to stop and this is known to be contributing to obesity.

A further effect of lockdown was lack of access to healthcare. Even one of the architects and proponents of lockdown and ‘saving the NHS’, Chris Whitty, warned in 2022 that there had been adverse consequences as a result of people not having access to life-saving drugs for cardiovascular disease. Surely, he saw that coming in 2020 and 2021, but chose to say nothing. Also a leading advocate of the Covid-19 vaccines, he was knighted in 2022. It’s enough to give you a stroke!

October 14, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

HPV vaccine on trial – the making of another drug tragedy, Part 2

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 11, 2023

In Part Two of our serialisation of the book HPV Vaccine on Trial by Mary Holland, Kim Mack Rosenberg and Eileen Iorio, we analyse what happened when an NGO, supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, recruited girls in India to test the HPV vaccine. More than 25 per cent of all newly diagnosed cases of cervical cancer in the world occur in India. It is the second leading cause of can­cer death in women, claiming approximately 74,000 lives a year. Despite this large number, cervical cancer deaths by 2005 had dropped almost 50 per cent. This occurred without the vaccine and without widely accessible screening because of several factors including better hygiene, cleaner water, and improved nutrition, among others. You can read Part One here. 

IN 2010 seven girls died in India allegedly after taking part in Gardasil and Cervarix HPV vaccine trials. A cover-up was then instigated stating that they had died of insecticide poisoning, snake bites or suicide, it is alleged. The vaccine trial is now being described by the Indian authorities as child abuse.

While India’s parliament says the trials were unauthorised and unethical, manufacturers Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and their allies, strongly disagree. However, an investigation discovered that the ‘safety and rights of children were highly compromised and violated’ as it emerged that their parents and guardians had not given proper informed consent.

A fact-finding report by physicians detailed several interviews with subjects and their family members. They learned that families were told that the vaccine would protect the subjects from ALL cancers, they were not told about any side effects, and they were not provided with any medical insurance in the event of injury or death. They learned that several of the girls suffered adverse events including loss of menstrual cycles, and psychological changes such as depression and anxiety. The report concluded that ‘the safety and rights of the children in this vaccination project were highly compromised and violated’.

Here is the background.

Shortly after the US Food and Drink Administration (FDA) approved Gardasil (Merck) in June 2006, an international NGO called Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) began a five-year project described as a ‘demonstration project’ (to test and measure effects of drugs in real-world situations). Its objective was to generate and disseminate evidence for informed public sector introduction of HPV vaccines. They chose India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam to monitor safety and efficacy. All four countries have state-funded immunisation programmes and if Gardasil and Cervarix were adopted, Merck and GSK (the maker of Cervarix), stood to make major financial gains.

Two remote provinces in India, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, were chosen for the trials in 2009 and 2010. The subsequent investigation, while initially focusing on the girls’ deaths, uncovered systemic failures in government agencies and their oversight of the trials.

PATH engaged in extraordinary practices to obtain ‘informed consent’ from minors in economically vulnerable areas. Indian law requires parents’ or guardians’ consent on behalf of minors to participate in clinical trials. For the uneducated, an independent person must be present to explain and witness the consent process.

A 2011 parliamentary committee reviewed thousands of consent forms from the two provinces signed by dormitory supervisors in schools where the girls lived without their parents. These supervisors were not the girls’ legal guardians. The committee found forms with no witness signatures and signatures by thumb impression of those who could not write. Many forms had no dates. Direct interviews revealed that trial participants had received grossly inadequate information about potential risks and benefits while being offered financial inducements to participate.

The committee harshly criticised PATH’s treatment of adverse events. They noted that there were clear situations when a vaccination should not have been given to a girl, but those conducting the study ignored contraindications. The committee observed that this was ‘clearly an act of wilful negligence’. They noted that the project design failed to account for the possibility of serious adverse events and failed to provide for an independent monitoring agency. ‘Investigations into causes of deaths took an unacceptably long time’ and there were critical discrepancies in the investigation.

