On the 27th of November, the Malaghan Institute put out a press release, which reads in part:
Professor Graham Le Gros, Director of the Malaghan Institute, says immunology is a field in which there is still much to uncover.
“Your immune system does so much more than simply fighting infection. It scrutinises all cells in the body for signs of imperfection, and eliminates those not working properly. Our immune system also detoxifies and harmonises our body with the environment, the bugs that grow on us, and the toxins in the food that we eat. And it does so with minimal interruption to our daily lives.”
However, Professor Le Gros says it is becoming clear that the human immune system needs to be educated from the early months of life to know what it should, or shouldn’t, be attacking.
“Our team of scientists at the Institute are working on applying this knowledge to the development of natural therapies that educate the immune system to stimulate the right type of immune responses for the treatment of cancer, asthma, allergy and other inflammatory diseases,” he says.
The assumption is that the immune system isn't being educated in the early months of life.
I looked at this sideways.
Then upside down.
Then the right way up.
Then I chewed on it for a few days.
I opened my mouth, and shut it.....
Is this The Malaghan Institute's idea of a sick joke?
A bad dream maybe.
Are they saying that ..... the design is defective?
The medical literature states very clearly how a baby's immune system is taught, so that it is directed NOT TO GET allergies, asthma, inflammatory disease, or cancer. And the answer is???? ................
So how is it that the Malaghan Institute appears to know nothing about the "answer" already in 'operation'? Perhaps they don't want to know. Perhaps if they do know, they realise it doesn't apply to formula fed babies, so the wheel has to be reinvented another way? Yes, formula fed babies might need help since their levels of asthma, allergies, cancer and inflammatory diseases are much higher. That fact is in the medical literature too. But again why not prescribe breast milk from a breast milk bank? They can't patent breast milk.
But what ELSE might be CAUSING the current very high levels of cancers, asthma, allergy and other inflammatory diseases in all children?
Could it possibly be....
Bad nutrition? Drugs? Vaccines? The medical profession's proclivity for prescribing antibiotics thereby permanently damaging the body's innate immune system? Environmental toxins?
Not possible, right?!!!
After all, Science is god. Science couldn't possibly have got it wrong.
P.S. The (presumably to be patented) "natural therapies" that the Malaghan Institute is developing. Ermm... now they won't possibly have any unintended consequences, ... will they?
Of course not. Why not? Because Science is always good. Continue Reading
On the 27th of November, the Malaghan Institute put out a press release, which reads in part:
Medical articles on neonatal immunity, habitually refer to a baby’s immune system as "defective"; "impaired"; "slow"; "inadequate"; "compromised" or "deficient". Usually they end with the suggestion to add exogenous compounds to “correct X defect”. Even better, to manipulate and correct them all, making a baby’s immune system “perfect” in their human understanding.
Arstechnica editorialised on a letter in Nature, in which doctors had figured out that, “ Keeping the immune system in check helps the development of healthy gut bacteria.”
The authors were surprised to find that….
“For their part, the infants seem to be tamping down their immune response to allow the beneficial bacteria to establish themselves. Obviously, this also makes them more susceptible to infection from dangerous bacteria as well, so developing a healthy microbiome is a bit of a tradeoff. The authors of the Cincinnati hospital study call it "unfortunate by-product of the greater benefits of active suppression during this crucial developmental period, when tolerance to commensal microbes is more uniformly advantageous."
Having realised there is a good reason for this immune system tamping down, they swept on to a new grand fallacy that hyporesponsiveness to infection is itself, still a defect!
It’s instructive to look at the language used in the first paragraph of the Nature letter:
“Newborn infants are highly susceptible to infection. This defect in host defence has generally been ascribed to the immaturity of neonatal immune cells; however, the degree of hyporesponsiveness is highly variable and depends on the stimulation conditions. These discordant responses illustrate the need for a more unified explanation for why immunity is compromised in neonates.”
The authors realise they have to rethink when they say, “This finding challenges the idea that the susceptibility of neonates to infection reflects immune-cell-intrinsic defects and instead highlight processes that are developmentally more essential and inadvertently mitigate innate immune protection.”
Inadvertently? Really??? If this first finding challenges an idea found to be false, to the extent that they see a need for a more unified explanation (translation - "We actually don't know what we are looking at..."), ... shouldn't the authors be challenging all their other potentially faulty assumptions?
The Nature letter describes how the baby “physiologically enriches” it's own adult CD71 cells with an enzyme called arginase-2, which in turn, dampens macrophage, granulocyte, TLR, and lymphocyte function leaving them fully mature and capable, but purposefully rendered temporarily non-functional.
There is a process during and after birth, which is very relevant to why a baby’s immune system must be dampened down. To keep it simple, this is what happens:
1) Baby comes down the vagina, picking up the mother’s vaginal flora as an initial “bacterial inoculation” to skin, nose, ears and inside the mouth.
2) By the time the baby is born, all those bacteria, viruses etc, are not only in the mouth, but spreading through the mucosal membranes and into the gut.
3) The baby is put to the breast, and receives what I call pre-colostrum. It’s a crystal clear slightly sticky fluid, which has a slightly blue tinge, and I believe its function is to flush down these bacteria and help “glue” them to all intestinal surfaces from the small intestine to the rectum.
4) On day two or three, the deep yellow colostrum becomes established in the breast. The colostrum adds special substances which encourage certain bacteria to flourish and others to die off. The pH of a breastfed baby is very different from that of a formula fed baby. Colostrum also provides the next layer of immune system instruction, via immunological substances, which “nurture” and educate the correct bacteria, flush out the incorrect bacteria, and shift the dark meconium deposits off the wall of the colon, then providing a huge array of immune system agents, all of which perform vital innate immune functions in a baby which is experiencing massive physiological shifts in metabolism, gene expression and immune function.
5) By day 5 to 7, colostrum has ‘matured’ to a compound which is named “breast milk” .
While Elahi et al are so worried about a baby’s immune system being "deficient" and unable to fight bacterial infections efficiently, the forgotten answer to that problem, is the fact that the mother provides a floating, permeating immune system passively... via breast milk.
Breast milk is a continuum of blood and an extension of in-utero growth, which orchestrates the baby's immune system for the duration of breastfeeding. Breast milk is unique, and its enormous scope of action is vastly under-appreciated by most immunologists, including the authors of this article.
Breast milk takes on the role of dealing with anything "inflammatory", which helps protect the baby from bacterial and other infections, allowing the baby’s own immune system to stay quiet. The restrictions the baby put on to the "adult's" immune system to protect itself, are gradually removed.
Ideally, a baby should be breastfed for two years because breastfeeding lays down a complete physiological foundation which promotes better overall health, even when that person is 80 years old.
And it should come as no surprise to immunologists who know the medical literature, that formula fed babies have far more infections in the first two years of life, and the detrimental effects of formula are also felt for life, with higher rates of obesity, osteoporosis, diabetes, cancer and many chronic diseases in adults who were not breastfed.
In the Nature article, the authors say that there was a “remarkable diversity in gene expression among neonatal erythroid precursor cells compared with adult erythroid precursor cells.”
Note that. “Gene expression” is the open book of the "instruction manual" for the neonatal immune system.
Fact: A baby’s immune system is no more “hypo-responsive” than is a four year old's inability to get pregnant, or a newborn's inability to send a text message.
The fact that the baby’s splenocytes and enriched CD71 erythroid cells, actively seek out and aggressively shut down inflammatory immune system components which threaten the baby’s survival, is not a "defect", nor is it something “missing, .... neither is it “inadvertent”. The fact is that if need be, the immune system can and does respond aggressively to infection, but to respond aggressively to infection can come at a price to the baby.
God did not make a mistake, contrary to the thinking of immunologists who have yet to figure out "a unified explanation" describing the immune system of an adult, let alone a neonate....
FACT: The neonatal immune system is a masterpiece of design and is completely AGE APPROPRIATE.
This first finding published in Nature, should have alerted the authors to the fact that ... a baby does not possess “discordant responses”. A baby’s immune system is not COMPROMISED in any way at all. In fact as the experiments in the letter showed, when you put adult's cells in with those neonatal cells, the powerful extra suppressive programming of the neonatal cells prevails.
In mice, the damping down is completely gone by three weeks of age. The equivalent mouse/human time frame is at least 2 years. Immunologists know that bacterial invasive disease vaccines in neonates have to be specially formulated or they won't work before the age of 2 yrs, .... because a baby's immune system is "different".
The Nature authors don't appear to have considered that there might be another very good reason why the human neonatal immune system is suppressed for a much longer time than a few days.
For what purpose?
From birth through the next year or more, a breast fed baby receives eaten and breathed antigens and allergens processed inside the mother, via her breast milk. All these potential troublemakers are wrapped safely into neutrophils, sent to the mother’s breast milk, and are presented to a baby in a parcel with a immunological message written on the outside which says, “this is safe – next time you recognise this, do not see it as a problem. This is not supposed to hurt you, so in future see it as safe.” Formula fed babies just have to make do.
The author’s conclusions stated that this "defective" ability of the baby to fight infection is:
“an unfortunate by-product of the greater benefits of active suppression during this crucial development period, when tolerance to commensal microbes is more uniformly advantageous. We anticipate that these finding will spur renewed investigation of why neonatal protection against infection is compromised, as well as study of THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES aimed at DISSOCIATING THE BENEFICIAL AND HARMFUL effects of CD71+ cells for augmenting host defence in this vulnerable population.”
Their stated intent is still to “correct” what they see as “defective”, hopefully without messing anything else in the process. When they tried to correct the first step in their study, it backfired. The good bacteria, instead of being accepted by the full on immune system, turned around and set up massive inflammation when driven by the adult system. The researchers' problem is that by their own admission, they don't have a "unified" handle on what the "anything" else is.
I have more questions along that line:
What say there is a much MUCH broader picture involving a damped down immune system, than “just” allowing gut flora to settle in the first week of life, and teaching allergen and environmental "tolerance" over a few months?
What say an “anti-inflammatory” phenotype over a longer period, is intimately linked with optimum brain development in the first two years of life?
Do regular vaccine injections from birth onwards, alter this neonatal default setting of an anti-inflammatory programming - instead forcing the immune system to respond to many things in a “pro-inflammatory” way, causing unwanted effects and creating health problems?
Can vaccines FORCE the baby’s immune system to become HYPER-reactive to environmental signals, just like the mice became, when the neonatal arginase-2 enriched dampening influence on the CD71 cells, was removed?
Might vaccines change the core immune epigenetic programming, and create an unwanted PRO-inflammatory phenotype contrary to the 'maker's manual'?
If so, ....are vaccines, antibiotics and drugs like paracetamol which alter the immune system, the cause of the huge increase in allergies, asthma, neurological disorders, and chronic ill-health in children, which was rarely seen in the days of our grandparents?
Part one: Vaccines and neonatal immune development.
Part two: How a baby fights infection and develops the immune system. (This blog is about breast milk, and you will find full text medical articles embedded in the blog)
Part three: Can vaccines become cranial and immunological cluster bombs?
(P.S. The above three parts were written in 2011, before Elahi's letter to Nature. Other than the fact that immunologists are still grappling to understand the basics of neonatal immunology, the one fact that has changed is that now we have proof that a baby doesn't have a partially formed "defective" immune system. Now we know that babies have a fully functional immune system which is carefully programmed to provide a non-inflammatory transition into toddlerhood, in order to improve survival chances.) Continue Reading
A quote from an article in a Canadian magazine, "Alive".
"A carefully controlled media has established "science" in our minds as fact... Science is merely an investigation, logically arranged and systematized. Science changes it's mind regularly and no-one seems to care. We believe the new hypothesis just as devoutly as we followed the first."
Pertussis (whooping cough) is a good example. In 1981, the brochure said, three jabs would make you immune for life. Then as time went on, they dropped to two. Then suddenly went back to three jabs. Then the next brochure decreed four, .... then five, .... then six, ....and in some countries, seven.
Now the “truth” adds on to that, "every pregnancy" and everyone around the new baby, "every pregnancy".
Next it will be your dog as well. Continue Reading
Merck’s next problem - Japan. A culture that is very much into compliance and obedience in many ways... is the first country whose parents have had the guts to ..... say......
Cervical cancer vaccine victims urge permanent halt to vaccination
TOKYO, August 24, 2013. KYODO.
Eight teenage sufferers of severe side effects of cervical cancer vaccines and their parents called on Health Minister Norihisa Tamura on Friday, to permanently end the Government’s subsidy program for the vaccines.
The schoolgirls aged between 14 and 18, including four in wheelchairs, and their parents, are members of the Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents. They made the request in a meeting with the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, at the Ministry Building, Association Chief Mika Matsufuji told a news conference.
Sotaro Sato, a medical doctor who has examined many cervical vaccine victims, told the news conference that the convulsions, inability to walk, and involuntary movements of the hands and toes were caused by encephalomyelitis, or inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.
“Cervical cancer vaccines, which are chemically bound to special types of adjuvants, often trigger encephalomyelitis,” he said.
“since the vaccine caused autoantibodies against the brain’s neuronal fibers to be produced in many cases, they have triggered demyelinating disorders,” he said, adding, “They have also induced many cases of cerebral vascultitis”.
In a cerebral Vasculitis, the body’s immune system attacks blood vessels in the brain, often leading to brain hemorrhage”, said Sato, who runs a hospital in Osaki, Miyagi Prefecture.***
____ for more information go to SANEvax.
I wonder if The New Zealand Coroner, Judge Ian Smith, will be told the findings of a Japanese doctor given at a news conference a few days ago? After all, many of the Japanese victims had exactly the same symptoms as Jasmine, and other New Zealand girls whose parents have ALL had the doors slammed on their backsides, as they walked out of the doctor’s surgery.
What is the difference between New Zealand and Japan?
First up, Japan seems to be one of the few countries where parents are still listened to by doctors, and scientists don’t appear to have been bought out by Merck. Parents in Japan have not had quite the same problems as New Zealand parents have when they girls have reacted to Gardasil. As a society, Japan is very different. While the Japanese are generally compliant, honesty and integrity are held in much higher regard than in New Zealand, and parents are not “flicked off” by doctors, there, to the same extent as they are in New Zealand.
The Japanese medical profession doesn’t treat childhood vaccines like a compulsory religion, so there is not the intense pressure to vaccinate like there is in New Zealand. Japanese parents are taken seriously, and have contacted each other, organised themselves and they are determined to get something done to have the Government halt all HPV vaccinations. Both Gardasil and Cervarix have caused reactions in Japan. Remember too, that Japan also banned MMR I, and MMR II, because in their populations, both resulted in unacceptable reactions. That fact alone will result in some people saying something like, "That must mean there is something about Japanese genes that means they are "susceptible".....". Except for one thing. There is nothing different to what is happening in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand, than there is happening in Japan in terms of reactions. What is different, is the attitude of the medical profession.
In New Zealand, when a child has a reaction to a vaccine, children and parents are rarely listened to. Excuses abound, and it requires monumental determination to get anywhere. What’s worse, is that we KNOW there are children in New Zealand who have had serious reactions to Gardasil, who are now on the streets. More on that later....
On 7th August, 2012, Rhonda Renata went for a haircut to look respectable for the Coroner’s hearing on 8 – 9th August 2012. She was sitting in the chair talking to the hairdresser about who was going to be giving evidence, and the testing results etc. Leaning on the reception desk listening was a young girl looking very upset. She spoke to Rhonda and told her that she was very scared, because she had had two Gardasil vaccines, and while she hadn’t had warts after them, everything else Rhonda described as symptoms that her daughter Jasmine had, was what was happening to her. She also said that her mother wouldn’t listen to her, and she didn’t know what to do. Rhonda was so beside herself, she rang me up in tears…. What happened to the girl? She couldn’t find out.
Over the next week, as Rhonda spoke to more people, yet more cases of problems after Gardasil, came out of the woodwork. Girls in the Wellington region “suddenly” developing seizures. And their parents being told that of course, they aren’t related to Gardasil. Girls whose periods just… stopped. Girls complaining of headaches… inability to sleep, nausea, extra heart beats... incredible arm and leg pain... the list just gets longer all the time.
And then, there are all the girls complaining of massive “pain” throughout their bodies. “Hypochondriacs” one and all, appears to be the view of most New Zealand doctors.
I caught up with the family of one of the girls who first complained of intense whole body pain amongst a constellation of symptoms, only to find that she was now a street kid, in a drug and alcohol induced stupor. She hated her family and the doctor because they couldn't help her. Only street drugs bury the pain, but they also bury her brain. Yet, when her parents went to CYPS for help, they were told that they were bad parents – of a model kid who before Gardasil, had no previous social, behavioural or academic issues.
Parents of a vaccine injured girl in the heart of the North Island told me of their adolescents' friends who were now having horrendous issues post Gardasil, which are, just the “usual teenagers going off the rails” issues – according to their family doctors. A few of those children were now with gangs and on the streets. Never anything to do with vaccines, least of all Gardasil! .... Yet guess what? The kids who hadn’t had Gardasil, weren’t having the same sorts of issues. Yes, they were having the usual stupid brainless NZ adolescent peer rubbish relating to alcohol etc, but none of the pain, the headaches, chest pains, heart issues, brain-fog and gut aches.
While the Renata family waits an eternity for a coroner’s decision on the case of Jasmine Renata, it’s just as well for New Zealand girls that there is such a low Gardasil vaccine uptake in this country.
Not that that helps the girls who have already received the vaccine. Particularly those girls who have not been helped by the medical profession. Their parents are distraught and broken people - their hopes for their children dashed.
One of the big problems in New Zealand – which Japan does NOT appear to suffer from, is that the medical profession here has preconceived ideas of what are “normal” issues when it comes to adolescents, and utter disregard for parents who say, "But this is NOT my child!"... Japanese doctors don't do that.
Nine years ago, I took an adolescent who was living with us, to a doctor because she had health issues, but didn’t know where to go with them. I could plainly see it wasn’t an adolescent issue. I’d sat back and watched, and this was different. A local doctor, supposedly very good with the elderly, listened to her with a pan face, and then told her to “pull your thumb out, your socks up, and get on with life.” The girl and I were shocked.
The appointment was immediately transferred through to my (non-NZ) doctor. We sat down with him, detailing the story again, and he took the girl seriously. Blood tests then revealed that the young girl had hemochromatosis, so the whole family had to be tested and counselled.
What is it like today in 2013? The telephones tell me the same thing as in 1987. Mention the phrase, “it started after the vaccine” and the eyes glaze over, and the trite words run off the tongue like froth off a sheep dog's tongue while rounding up stubborn renegade sheep.
At least the Japanese doctors have listened and are attempting to investigate AND find out why. Which is more than you can say for the New Zealand sheep dogs. Continue Reading
These are important thinking points which come out of this case, which readers with an indepth knowledge of Merck's litany of lies in the past will appreciate.
There are the main issues:
1) The more you investigate the legal history of Merck, you wonder how anyone can have any faith in medical articles, data sheets or information presented by Merck to the public. As far as I’m concerned Merck has never had any ethics, and the way their top staff is ‘selected’ is proof of that. Jobs for the boys who ring the tills. Or girls, as it is in the case of Dr Julie Gerberding, responsible for fast-tracking Gardasil, and now head of Merck’s vaccines division. You scratch my back, I’ll pay you handsomely.
Question: When is a legal case really newsworthy?
Answer: When it’s never covered by the mainstream media. Yet the on-going Merck MMR case - which no-one is being told about - is even more important than VIOXX was.
I wonder how Merck has managed to so skillfully keep it out of mainstream media....
So let’s update the news, …. that isn’t being told.
An article planted recently in the pro-corporate website Law360 says pretty much what Merck’s lawyers wanted it to say. Naturally, it was ignored by mainstream media. It said:
‘Eric Sitarchuk of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP emphasized that the suit brought by two former employees of the company does not hold up because they failed to demonstrate that the label of its mumps vaccine was false and that the FDA was misled about the efficacy of the vaccine….. “They’re asking the court to muscle the FDA out of the way and decide on the science,” Sitarchuk said. “It’s precisely that problem that’s why an Fair Claims Act case can’t be based on the alleged falsity of the label.”….. Sitarchuk argued that for the pair to succeed in their case they would have to allege that the government was the victim of active misrepresentations by Merck and show that the efficacy of the vaccine was less than what the company claimed.’
In two previous blogs about this case, I outlined the primary issues, and uploaded the original complaint:
Part 1: June 23, 2012. Former Merck Scientists File Suit Against Merck Under The False Claims Act
Part 2: June 24, 2012. Merck's Money Racket
What’s happened since then?
SRKW LAW is the co-lead counsel for the class action lawsuit which runs parallel to the core case.
It took a while to find all subsequent relevant documents, which I will not upload here, for obvious reasons - but here are my summaries from the three documents which provide the Judge with core arguments from relevant parties:
On 31st August 2012, Merck filled a 50 page “Motion to dismiss.” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 45) which simply attempted to rewrite the original complaint with willful inaccuracies, disregarding all allegations, while inventing new circuitous ones. Here are key omissions, and highlights:
1) Merck does NOT deny that they crossed out the numbers and wrote in new ones.
2) Merck does NOT deny that they committed the alleged multiple acts of fraud, but instead try to pretend that the allegations merely involved a misbranded label.
3) Merck attempts to argue that the case is only alleged to be a fraudulent label. Were the issue a fraudulent label, that would remove the case from the False Claims Act to another act laying blame on the FDA, not Merck.
4) Merck then takes another tack, bizarrely arguing for an illegal application of the False Claims Act, limiting or barring cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, and legally requiring whistle-blowers to FIRST exhaust all administrative remedies stating in exhaustive detail, who, what, where, when and how - ignoring the fact that in cases of corporate fraud it’s impossible for plaintiffs to have full personal knowledge of malfeasance occurring further up the hierarchy, where sophisticated means of concealment are used. This judicial demand, would rip the heart out of the statute’s application, and make the False Claims Act pointless.
5) Merck then argues that the case should be dismissed because the False Claims Act doesn’t allow private citizens to challenge the FDA’s determination.
6) Merck indulges in pure make-believe by asserting that allowing the case would unduly interfere, usurp and intrude on the FDA’s expertise, judgment and discretion to enforce its own rules and regulations.
7) Merck tries to claim that the relators are first required to file a citizen’s petition with the Fda and exhaust all administrative remedies that might have been available even though there is no requirement for any such legal pre-requisite.
8) Merck asserts that the case should be dismissed because the relators waited nine years to lodge a case, and in that time, never utilized any processes with the USA FDA. So Merck is insinuating that because the two scientists should have complained harder, and they didn’t, there can’t possibly be a case.
9) Merck also infers that because the FDA let Merck get away with it, they couldn’t have done anything wrong.
10) Merck says is that the case has no merit because the DOJ decision not to intervene proves Merck’s innocence. (I said at the end of this blog in June 2012, that Merck couldn’t be silly enough to claim this but obviously Merck’s lawyers are sillier than I thought.)
Merck’s lawyers wasted 74 pages filled with incredibly weirdly wending waffle, constant obfuscation, with a shot gun approach for various differing reasons, and in the process, repeatedly used dismissive phrases like, “minor shortcomings” “relator’s speculate” or “sleight of hand”.
Every possible attempt was made to shoot the messenger and not address any actual issues. Perhaps they thought if they were lucky, the Judge would be sleeping on the job.
Merck’s stated on page 35 of their “Motion to Dismiss” that “…relators must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistakes, including the “time, place and substance of the defendant’s alleged conduct. This they failed to do.”
At this point you’d think that Merck’s lawyers would clearly realize the ridiculous paucity of their case – but in reality, what else could Merck lawyers do, if Merck is actually unable to deny any of the original allegations? Their only course of action was to hope that the judge was dumb enough to be easily confused by their illogic.
Which of course played right into the hands of the relators.
On 9th October 2012, the relators handed to the court, a 74 page “Memorandum to oppose Merck’s motion to dismiss” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 47) in which they restated their original complaints, and listed clearly how they had actually fulfilled all Merck’s page 35 criteria, and more besides.
The relators gave a brief history and gave blow by blow evidence showing that the case against Merck centred around provable:
1) Improper efficacy testing.
2) Falsifying efficacy test data.
3) Destroying evidence of the fraud.
4) Lying to the FDA.
5) Putting fraudulent labeling on datasheets and bottles.
6) Making fraudulent Government submissions, fraudulent CDC purchase contracts, false certification of compliance, thereby fraudulently inducing CDC to enter into contracts.
7) Violating Merck’s subsequent multiple ongoing duties of government and public disclosures in order to maintain its marketing monopoly with CDC, while foreclosing the government from access to high quality and less expensive vaccines.
8) Subsequently lying to the European Medical Agency in 2004, stating that mumps component had more than 95% efficacy with the label stating 96.7%.
9) Merck lied to the FDA regarding MMRII, saying that it would actually reduce the amount of virus in the vaccine and maintain it’s 95% efficacy.
10) Merck did not tell its own funded puppet (Immunisation Action Coalition) these facts.
11) Merck did nothing to stop any third party repeating what Merck knows to be lies.
12) Merck continues to tell USA healthcare professionals in its websites that vastly outdated studies put the mumps component at 96% seroconversion rate.
13) Merck’s actions render false all certification by Merck since at least 1999.
On 25th May, 2013, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 54 page document, (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 54) delivering a swift winkle-picker up the backsides of Merck’s lawyers, by incisively demolishing Merck’s arguments. The highlights of this document are:
1) The DOJ continues to remain a real party in interest with a strong interest in the outcome.
2) Merck's argument that suits by private citizens are not allowed, “is not supported by statutory text or case law and is inconsistent with the purposed of the False Claims Act”.
3) That the relators stand in the “government’s shoes”
4) That Merck’s illegal application interpretation of the of the False Claims Act, seeking to limit or bar cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
5) That “it is no surprise that Merck cites to no decisions that only the Government and not a relator can litigate this type of False Claims Act suit” and that” the government is aware of no such holding in a False Claims Act”.
6) DOJ successively trashes the use of the cases argued by the Merck lawyers, making the Merck legal team look like a bunch on bunnies caught in headlights.
7) DOJ then took apart the other spurious arguments of Merck, in such a way that pretty much backs up the relators, stating “allowing relators to prosecute such False Claims Act suits (as long as sufficiently pleaded) serves the primary purposes of the qui tam provisions”.
8) And finally, the DOJ, opposed all Merck’s reasoning to dismiss the case.
For those with eyes to see, what this case is about is blindingly obvious.
The DOJ is practically telling the judge that Merck is guilty. Continue Reading
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
And here is where the Ministry of Medical Truth's reformulating the meaning of the world nocebo, is the new scientific paradigm. Their aim is to rescue an industry annually teetering on the edge of the next scandal.
On the one hand, they need definable effects, and credible proof which is difficult, because as Manfred Schedlowski says, "… we know the nocebo effect can be really really large… this hinders development of new drugs.” And “the nocebo effect may also have a really worrisome effect on vaccine use". Oh yes, you can create fear, to make people use vaccines, but when parents say that vaccines cause reactions, you can’t study that, because It's all "nocebo" caused by parents reading the facts from the vaccine datasheets. And as Dr Bernadine Healy stated:
“Healy said: "There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. "First of all," Healy said, "I think the public's smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."
Yet that’s exactly what they have done. The medical system has turned their backs on FACTS because they are afraid of the truth that those facts might confirm that it's not nocebo at all, but that being biologicals, meaning that they do affect the biology of the person, vaccines do indeed have the potential to wreck lives. THEREFORE they invoke the placatory placebo principles and make sure that all research only asks questions and uses methods designed to dismiss what parents see, return to business as normal, and not to get to the bottom of any of the issues.
"Worried Sick" tells us that nocebo increases the “incidence of asthma and allergies… we know an allergic reaction can be conditioned.”
I couldn’t help laughing at the last quote, because for a very long time, I have believed that vaccines in babies result in a fundamental changing of the immune system, resulting, amongst other things, in an increase in allergy and asthma:
1. Vaccines and neonatal immune development 23-May-2011
2. How a baby fights infection and develops the immune system 24-May-2011
3. Can vaccines become cranial and immunological cluster bombs? 25-May-2011
Please note in the three blogs above, that EVERYTHING I say comes from medical articles for which links are provided. Ask yourself this. Did all the immunologists who wrote the things I discussed suffer from a nocebo delusion that what they saw was real? Yes, an allergic reaction can be conditioned: … by deviant immune responses to allergens and vaccines, but that isn’t what this article is meaning. It's all in your imaginations, mammas!!!
And here’s the interesting thing. Just about every second child you meet these days, appears to have some dairy sensitivity or a gluten intolerance – the list is legion.
The article infers that these allergies and asthma are a new form of nocebo, and that, the children are the victims of a psychologically deranged parental child abuse.
Why parents would want to make their lives into that sort of hell beats me, but it seems that this is where the medical profession is heading with this argument. Everything will soon be your fault!
I wonder what would happen in the unfortunate scenario that I landed up in hospital from a car crash? Here's the imaginary discussion:
Dr: "I see your medic alert says you're allergic to all antibiotics. Can you describe the symptoms please?"
Me: Well, my neck and face swell up like a balloon, and I start choking and can't breathe. And usually don't remember much after that."
Dr: "Well, never mind. We know that's all caused by nocebo effects, and was all in your mind. That won't happen again now that you know your hypochondria caused it, so we'll just go ahead and use what we like...."
You know why that wouldn't happen. Because the medical system would be sued to Mars and back again.
Don't you think it's bizarre, that you can legitimately be allergic to drugs, anaesthetics and a whole raft of things, but suddenly they are framing allergies and asthma as being a psychosocially induced disease?
And you can see WHY this shift in language...., because the sheer numbers of drugs and vaccine reactions being brought up by parents and people to their doctors is staggering. Reactions of any sort financially threaten an industry which wants to look benevolent and convince us all that they are not capable of doing any harm at all.
THEREFORE the focus must come away from drugs and onto people….. No doubt, the end aim of that, will be the new vaccine, Pluracydafex which will abolish patient nocebo forever!!! (see Pages 82, 118, 132-133, and 147 in our 2008 book, "From One Prick to Another". PDF can be got here.)
They want to research nocebo to nail the issues down and come up with their version of scientific data....., but they have a huge problem. Paul Enck a psychologist at the University of Tubingen Germany, puts it in a nutshell when he says that "he can’t study nocebo ‘ “..unless I tell the subjects that I’m deceiving them” a requirement that obviously defeats the purpose of the deception."
But wait. They have come up with a nifty solution……
To be continued. Continue Reading
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
Part Six: Reforming Nocebo.
The solution for the medical system? It’s pretty simple really. If you aren't allowed to "deceive" people, to research what happens when they are deceived, only one possible action remains. Only ever tell patients the GOOD THINGS a drug or vaccine can do. Say, "Just trust us. WE know what we are doing...."
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
As I look at young mothers today, I see a generation who, like never before, have been so saturated with medical nocebo in school, .... that fear and stress is often etched on their faces at the mention of the word “doctor”. They have been artfully brainwashed. You just have to read some of the things they say on facebook and twitter to realise that when it comes to fact, if you look in the right ear, you might see out the left. They are so frightened, that as this video so clearly shows, that FEAR switches off their critical faculties, and the word “expert” holds them in a blinded thrall. Continue Reading