The report noted: ‘PATH’s wrongful use of governmental logos made it appear as if the project were part of the Indian Universal Immunisation Program.’ The committee found governmental responses ‘very casual, bureaucratic and lacking any sense of urgency’. They concluded that ‘PATH exploited with impunity the loopholes in the system’ and ‘had violated all laws and regulations laid down for clinical trials by the government’.

PATH’s sole aim had been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers who would have reaped windfall profits had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in India’s immunisation programme. ‘This act of PATH is a clear-cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents . . . and an established case of child abuse.’

A second Parliamentary Committee report in 2013 described how PATH entered into a memorandum of understanding to study HPV vaccination with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the highest medical research body in India. PATH said the project would vaccinate around 23,000 girls aged between ten and 14. They said it did not conform to the definition of a clinical trial, so it was an observational study.

Merck and GSK supplied the vaccine to PATH free of charge. In turn, PATH distributed the vaccines to local medical agencies free. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the other costs of the study as part of its global public health activity.

(The Gates Foundation has invested heavily in India’s vaccine programme through two organisations that have influenced vaccine policy since 2002: the Global Alliance for Vaccines and immunisation (GAVI) and the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), India’s largest non-profit organisation. Pharma executives sit on GAVI’s board, which has a public-private partnership with the Indian government, providing hundreds of millions of dollars to fund vaccine programmes. Although the Indian government set up PHFI, the Gates Foundation largely funds it, causing potential conflicts of interest.)

The parliamentary committee dismissed PATH’s explanations that these studies were not clinical trials, and the report alleges that PATH resorted to subterfuge, jeopardising the health and wellbeing of thousands of vulnerable Indian girls. The report makes clear that these de facto clinical trials could not have occurred without corruption within India’s leading health organisations. The committee noted ‘serious dereliction of duty by many of the institutions and individuals involved’ and accused some of having ‘undisclosed conflicts of interest with the vaccine manufacturers’.

In October 2012, activists on behalf of the girls in the trials filed a petition in the Indian Supreme Court against the drug controller general, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State of Gujarat, PATH, GSK, Merck and others. The petition alleged that the clinical trials for Gardasil and Cervarix were unethical, that the vaccine use was illegal, and that various actors enlisted girls in an experiment and then abandoned them without follow-up treatment or adequate information.

The complaint stated that ‘adverse events were grossly under-reported and hidden. Records were falsified. Deaths that took place were stated as having nothing to do with the vaccines and were described as deaths due to suicides, insecticide poisoning, and snake bites.’ To date, the case has not been heard and proceedings seem to have stalled.

Largely because of the HPV vaccine scandal, the Indian government restricted clinical trials in 2013 and forced an end to the Merck and GSK demonstration projects. That same year the Supreme Court suspended 162 drug approvals pending the creation of a better monitoring system. In 2014, the government published new guidelines for audio/visual recording of informed consent in clinical trials.

Since 2015, though, provinces obtained the right to approve some drugs without national approval, bypassing general regulators. The Delhi government launched a school-based HPV vaccination programme in November 2016, and the Punjab government followed suit in early 2017.

In the US, there are currently about 80 cases pending in federal court against Merck for injuries associated with Gardasil, with hundreds more cases likely to be filed in the coming months.

Trey Cobb, 22, was injured by Gardasil aged 14 and developed autoimmune symptoms and severe fatigue. He won a major victory recently when the federal vaccine court ruled that he is entitled to compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

In the meantime, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil, is expected to generate £1.2billion a year in sales.

PATH contests any notion that there may have been conflicts of interest in India: ‘Any suggestion that inappropriate collusion existed in this project is baseless, wholly inaccurate, and defies the very spirit of our cross-sector partnerships, which are essential in India and around the world.’

Merck and GSK strongly deny any wrongdoing.

The HPV Vaccine on Trial was written and researched by Children’s Health Defense legal expert Mary Holland, lawyer and advocate for autistic children Kim Mack Rosenberg, and vaccine safety advocate Eileen Iorio.

Read our previous articles on HPV vaccine injured here and here.

October 14, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »