January 11, 2011
A recent news report claims that there has been a spate of false advertising by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline for their HPV vaccines. SANE VAX sent out a press release this week reporting that around the world HPV vaccines have been falsely advertised. They state that as a consequence of false advertising France have banned Gardasil advertising and many adverts for Cervarix have been removed in the UK.
On the 31 August 2010, France banned advertising Gardasil as an anti-cancer vaccine in their country. A press release went out on the 4th January 2011 from SANE VAX entitled Gardasil, One Less Victim of Cervical Cancer?” France says ´NO´ as they ban Gardasil ads stating:
“Amidst all of the media hype surrounding HPV vaccines, the traditional press has remained silent on many critical issues, not the least of which occurred on the 31 of August 2010 in France. As of that date, Merck´s marketing partner for the HPV vaccine Gardasil, Sanofli-Pasteur, was officially prohibited from advertising Gardasil for cervical cancer prevention in France.
According to public documentation, the Director General of the French Agency for Safety of Health Products (AFSSAPS) found the sponsor of several Gardasil ads to be in direct violation of the French public health code.”
India also has had problems with the HPV adverts. In December 2009 the Indian authorities felt that GlaxoSmithKline were misleading the public in the way that they advertisted Cervarix. The Drugs Controller General of India or DCGI; the Drug Regulatory Authority of India pulled up GlaxoSmithKline Plc´s (GSK) for what they called “unlawful” propagation of its cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix, through mass media.
They stated at the time that GlaxoSmithKline´s promotional advertisement campaign had appeared in different newspapers and on television channels announcing that the vaccine was effective against cervical cancer and this contravenes the provisions of Indian drug laws.
The DCGI stated that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Drugs & Magical Remedies Act 1954, does not allow any claim to prevent or cure diseases in Schedule J of the Act, which includes cancer and the adverts they said does just this.
Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, drugs sold under prescription cannot be advertised and this includes vaccines. India only allows advertisement of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs.
Even though the GlaxoSmithKline adverts did not refer to the name of its product Cervarix anywhere in the ad campaign experts are reported to have said the following:-
“Those ads clearly claim that vaccination can prevent cervical cancer, so it doesn´t matter that they don´t name the vaccine.”
It was reported that DCGI Surinder Singh was quoted to have said:-
“They (GSK) say the vaccine will be effective for cervical cancer. This kind of advertising is not allowed”
GSK were asked by the DCGI to withdraw promotional advertisements for the cervical cancer vaccine, because they believed the campaign to be violating certain norms. A spokesman for GSK said:
“We have received a show cause notice from the DCGI regarding our disease awareness campaign on cervical cancer. We are in the process of responding to the same suitably,”
See here for details
In February 2010, I wrote an article entitled Cervarix HPV vaccine adverts are untrue and should be banned. In the article I explained my outrage at the adverts in the UK advertising the Cervarix vaccine. At the time the UK advertising campaign used the phrase ‘Armed for life’ as their campaign slogan. This was an outright lie as this vaccine does not ‘arm’ teenagers for life against cervical cancer. I felt so strongly about these lies that I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority and complained. I sent a very strong letter and backed it up with evidence. Imagine my surprise when I received a letter back stating:
“Based on the information you provided, it appears you have a valid point and with a view to acting quickly, we have instructed the advertisers to change the ad.We have asked them to amend the ad so that either the text ‘for life’ is removed from the claim ‘Arm yourself for life’, or the text ‘The vaccine and regular cervical screening will help protect you for life’ is added to clarify the headline claim.”
As a result of my complaint my local Primary Care Trust decided to remove all the adverts instead. Gradually all the adverts disappeared.
SANE VAX reports on the full story in an article entitled Cervarix – Armed for life? United Kingdom says ´NO´ as they battle false advertising . Grace Filby a member of the SANE VAX team then took up the challenge to remove the slogan off all internet sites and advertising.
Reports have come in from other countries stating that they to are seeing false advertising. Sandy (surname removed) a professional from Norway has told me that they to have advertising problems. She states that on one of the medical sites it says “Det er dumt å la kvinner dø unødig når livmorhalskreft kan forebygges ved hjelp av HPV-vaksinen”. Translated: “It’s foolish to let women die unnecessarily when cervical cancer can be prevented by the HPV-vaccine”.
This has got to stop for the sake of the children. This is propaganda drummed up to sell vaccines. These vaccines are now given to children of both sexes from the age of nine. In the USA alone there has been 20,915 Adverse Events, 370, Abnormal Pap Smears and 89 Deaths reported on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System VAERS and 5 Deaths uncovered by Judicial Watch, not included in VAERS reports. If you see false advertising of these vaccines in your country please contact the SANE VAX team at http://sanevax.org/ who will look into the matter.
December 3rd, 2010
A child of twelve was charged with ‘threatening behaviour’ at his school in Bowmanville, East of Toronto last week. The arrest happened when the boy (who cannot be named for legal reasons) threw a tantrum refusing the Hepatitis B vaccine. The National Post reported (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010…) that police were brought into Ross Tilley Public School because the boy had threatened to damage the school. Unfortunately, the report failed to give the reason why the child was refusing the vaccine or what made him so angry.
The National Post said:
“Officers consulted with the Crown attorney’s office and charged the boy with threatening, a criminal charge police said was justified: “due to the age of the child and concerns over public safety.”
This may or may not be true; however, at no time did there appear to be any concern for this child’s welfare. There may have been many reasons why the twelve year old did not want to be vaccinated. These range from being afraid of the needle to being worried about the possible side effects. It could be that Hepatitis B is in fact a disease that is mainly transmitted through sexual intercourse or sharing dirty drug needles!
For the side effects for more information on the Hep B vaccine please read – Drugs.Com, Side Effects of Hepatitis B vaccine – for the Consumer (http://www.drugs.com/sfx/…)
It appears from the report that it is perfectly OK to give this vaccine to the children at school but it is clearly not an option for any child to refuse to have it. Having the police brought into the school sends out the message to the other children that they must not refuse the vaccine. Clearly this child did not want to have the vaccine and was subsequently treated like a criminal/animal as a result.
But is it perfectly OK to force vaccinate a child if that child refuses the vaccine?
Hospitals and schools are supposed to use a law called the Gillick law to establish whether a child is competent enough to decide whether they want/do not want a medical procedure.
When a parent does not want their child to have a vaccine a child has the right to decide that they want the vaccine and overrule their parents wishes by using the Gillick law. A recent document entitled The Royal College of Nursing Signpost Guide: Nurse-led Immunisation of School Aged Children explains the Gillick law as follows:
“…even if a child is under 16, she or he might be able to give consent to medical treatment providing that they have sufficient understanding of the proposed procedure.” (http://www.rcn.org.uk/…)
However, a child may also refuse medical treatment even if the treatment is life-saving.
Although the Gillick law originally was approved for use in England it is now used worldwide.
When children refuse medical treatment: role of government and assessments; a standardized test to assess a child’s maturity and understanding would help judges in their Solomonic roles to render more uniform decisions.(Canada)
To determine the law in Canada they use the Medical Consent of Minors Act, R.S.N.B. 1976, c. M-6.I.
CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS, AND HEALTH CARE – Canadian law and Policy (http://library.athabascau.ca…) by Julie Gilmore explains the act in full. She says: “Treating without consent can give rise to tort, criminal and professional disciplinary liability.”
We have to consider at this point whether arresting the 12 year old was protecting him while respecting his wishes to refuse medical treatment.
Can a 12 year old be mature and competent enough to understand the consequences of not having a vaccine? If he is deemed competent and mature enough to be arrested then one would pressume that he was.
In the UK the Gillick law was used in the case of Hannah Jones. This was a young lady aged 13 who required a life saving heart transplant as a result of treament for leukemia. Hannah felt that she had had enough, she felt tired and wanted to go home and spend the rest of days there. She said: “I am not a normal 13 year old. I am a very deep thinker. I have had to be, with my illness. It’s hard to know I’m going to die, but I also know what is best for me.”
However, the hospital decided that Hannah was too young to make this decision. Hannah’s parents wanted to honour Hannah’s wishes to stop the treatment and allow their daughter to return home. The hospital used the Gilliack law saying that the girl did not know her own mind and took the case case to court asking for police to be sent in to Hannah’s home and to temporarily remove Hannah from her parents so that the transplant could go ahead. The hospital accused her parents of being ‘bad parents’ for preventing Hannah’s treatment.
Fortunately the court decided to uphold the girls wishes. See the full story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail…)
The case in the National Post only gave the public a one sided version of the story. It seems neither the boy nor his parents were interviewed. Therefore, reading between the lines, one can only assume that this lad was being forcibly vaccinated. If this was the case, then we should ask ourselves, “Was the correct person arrested in this instance?” If the child was old enough and competent enough to be arrested, then according to the Medical Consent of Minors Act, R.S.N.B. 1976, c. M-6.I., he was well within his rights to refuse this vaccine.
It is stated here (http://www.allbusiness.com/legal…) that a doctor may not agree with a patient’s decision to reject medical attention including vaccines, but as long as the child is capable of making that decision, the doctor must respect it. It is clear that the 12 year should have been tested to establish whether he was Gillick competent. If this did not happen then according to the Canadian Act it was the school who broke the law regardless to what this child did or did not threaten. Since when have schools become doctors?
In conclusion, it is clear that the 12 year should have been tested to establish whether he was Gillick competent. If this did not happen, then according to the Canadian Law it was the school officials that the police should have arrested because the school officials violated this young man’s freedom of choice.
November 24th, 2010
The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/heal…) have announced that the UK have decided to give toddlers vaccines for six diseases at once. David Derbyshire a journalist for the Mail says:
“Toddlers are to be inoculated against six diseases at once in a bid to boost vaccination rates, the Government revealed yesterday”
“The ‘super-vaccination’ day will involve three injections to protect against measles, mumps, rubella, two forms of meningitis and bacteria that can cause pneumonia.”
The vaccines to be used in the UK’s three shot ‘super vaccination’ day are the MMR, PCV and the Hib/Men C.
This unusual and controversial move was on the advise of the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), an organization that sanctions and approves the vaccine policies in the UK. According to the Mail, the committee’s research shows that combining multiple vaccines on one day would cause no health problems. The Government believes the change will simplify the complicated vaccine schedule and boost the uptake of vaccines after the MMR scare in 1998.
However, many professionals are unhappy that the JCVI are now controlling the vaccine policies in the UK. The Child Health Safety website (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com…) have called the JCVI ‘needle happy and reckless’,saying that they have serious concerns over conflicts of interest.
“Giving the JCVI control over vaccination policy appears little different to giving control directly to the drug industry”
Child Health Safety continue:
“The JCVI is drawn from the British Medical professions and includes members with drug industry financial conflicts of interest [Declarations of Interests] and an historically poor record to the present day on vaccination and child health safety [revealed in Freedom of Information documentation ”
Paul Offit from the University of Pennsylvania stated in 2005 that in ‘theory’, a baby’s immune system can cope with having as many a 100,000 vaccines in one go, although he did change this later to 10,000. This was said when he was promoting the Pediarix vaccine a five in one vaccine, containing hepatitis B, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (whooping cough vaccine). (http://www.whale.to/vaccines/offit23.html)
I feel it is important to point out at this point that Paul Offit also has conflicts of interest. He is a member of the CDC advisory committee and has disclosed that he received $350,000 grant money from Merck to develop the rotavirus vaccine, in which he shares the patent, which was pulled 6 months after is was licensed because of severe problems. The Wall Street Journal has said that Dr Offit gets paid to go around the country teaching doctors that vaccines are safe. (http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com…)
Ginger Taylor a writer, speaker, advocate, activist, and therapist and owner of the blog ‘Adventures in Autism’ calls Offit ‘A poster child for medical conflicts of interest.’ In an email to Mr. Huvane and Mr Kranzler (http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com…) she said:
“Further, Paul Offit was personally reprimanded by the U.S. Congress, at length, for his ethics problems. He actually sat on the ACIP, the CDC committee that decides what vaccines go on the US schedule, and voted for RotaShield to be added to the schedule, knowing full well that it would pave the way for his own vaccine, Rotateq to be added and be immediately put into wide spread use as soon as it came to market. Which is exactly what happened. Offit should have abstained from any comments or votes on any thing to do with Rota virus because of his conflicts of interest.
Paul Offit is the poster child for medical conflicts of interest.
When you take vaccine advice from him, it is as if you called Merck to ask if their products cause autism.”
According to the Parents PACK October 2005 (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/…) Offit said:
“Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines. A baby’s body is bombarded with immunologic challenges – from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.”
Having just shown that Dr Offit has an ulterior motive for promoting vaccines, just how safe is vaccinating a baby with six vaccines in one go? According to Neil Z Miller a medical research journalist and natural health advocate, not very. In his booklet, Overdosed Babies – Are Multiple Vaccines Safe? (http://thinktwice.com/overdose.pdf) he likens multiple vaccines to the equivalent of pouring 3 shot glasses of whiskey, gin and rum into one glass. He explains that you even though the shots are in one glass you are still ingesting 3 alcoholic drinks – not just one – with all the anticipated side effects.
Taking this into account a baby having six vaccines in a single paediatric visit, is the equivalent to the baby receiving six different drugs on one day. Also the baby will be subjected to not just one but three painful shots in one go which is extremely traumatic for a young child.
It was stated in the book ‘Vaccines’ that Dr Offit contributed to however:
“Studies of cortisol concentration and behavioral responses of infants to vaccination indicate that responses are similar in infants who receive two injections during one visit and those who receive a single injection, suggesting that a second injection does not increase stress.” Vaccines, 4th ed. pp. 103.
This statement is totally misleading, as a young child will scream just as loudly whether they have had one, two or twenty two vaccines and to say differently is ridiculous.
Due to new evidence recently revealed, the UK government is in fact deceiving parents. It has now been revealed that multiple vaccinations in one go are not as safe as they would want us to believe. The UK government are fully aware of this fact.
On the 27th October 2010 some very disturbing news came to light. The website WDDTY revealed that recent evidence discovered by a journalist on FOI (Freedom Of Information) shows that forty children have died in the UK after routine vaccinations such as the MMR. Another 2,100 children have suffered a serious reaction. This came to light when the UK were forced to disclose the information.
WDDTY (http://www.wddty.com/40-uk-children…) say:
“The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) was forced to reveal the figures following a request from a journalist under freedom of information legislation.”
“It is suspected that just 10 per cent of all deaths and reactions from vaccines are ever reported; if so, this means that 400 children have died from a vaccine and 21,000 have suffered an adverse reaction in the UK alone.”
Despite knowing these alarming facts, the UK government are still saying that multi vaccinations are safe and effective. They are lying to parents by saying these vaccines are safe when clearly they are not. The government are fully aware that vaccine injuries are under reported and that these vaccines are killing possibly hundreds of children. However, instead of looking into these alarming figures and discovering why so many children are dying or being injured after a vaccine, they are more intent on pushing vaccine uptake. Once again they are seen putting profit before the health and safety of UK’s children.
- Vaccines have destroyed lives for decades and the UK Government tried to cover it up
- Parents criticize government for not acting sooner
- Hidden Government Papers on the Measles Vaccine Exposed
- The lies the Government tell when it comes to vaccines
- U.S. Government to Americaâ€™s Vets: Drop Dead
- The British Government refuse to compensate health workers who become ill after conditional vaccines
- Parents Continue to Support Doctor Andrew Wakefield
November 9, 2010
EBENSBURG — A jury of six men and six women is expected to begin deliberating by this afternoon whether a Johnstown father is guilty of shaking his infant son so severely that it caused bleeding into the baby’s brain and eyes.
Joshua W. Miller, 42, formerly of Stone Street, is charged with aggravated assault, child endangerment, reckless endangerment and simple assault.
Miller is accused of shaking his 2-month-old son on the evening of Jan. 14, 2009, while the mother was at work and Miller and his son were home alone. The baby was rushed to Memorial Medical Center by ambulance shortly after 10 p.m. when Miller made a frantic call for help to 911 because his son was unresponsive and grasping for breath.
The infant was treated at the Johns-town hospital before being transferred early the next morning to Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, where he was admitted for seven days.
The trial in Cambria County court neared its end Tuesday with testimony from two doctors – one for the prosecution and the other for the defense – who gave conflicting opinions on what caused the bleeding in the baby’s brain.
Dr. Janet Squires, a pediatrician who heads the child advocacy program at Children’s Hospital, said the bleeding was due to shaking of the infant. She was the prosecution’s medical expert.
“With medical certainty, I believe this child was abused,” Squires said.
No evidence was found of any underlying medical problems that would have caused the bleeding, she said.
But Dr. Ronald Uscinski, a Maryland neurosurgeon who has written extensively about shaken baby cases, said the bleeding was caused by an older injury to the membrane around the brain that “existed weeks or months and was missed (in medical exams). It was a birth injury, quite likely.”
Uscinski, hired by the defense, said the fresh blood that was seen on CAT scans does not mean a fresh injury, but bleeding from a chronic previous injury. Areas of old blood “almost certainly” remained from an injury during childbirth, he said.
Chief public defender Lisa Lazzari, who is representing Miller, has not indicated whether she will call him or other defense witnesses before resting her case.
Tamara Bernstein and Beth Bolton Penna, assistant district attorneys prosecuting the case, also have the option of calling rebuttal witnesses before the attorneys present their closing statements to the jury.
Testimony on Tuesday was delayed for an hour when Lazzari made a motion for a mistrial. She said the prosecution and the Johnstown police had failed to turn over reports about contacts with the baby’s mother last year.
The mother, who testified Monday, had denied there were any attempts by police to communicate with her, although a police report indicated there had been some contact with or attempts to contact her.
Lazzari said she could have used the information in her cross-examination of the mother.
Judge David Tulowitzki refused to grant a mistrial. Instead, with the agreement of both sides, he read to the jurors a statement that the prosecution “did not maintain proper contact with the mother in the case against Joshua Miller.”
This video is about Max Majeski’s journey after an adverse reaction to the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth.
How Important is Hepatitis B Vaccination at Birth?
Read on for another story of a child suffering from Hepatiis B Vaccination at birth.
Managing Editor’s Note: Below is the tale of Ian Gromowski, a boy who lived 47 days after his at birth Hepatitis B vaccination. Thank you to his mom Deanna for sharing her agonizing story with us. I am proud that Age of Autism is here to publicize stories like Ian’s. (And there are many more stories. I’m thinking of a darling girl in NJ named Gianna who succumbed to her vaccinations.) Autism One Radio featured Ian’s story last week. Download Deanna GromowskiFINAL
Deanna and her husband have a healthy baby boy named Vance. Deanna is now battling thyroid cancer. You can read more of Ian’s story here: www.iansvoice.org.
By Deanna Gromowski
There are days I cannot believe what happened to my son Ian Larsen Gromowski.
It almost seems as though it was a bad, horrible nightmare that I cannot wake up from. My name is Deanna Gromowski and I am just a mom.
I live in Wisconsin and have a bachelor’s degree in Psychology from UW-Milwaukee and my husband Scott has his bachelor’s degree in Sports Management from UW-LaCrosse. I work in Human Resources and he decided to get a 2nd degree in Fire Science and is now a full-time fire fighter. We dated for 3 years and then got engaged and a year later married in Hawaii in 2005. We decided to hold off on children for the first year to enjoy married life.
We ‘did everything right in life’, we planned and prepared and educated ourselves about all our major life decisions.
Then June 25, 2007 and our son Ian was born completely healthy. Well, there was a slight mishap at birth and it is very common. Ian swallowed meconium (his stool) as he came through the birth canal. He was originally brought back to our room with us, but then the nurses noticed he was having trouble breathing.
The meconium is like tar and it was in his lungs. So Ian was admitted to the NICU, discharged the next day to our room, but yet again went back because he hadn’t worked all of the meconium out quite yet. Scott and I were worried, as new parents, who wouldn’t be, but we knew it was common and we were told this many times. Some babies need 2 to 3 weeks to work the meconium out of their lungs.
Ian was having a hard time getting this tar worked out, but you cannot imagine our JOY when the doctors told us on his 5th day of life, June 30th, 2007, that he would be able to go home. All he needed was his hearing test and his Hepatitis B vaccination.
We couldn’t wait for both of them to happen so we could go home. Looking back Scott and I get frustrated because we weren’t really given an option about the vaccine. We were told to sign a form (in which we were not given any instructions on vaccines) and I remember it seemed strange because the form we signed didn’t have an area for a parent signature, the nurse had to physically write in “Parents Signature” and “draw a line”. Hardly seems professional or right, but I signed it anyway. I look back on that form to date and still get sick to my stomach.
Ian was given his Hepatitis B vaccination on July 1st, 2007 even though he was fighting off the meconium, even though he had a fever ABOVE 100 degrees on June 30th, and even though he had a fever above 100 degrees the day of July 1st they STILL VACCINATED HIM. It states on the Center for Disease Control (CDC) website this : “Some people should not get hepatitis B vaccine or should wait.
Anyone with a life-threatening allergy to baker’s yeast, or to any other component of the vaccine, should not get hepatitis B vaccine. Tell your provider if you have any severe allergies.
• Anyone who has had a life-threatening allergic reaction to a previous dose of hepatitis B vaccine should not get another dose.
• Anyone who is moderately or severely ill when a dose of vaccine is scheduled should probably wait until they recover before getting the vaccine. Your provider can give you more information about these precautions..”
So how are parent’s to know if their child is allergic to baker’s yeast? Do you want to just risk it? I would consider Ian moderately ill because he was in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and still had a fever. Shouldn’t the experts know this information. Isn’t it there job? Well, that is all hindsight and immediately after Ian was vaccinated the following happened:
FACT: After receiving the Hepatitis B shot these symptoms also appeared:
• Platelets dropped from 248,000 to 131,000 – severe thrombocytopenia
• Scalded-like rash appeared
• Seizures noted
• Irritable, crying non-stop
• Stopped eating
• Viral-like symptoms
His pictures speak a million words. Within 12 hours of his vaccination he had the rash, within 24 hours the severe thrombocytopenia set in, and then he was in a fatal state from then on. NO DOCTORS, NURSES, STAFF would even consider the vaccination as the source.
Nothing else happened, no medicines of any kind because he was supposed to be going home! It even lists on the CDC website that 1 in 1.1 million have a severe reaction and on the Merck website it indicates that thrombocytopenia is a typical reaction of a person with a vaccine reaction. Why didn’t they know this? Why wouldn’t they consider the vaccination? It is possible. It even states so on the form from the CDC that they were SUPPOSED to give us and didn’t!!
Ian lived for 47 days. My son suffered nearly his entire life. Look at the pictures. Imagine watching your child going through this pain and not being able to do anything. No one would listen to us….we are just parents, what do we know? We didn’t leave his side for one moment. We lived at the hospital, literally. I couldn’t save my first born son, I couldn’t make the ‘ouchie’ better. I sat there day in and day out and watched this vaccination destroy his organ one at a time.
But I want you to know that Ian was an old soul. He had a peaceful presence about him. He received edema massages 2 times a day for his swelling and he loved it! The therapists said most babies in his situation do not do well with massages, but he was relaxed, peaceful, and accepting. He fought so hard. He is the strongest person Scott and I have ever met. He took our admiration to a level we didn’t know existed in the world. He was and is our little Sunshine, but more importantly he is OUR HERO.
We now are blessed with another son, Vance. Vance shares his brother’s blonde hair and has blue eyes that glisten like the sky. Vance is almost 6 months old and Vance is not vaccinated yet. Pending on the future of vaccines, we don’t know if he ever will be. Hopefully Ian’s story will touch the lives of others including people who care for children. His case is not as rare as one would think.
Ian Larsen Gromowski
June 25, 2007 – August 10, 2007
Birthplace: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Resided In: Brookfield Wisconsin USA
Funeral Home: Max A. Sass & Sons Funeral Home
Visitation: August 14, 2007
Service: August 14, 2007
Gromowski, Ian Larsen
Returned safely to the arms of Jesus on August 10, 2007. Precious son of Scott and Deanna Gromowski. Cherished grandson of Lawrence (Pamela) Gromowski and Gregory (Anita) Lehrkamp. Beloved great-grandson of Eugene Gromowski, Patricia Larsen and Bill Betlinski. Loving nephew of Paul (Amy) Gromowski and Melissa Waszak. Further survived by other relatives and many amazingly dear friends.
A Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated on Tues. Aug. 14, 7:30 PM at ST. JOHN VIANNEY CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1755 N. CALHOUN RD., BROOKFIELD. Visitation AT THE CHURCH on Tues. from 6 PM until time of Mass.
Special thanks to the NICU nursing staff of St. Joseph�s Hospital and Children�s Hospital. Ian was a fighter with a strong spirit. He will be forever loved and never forgotten.
Mommy and Daddy love you more than you will ever know.
You will always be our sunshine
In June 2008 a promotional DVD was sent to every General Practitioner (G.P.) in the UK just hours before the launch of the Cervarix vaccine in the UK. The DVD was posted with the G.P. magazine and was a clever marketing strategy aimed at busy G.P.’s to ‘brainwash‘ them into believing that the Cervarix vaccine protected young women from the perils of cervical cancer. With phrases such as ‘Cervarix, the vaccination to prevent cervical cancer’ and convincing animation, the DVD certainly goes all out to convince the medical profession that the vaccine is safe, effective, and a must for all young women.
One organisation that promotes vaccination safety S.A.N.E Vax Inc (http://sanevax.org/) (Safe, Affordable, Necessary and Effective Vaccines) were so shocked at what G.P.’s were told that they have decided to dispel the myths. The organisation has decided to present the G.P.’s and the public with a more accurate description of Cervarix vaccination.
Having seen the DVD myself, I was appalled at how Glaxo Smith Kline market their products to busy G.P.’s.
The film opens up with the line ‘Vaccination to prevent Cervical Cancer‘ This vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. The vaccine was developed to help prevent cases of the Human Papillomavirus infection which are said to be one of the causes of cervical cancer. Therefore, Cervarix is not a vaccination to prevent cervical cancer. It is a vaccination to help prevent HPV infections. In my opinion, Glaxo Smith Kline have lied about the capabilities of their product with the intention of deceiving the medical profession. By opening a promotional DVD in this way GSK have already convinced their target audience that this vaccine will prevent cervical cancer. It is of little importance what is contained in the rest of the DVD because the G.P.’s will now be ‘brainwashed’ into believing that this vaccine prevents cervical cancer.
I doubt if Glaxo Smith Kline ever expected the DVD, which was sent out over two and half years ago, to ever find its way into the hands of the public. However, a few days ago, a group of professionals, activists, and campaigners had a copy of the DVD sent to them anonymously. One of the groups to receive a copy of the DVD was S.A.N.E. Vax Inc. The S.A.N.E. Vax president Norma Erickson was so shocked when she sat and watched the DVD that she decided to add what she saw as the correct information to the DVD to highlight the inaccuracies.
S.A.N.E. Vax Inc. has made the following statement:
“The SaneVax team finds the information shown in this DVD to be riddled with information that is misleading, half-true, or downright scientifically inaccurate. They feel this is a piece of public relations material that crosses the line into propaganda. If this is the type of information distributed to busy professionals when new ‘miracle cures’ are released. It is no wonder they are confused and/or brainwashed. They do not have the time to examine every piece of promotional ‘literature’ they receive for scientific accuracy.”
S.A.N.E. Vax Inc was so incensed by GSK’s attempts to fool the medical profession that they contacted the other professionals and campaigners who had received the DVD and together they decided to develop a new version. The new DVD aims to present not only the original GSK film but an added extra of their own. This, they hope will show the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what they feel should have been shown in the first place.
Norma Erickson, President of SaneVax, says, “Come on people, this is a no brainer! If a vaccine is not proven to be safe, affordable, necessary and effective, it has no business being on the market; much less, mandated. When it comes to protecting and preserving your health, anything that cannot meet these four simple criteria is just not good enough. We need to bring sanity and science back to the health care industry.”
I now have the pleasure in presenting to you the new revised Glaxo Smith Kline Cervarix film. If G.P.’s are lied to in the first place we can hardly blame them if they give out dangerous and misleading information.
I would like to thank the SaneVax team and the professionals, campaigners and friends who have made this possible.
By Christina England | October 9th, 2010
It has been revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr has recently sold his stock holdings in Pfizer Inc. He did this to enable him to participate in two up and coming vaccine cases, one of which is to be held on Tuesday 12th October 2010.
This landmark case could change history on how future vaccine court cases are viewed. This is because the outcome of this case will render important implications as to whether anyone suffering a vaccine injury can ever – under any circumstances – sue a pharmaceutical company.
Originally, in March when the court announced it would hear the case, Justice Roberts was NOT participating. However, a recent docket sent in this month now indicates that he is.
The case on Tuesday centers around a Pennsylvania lawsuit in which parents alleged that their 6 month old baby daughter developed a seizure disorder after receiving a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth, which is now a unit of Pfizer.
In March, an article appeared in the Age of Autism ‘The Supreme Court Takes Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: Is There Justice for Vaccine Injury Victims?’ (http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/the-supreme-court…)
The article by Mary Holland Esq. states the following:
“On March 8, the Supreme Court voted to hear Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, an appeal from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court will decide whether a vaccine-injured child has the right to pursue a traditional “design defect” claim under state tort law when “Vaccine Court” refuses compensation. The Supreme Court must interpret the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and decide whether Congress intended to “preempt” all industry tort liability when it wrote, “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
Did Congress intend to extinguish the right to sue for all defective vaccine designs in civil court?
While the statutory language is awkward and thus somewhat opaque, Congress’s legislative intent was not – the statute as a whole shows clearly that Congress intended to leave civil courthouse doors open for petitioners who elect to leave Vaccine Court to sue for design defects. Lower courts, nonetheless, have decided the question both ways. So the Supreme Court must step in and resolve the conflict. The stakes are high: whether a person injured by a vaccine can challenge the safety of the design in any court in the United States.
A three judge panel of the Third Circuit unanimously decided in March 2009 that petitioner Hannah Bruesewitz did not have the right to sue vaccine manufacturer Wyeth, Inc. to assert that its vaccine design was unsafe. [See Bruesewitz-Decision] Hannah was born in October, 1991, and received her third DPT shot on schedule on April 1, 1992. Shortly thereafter she developed “residual seizure disorder,” recognized as a Table Injury at the time, meaning that causation was presumed. “Residual seizure disorder” was deleted from the Table just one month before she filed her case. Finally, on December 20, 2002, more than ten years later, Vaccine Court categorically rejected her claim. This hardly complies with Congress’ promise in the 1986 NCVIA that awards be “made to vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity.” The Bruesewitz family argues that the safer acellular DTaP vaccine was long available by the time Hannah received the DPT and suffered seizures, and that her vaccine injury was avoidable had the manufacturer used this demonstrably safer vaccine design.”
However, it was discovered yesterday that on September 28th 2010, an article appeared in The Wall Street Journal entitled ‘Chief Justice Roberts Sells Pfizer Shares’ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB…) which said:
“When the court announced in March that it would hear the case, it indicated that Justice Roberts was not participating. However, a recent docket entry this month no longer indicates that Justice Roberts is sitting out. The Sept. 3 entry notes only that Justice Kagan is recused.”
Now here comes the interesting bit which really shows up the justice system for what it is,
“Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. recently sold his stock holdings in Pfizer Inc., which clears him to participate in two cases involving the drug maker that are pending on the Supreme Court’s docket.
Justice Roberts, through a court spokeswoman, confirmed that he sold his Pfizer holdings on Aug. 31.
Justice Roberts’s participation means the court will not be as short-handed in the coming Pfizer cases, in which the court’s newest justice, Elena Kagan, is recused. Justice Kagan is sitting out several cases this term because she was involved in them previously when she served as U.S. solicitor general.
The chief justice’s involvement, however, means eight justices will hear the two cases, raising the possibility that one or both could result in a 4-4 tie.”
Not only this but the Wall Street Journal says the following, “Federal judges are required to recuse themselves in cases in which they hold a personal financial interest.” Do you remember what the article had said earlier about the lovely Justice Kagan ?
“Elena Kagan, is recused. Justice Kagan is sitting out several cases this term because she was involved in them previously when she served as U.S. solicitor general.”
This reveals that the judges we rely on as parents in courts ARE PROFITEERING FROM BIG PHARMA! Is this an unbiased justice system??? I don’t think so! I tell you what I think – I think this all stinks! This is basically saying to parents, “if your children are unfortunate enough to suffer a vaccine injury, don’t expect us to help because we are backing the pharmaceutical industry.”
In my opinion, parents face a system that is corrupt from the onset. I believe parents of a vaccine injured child face the following challenges:
1. A corrupt medical profession funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
2. A corrupt child protection system, that works with the corrupt medical profession, funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
3. A corrupt justice system who profit from the pharmaceutical industry. And, the biggest evil of them all…
4. A corrupt government who backs the whole damn lot of them.
It is a no win situation. Why should parents of vaccine-injured children have to negotiate with a corrupt system that will not help them find the justice they deserve? This situation has got to change and it has to change now.
*Note: I would like to thank Leslie Botha from SANE Vax.org for bringing this to my attention.
A new report by the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW), states, that as many as 3,587 cases, may of either miscarried or had a stillbirth after receiving the H1N1 vaccine.
In an exceptionally strong and well executed report, written on the Child Health Safety Website entitled ‘Flu Vaccine Caused 3,587 US Miscarriages from H1N1 Vaccine,’ they say :-
“The corrected estimate for the total number of 2009-A-H1N1-flu-shot-associated miscarriages and stillbirths during the 2009/10-flu season is 1,588 (95% goodness-of-fit confidence interval, 946 to 3587). That is, the lower and upper range-probability of miscarriage and stillbirths due to the H1N1 vaccine was as low as 946 and as high as 3,587.
Eileen Dannemann, Director of NCOW, presented the findings for the second time to Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, during the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) meeting, Sept 3, 2010. Just prior to Ms. Dannemann´s presentation Dr. McCormick, had pronounced that there were absolutely no H1N1 vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women in 2009/10, directly contradicting the evidence publicly available.”
Despite these alarmingly high figures being made public, which have been fully backed up with reports taken from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), the Government still strongly recommends that this potentially dangerous vaccine, reported to have killed thousands of developing fetuses, to pregnant women of the USA.
On 22nd September 2010 Reuters had this to say :-
“NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Despite landing in the hospital more often if they catch the flu, no more than a quarter of pregnant women in the U.S. get vaccinated against it.
That’s according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has issued a recommendation urging all pregnant women to get the flu shot.
While the recommendation itself isn’t new, the statement, published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, adds evidence on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, said Dr. William M. Callaghan of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
He said the CDC and several medical associations back the statement, which notes that the shot not only protects the woman, but also her baby.
Flu vaccines aren’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration for infants younger than six months of age, but babies can get the protective antibodies naturally through breast milk if their mother got the vaccine.”
Note the sentence “Flu vaccines aren’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration for infants younger than six months of age” By recommending this vaccine to pregnant women this is exactly what the FDA, are doing, they are actively promoting a vaccine for use in babies of less than 6 months old.
The Bloomberg Business week agrees with the Governments recommendations saying:-
“Based on expert medical opinion, we urge all pregnant women, and women who expect to become pregnant, to get their influenza immunization because the flu poses a serious risk of illness and death during pregnancy,” Dr. Jennifer L. Howse, president of the March of Dimes, said in a news release from the organization.
“The flu vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective,” she noted. “As an added bonus, during pregnancy, mothers pass on their immunity, protecting babies until they are old enough to receive their own vaccinations.”
However, Elileen Dannemann is not alone in her concerns relating to the new H1N1 vaccine. The citizens of India have been very reluctant to have this vaccine. On September 5th I wrote the article The public of India boycott the H1N1 vaccine because they fear side effects I stated that Prison Planet had said that the Indian public were rejecting the H1N1 vaccine through the fear of side effects. In their article ‘India Rejects H1N1 shots after vaccines kill children’ by Paul Joseph Watkins, Watkins reported that the rejections of the vaccine en masse, followed reports that the measles vaccine killed four children in the village of Lucknow.
The H1N1 vaccine has already been rejected by Finland and Sweden, who have suspended the vaccine, whilst Poland banned the vaccine totally. The Hindu stated:-
“Poland has become the only country to reject H1N1 vaccines, in a decision fraught with risk amid worldwide warnings of a spreading epidemic. The country rejected the vaccines over safety fears and distrust in the drug companies producing them – concerns international health experts reject as unfounded.”
This is the information leaflet for the H1N1 vaccine Pandemix and what the USA Government have decided not to tell the citizens of the USA. This information can be found on ANNEX I SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS – Product information
“There are currently no data available on the use of Pandemrix in pregnancy. Data from pregnant women vaccinated with different inactivated non-adjuvanted seasonal vaccines do not suggest malformations or fetal or neonatal toxicity.
There are no safety and immunogenicity data available from clinical studies with Pandemrix (H1N1) in children aged less than 6 months.
There are limited data available from a clinical study with Pandemrix (H1N1) in healthy children aged from 10 to 17 years, very limited data available from a clinical study with Pandemrix (H1N1) in healthy children aged from 6 to 35 months and limited data from a study with a version of Pandemrix containing H5N1 antigens in children aged from 3 to 9 years.
Very limited data in children aged 6 to 35 months (N=51) who received two doses of 0.25 ml (half of the adult dose) with an interval of 3 weeks between doses indicate an increase in the rates of injection site reactions and general symptoms (see section 4.8). In particular rates of fever (axillary temperature ≥38°C) may increase considerably after the second dose. Therefore, monitoring of temperature and measures to lower the fever (such as antipyretic medication as seems clinically necessary) are recommended in young children (e.g. up to approximately 6 years of age) after each vaccination.
There are limited data available from clinical studies with Pandemrix (H1N1) in adults aged over 60 years and very limited data with Pandemrix”
In other words this vaccine is untested and should be taken with extreme caution. There is a serious lack of data on adverse reactions in several key groups of the population including pregnant women.
However, despite this missing data and despite Eileen Dannemann’s damning evidence, Dr McCormick remains undeterred and sticks firmly to her views that there is absolutely no need for any concern. She continues to maintain that in 2009/10 there were absolutely no H1N1 vaccine- related adverse events in pregnant women. The Child Health Safety report said:-
“Just prior to Ms. Dannemann´s presentation Dr. McCormick, had pronounced that there were absolutely no H1N1 vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women in 2009/10, directly contradicting the evidence publicly available.
The very next week at the Sept 14th National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) meeting Dr. McCormick, (despite having been informed on two previous occasions of the VAERS data) pronounced, once again, that there were no adverse events in pregnant women. At the conclusion of the NVAC meeting, during public comment, Dannemann submitted the data again”
However, there is evidence to suggest that this is not the first time that Dr McCormick has been less than honest with the USA citizens, perhaps McCormick is hired because, using US tax dollars she can be relied on to do the wrong thing for the American people but the "right thing" for her bosses. McCormick is a tool of those who hire her and apparently she is very effective. The Child Health Safety report continues:-
"McCormick has done this before.
If a criminal recklessly discharges a firearm in the street that can be an offence of reckless endangerment. If a Federal Health official recklessly ignores plain evidence putting women and unborn children at risk and also causing miscarriages and stillbirths what should the penalty be? Are life sentences or death penalties appropriate for McCormick and her bosses? They should all face stiff penalties.
Consider the following evidence from a Texas legal case and then ask yourself: "What is the difference between hiring Dr Marie McCormick to sit on one of these vaccine safety committees and hiring her to discharge indiscriminately an M240 machine gun into a baseball stadium crowd of pregnant school moms and kids.
Law firm Waters & Kraus produced in a Texas Court a closed session transcript of a US Institutes of Medicine Committee chaired by McCormick to investigate the link between vaccines and autism On file in the US District Court of Texas, Eastern District; Case #5:03-CV-141
Dr. McCormick stated, "we are not ever going to come down that it is a true side effect," before the committee had considered any evidence [page 97].
Dr. McCormick noted the US CDC “wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis.” [page 33].
McCormick´s IoM committee colleague Dr. Stratton stated “the point of no return, the line we will not cross in public policy is to pull the vaccine, change the schedule. We could say it is time to revisit this but we will never recommend that level. Even recommending research is recommendations for policy. We wouldn´t say compensate, we wouldn´t say pull the vaccine, we wouldn´t say stop the program.[page 74]“
Perhaps Dr McCormick would be wise to read these tragic stories from Mom’s who have trusted the Government and people like her and have tragically lost their babies as a consequence, this is what bereaved mothers had to say, when they explained what had happened to them, after they decided to go ahead with the H1N1 vaccine. Organic Health reports
“sioux falls, south dakota:
I received the H1N1 vaccine on October 16th and started experiencing cramping on the 22nd. I was nearly 17 weeks pregnant and gave birth to a stillborn baby boy on the 23rd. Like many of the other women here, the first thing I suspected was the H1N1 vaccine. I immediately asked a nurse at the hospital if that would have anything to do with it. Without hesitation, she told me “absolutely not.” I had reservations about getting the vaccine, but followed the advice of my long trusted family doctor. In a follow up appointment with my doctor 3 days after I lost my baby, I asked him if the vaccine would have had any adverse effects on my baby. He also said that it was not possible. I don´t believe that my doctor was necessarily lying to me, he was simply following the accepted practices and opinions of his field. I do, however, believe that as a nation, we are being lied to. This vaccine is NOT safe during pregnancy. There has not been enough testing done to determine this and there are far too many “coincidences” for this to be anything but a result of a vaccine that was hastily pushed into production and distribution in an effort to stop widespread panic. I have read so many stories in defense of the vaccine that will talk about how common miscarriages are, but I would challenge you to ask ANY health care professional how common second trimester miscarriages are. My baby was doing perfect developmentally and I had felt him move earlier that day. My heart goes out to all of you out there who have had to go through the same heartache and loss that I have had in the last couple of weeks. There is no reason that any woman or family should have to go through this. Get the word out to all of the pregnant women that you know. I know that if I had heard that women had been losing their babies shortly after they received the vaccine, I would have followed my gut and not gotten it myself. Maybe then Wyatt would have had a chance at life.
I´m from a town of 2000 in SD, there are several women pregnant and we are all due within a few weeks of each other. Four of us got the H1N1 vaccine 2 weeks ago and one by one each of us started to have preterm contractions. We are all due in Nov and Dec so we are further along than most of the people that lost their babies. There is no way you can tell us that our preterm labor was not caused by the H1N1 vaccine. It may look like a “fluke” to some people when these women are scattered all over the country but we are talking about 4 of us in our small community. My heart goes out to all of you that lost your babies.
I also received the H1N1 vaccination on October 22nd, 2009 and went into labor on October 25th, at 16 weeks pregnant and we just heard the heartbeat and everything was fine with my pregnancy on October 16th, 2009, then on October 28th my water broke then on October 29th, I delivered a stillborn baby boy, and no one can tell me why…Everyone wants to say it did not come from the shot but I believe it did. My baby was growing at the correct pace and everyone wants to brush off the vaccination. I say if you have the vaccination and suffer a miscarriage if they are able to perform an autopsy have it done.
I also agree something needs to be done and looked more into with this vaccination because most women are being advised it´s just something that happens, but I also had two healthy children normal pregnancies and when I received this vaccination with my third pregnancy, my baby is gone.”
Ms Dannemann says in her report:-
“This baseless and fallacious assessment by the CDC assessment group” says, Dannemann,”has given the green light to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to continue their recommendation to give the 2010/11 flu shot to all people, including pregnant women. This upcoming 2010/11 flu vaccine contains the same elements that are implicated in the killing of these fetuses, the H1N1 viral component and the neurotoxin mercury (Thimerosal). Additionally, it contains 2 other viral strains- a 3 in 1 shot for all people”
When is this madness going to end? I was given a quote this morning which I would like to pass to Dr McCormick, The quote is one by Thomas Szasz who said:-
“Formally, when religion was strong and science was weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion is weak , men mistake medicine for magic.”
Point very much made I feel.
Image by – Clare Bloomfield / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Yesterday, the Sydney Herald reported an astounding 1000 plus reports of adverse reactions following the flu vaccine, Fluvax. These reports included 100 reports of febrile convulsions.
In her report, journalist Carol Bennett stated:
“It showed the CSL-produced Fluvax and Fluvax Junior may have caused two to three hospital admissions due to seizure for every admission from flu it prevented”.
Febrile convulsions are caused when a child’s body rapidly overheats resulting in a seizure. The NetDoctor website gives insight into what a child suffering from a febrile convulsion looks like:
- The attack often begins with the child losing consciousness, and shortly afterwards the body, legs and arms go stiff.
- The head is thrown backwards and the legs and arms begins to jerk.
- The skin goes pale and may even turn blue briefly.
- The attack ends after a few minutes and the shaking stops. The child goes limp, and then normal colour and consciousness slowly return.
- Some children regain consciousness faster than others.
If the Sydney Herald is correct, the Fluvax vaccine has the potential to give a tiny baby (many are premature) a seizure so violent it causes them to throw their head backwards, in a jerk like movement. The jerking action has the potential to cause damage to the neck, head and brain. Isn’t this exactly opposite of what we, as parents, are taught NOT to let happen to babies?
Let us step away from the vaccine, for a brief moment and study Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Shaken Baby Syndrome is caused when a small child is shaken violently. To give readers an accurate description of SBS, I went to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Website:
“What is Shaken Baby Syndrome?
Shaken baby syndrome is a type of inflicted traumatic brain injury that happens when a baby is violently shaken. A baby has weak neck muscles and a large, heavy head. Shaking makes the fragile brain bounce back and forth inside the skull and causes bruising, swelling, and bleeding, which can lead to permanent, severe brain damage or death. The characteristic injuries of shaken baby syndrome are subdural haemorrhages (bleeding in the brain), retinal haemorrhages (bleeding in the retina), damage to the spinal cord and neck, and fractures of the ribs and bones. These injuries may not be immediately noticeable. Symptoms of shaken baby syndrome include extreme irritability, lethargy, poor feeding, breathing problems, convulsions, vomiting, and pale or bluish skin. Shaken baby injuries usually occur in children younger than 2 years old, but may be seen in children up to the age of 5.”
Let’s play devil’s advocate. Isn’t this what happens to a feverish and very young baby when it’s head is suddenly and violently jerked backwards? Is there any rule to denote how many times the fragile brain of an infant needs to bounce back and forth in the skull causing a hemorrhage? I’m willing to bet once is enough.
If the governments continue to promote dangerous and seizure causing vaccines, such as Fluvax (for ingredients please read Fluvax insert), then it is high time the laws governing SBS and SIDS were reviewed. Parents around the world are being falsely accused of killing and maiming their babies. Many cases are occurring just hours after a vaccine has been given.
I would like to mention the case of Sally Clark. She was jailed when her baby died shortly after a cocktail of vaccines were injected. What killed Sally Clark’s child? Spectator opens up by saying:
“Sally Clark spent three and a half years in jail wrongly convicted of murdering two of her babies after a jury was assured there was no other explanation for their sudden deaths than that she had deliberately smothered them. Yet five hours before her second child, Harry, was found lifeless in his baby chair, he had been injected with a combined vaccine with a long history of serious adverse reactions.
Harry was eight weeks old, the regulation age for the first of three injections against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP) and Hib (a bacterial infection that can cause meningitis). He was also given an oral polio vaccine. His biological age was five weeks, as he had been born three weeks premature. Because of the previous sudden death of his brother, Christopher, his breathing was being monitored. He was uncharacteristically dozy from the time of his jabs to the time he died.”
We have reached a situation where the vaccines given to our children are causing great harm. Governments and the pharmaceutical industries who manufacture the vaccines are ignoring it and are not man enough to take responsibility for their actions. Instead, it is more convenient and profitable to lay blame on the parent who took their advice in the first place.
This year alone has seen India suspend the Measles vaccine, the Cervical cancer vaccine and the HIB vaccine;, Australia, the Flu vaccine;, Sweden, the Swine Flu vaccine along with Finland;, and the USA, Switzerland and Jordan, the Rotavirus vaccine. What is going on? Last year the world faced a ‘so called’ pandemic of Swine flu, this year however, we are faced with an even worse pandemic of vaccine suspensions.
Can the companies manufacturing these vaccines be trusted or are they more interested in profit than protecting our health?
With five of the countries suspending vaccines that the giant, GlaxoSmithKline, has developed, it seems that the company GSK cannot seem to get its vaccines right at all this year. The first vaccine to present problems for GSK was the Rotarix vaccine. This vaccine is supposed to protect us from the rotavirus, a virus that causes severe diarrhoea and sickness, particularly in very young children. Rotarix was suspended in the USA by the FDA, together with Switzerland and Jordan because it was found to be contaminated with benign pig virus, Age of Autism said at the time:-
“Fortunately for patient safety, AP Medical News reported “A group of scientists testing a new way to detect viruses in a variety of products stumbled onto fragments of genetic material — broken pieces of DNA — from what’s called porcine circovirus-1 in Rotarix and alerted Glaxo, which confirmed the findings and in turn alerted FDA, Hamburg said.
The report stressed that the suspension of use has been recommended despite no evidence of harm.”
Eventually the vaccine was returned to the market after extensive testing proved that the vaccine was thought to be safe and that these viruses could not harm the public. The FDA put out this press release in June of this year:-
“Update on Rotavirus Vaccines
In March 2010, FDA became aware of the presence PCV1 in Rotarix and DNA from PCV1 and PCV2 in RotaTeq. These viruses are not known to cause any infection or illness in people. Based on a careful review of a variety of scientific information, FDA has determined it is appropriate for clinicians and public health professionals in the United States to use these vaccines. All available evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of Rotarix and RotaTeq, which have been extensively studied, both before and after approval.”
With this hurdle out of the way, GlaxoSmithKline’s next problems came with the flu vaccine Fluarix. The vaccine was found to be causing children to suffer vomiting, fevers and seizures. The side effects affected some children so adversely that it left one poor child in a coma, causing Australia to take the unusual step of actually banning this vaccine altogether.
“Australian parents found out the hard way that they were being lied to.
It didn’t take long to realize the truth after their children start going into convulsions following the flu vaccine injections. Other children began vomiting or exhibiting dangerously high levels of fever. One child has gone into a coma and may never recover.”
Mike Adams from Natural News continued:-
“Vaccinated children suffering severe convulsions were piling up in hospital emergency rooms across the country.
The real kicker, though, is that children started having convulsions two weeks ago but Australian health authorities ignored them, insisting that the vaccine was safe and causing it to be injected in yet more babies. Two weeks later, with dozens more children experiencing convulsions (and who knows how many thousands actually being harmed in less obvious ways), Commonwealth chief health officer Professor Jim Bishop finally announced the vaccination ban.”
With these problems still not yet resolved GlaxoSmithKline next hit problems with their H1N1 vaccine, the vaccine to protect the public from Swine flu. Glaxo’s vaccine Pandemrix was reported to be causing the sleep disorder narcolepsy in some patients. The Daily Telegraph reported that so far there have been 27 reports of suspected narcolepsy in people across Europe. They said:-
“Finland suspended its national vaccination programme on Tuesday after eight suspected cases of narcolepsy following administration of the jab. A further ten cases have been reported in Sweden, six in France, and one each in Germany and Norway.”
Things are really not going too well for GlaxoSmithKline who says in its GlaxoSmithKline Briefings – Working Together for the Health of Mothers and Children paper:-
“For decades, GSK has produced safe and effective products to help reduce the burden of disease and improve the lives of children and mothers. With our partners, we are constantly challenging our business model to find new ways of researching and delivering our products in order to provide sustainable solutions that reduce mortality in mothers and children and break the cycle of decline from illness. Better health leads to better economic development.”
Personally I am not convinced.
Another GSK vaccine with a difficult history of side effects and one which has constantly appeared in the UK media especially last year, is Cervarix, the vaccine to protect young women against cervical cancer. The side effects of this vaccine have been so bad that they were discussed by MPs in the Houses of Parliament in the House of Commons. I wrote an article in September 2009 So is it ALL in parents heads or is it in THE syringe? Cervarix danger by vaccination when the vaccine was approved by the FDA. In it, I wrote the following-
“This will have been recommended because of what is written in the CERVARIX Human Papillomavirus Bivalent (Types 16 and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) Briefing Document September 9, 2009 which I was lucky enough to receive a link to a copy through one of my colleagues from ICAP-International Coalition of Advocates for the People, from the Netherlands. Once again it seems that women and children are just ‘lab rats’ for GSK to test on. It says in section 6
Given the natural history of HPV disease, reduction in cervical cancer due to vaccination will take years and even decades. GSK has developed a model using a standardized approach (details of methodology are currently undergoing independent review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) in order to estimate how Cervarix may impact future cervical cancer incidence and related deaths in U.S. girls and women.”
Further down in original studies it is interesting to note :- (SAE = Serious Adverse Event)
“Of the 43 subjects who withdrew due to SAEs, study discontinuation resulted from a fatal event in 28 subjects (11 subjects in HPV group and 17 subjects in pooled controls; one subject in HAV720 group withdrew because of the death of her child due to congenital heart disease). See Section 7.3.5 for further details of all fatal events reported all clinical studies in which Cervarix has been administered. The other 15 subjects withdrew due to non-fatal SAEs, none of which were considered as causally related to vaccination by the study investigator”
“The most common individual SAEs reported during the vaccination period were:
• Spontaneous pregnancy loss (including incomplete and complete spontaneous loss and missed abortion) with 59 subjects (1.87 per 1000 subjects) in HPV group and 51 subjects (2.15 per 1000 subjects) in the control group,
• Appendicitis with 25 subjects (0.79 per 1000 subjects) in the HPV group and 27 subjects (1.14 per 1000 subjects) in the control group,
• Dengue fever with 10 subjects (0.32 per 1000 subjects) in the HPV group and 10 (0.42 per 1000 subjects) in the control group,”
I found the most worryingly results were deaths although these were played down.
In the analysis of all clinical studies in which Cervarix has been administered (up to the data lock-point of August 31, 2008), 37 subjects were reported with a fatal outcome:20 subjects of 31,472 subjects (0.64 per 1000 subjects) in the HPV group and 17 subjects of 23,700 subjects (0.72 per 1000 subjects) in the control group. The median interval between the date of last vaccination and the date of death was 1.5 years (range 30 days to 3.3 years). Of note, the mean duration of follow-up was 2.2 years in HPV group and 2.5 years in the control group.
A summary of the number of deaths by group classified by its underlying cause is presented in Table 34. All the fatalities in vaccinated subjects occurred more than 1 month after the last study vaccine administration, with a median interval between the date of last vaccination and the date of death of 1.5 years (range 30 days to 3.3 years). Road traffic accidents (10 cases) and suicides (7 cases) were the most common underlying causes of death.
In the group that received Cervarix, the following case fatalities were reported:
Road traffic accidents (5 cases): with intervals ranging from 386 to 124 days from last vaccination to death,
Homicide (2 cases): with intervals of 217 days and 826 days from last vaccination to death,
Suicide (2 cases, one case reported as gun shot wound possibly related to suicide) with 148 and 686 days from last vaccination to death,
Neoplasms: gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (onset 151 days after last dose), ovarian cancer (onset 1,127 days after last dose) and cervical cancer (46 year old in Study HPV-015 with normal cytology at enrollment but HPV-18 DNA positive, developed metastatic cervical cancer 205 days after last dose; study population of HPV-015 mainly consists of healthy women but includes also a subset of women with previous history of HPV infection),
Autoimmune diseases (3 cases): systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with Candida sepsis (SLE pre-existing with renal complications 6 months after first dose leading to sepsis and eventually death 21 months after the first and only dose), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with pyoderma gangrenosum (IBD diagnosed 2 months after third dose with multiple complications and eventually a pyoderma gangrenosum with a fatal outcome 22 months after last dose) and Crohn´s disease with toxic megacolon and septic shock (Crohn´s disease diagnosed 16 months after second dose, complicated with toxic megacolon and septic shock with fatal outcome 17 months after the second and last dose),
Infectious diseases (3 cases): septicemia (onset 758 days after last dose), bacterial septicemia (onset 770 days after last dose) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (onset 254 days after last dose),
Cardiovascular disorders (2 cases): vascular thromboembolism (onset 1167 days after last dose) and acute myocardial infarction (onset 485 days after last dose).
In the pooled controls group, the following case fatalities were reported:
Road traffic accidents (5 cases): with intervals ranging from 30 days to 862 days from last vaccination to death
Homicide: death 961 days after last dose
Suicide (5 cases): with 49 days to 817 days from last vaccination to death,
Neoplasms (2 cases): osteosarcoma (onset 165 days after last dose) and colon adenocarcinoma (onset 112 days after last dose)
Autoimmune diseases: insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with diabetic ketoacidosis
(onset 154 days after last dose)
Infectious disease: septicemia (onset 650 days after last dose)
Unknown cause of death (2 cases): sudden death 67 days after last dose in a subject with medical history of valvulopathy and hepatopathy prior to vaccination and one case for which study staff read in a newspaper that the subject was found dead; as an autopsy report cannot be released until all forensic analyses are completed, insufficient documentation for a complete assessment of the diagnosis and the cause of death is available.
No safety signal has been identified based on medical review of these 37 individual case fatalities.”
Two ICAP members, Freda Birrell of Scotland, Grace Filby of England have this week written letters and compiled documents all of which have been presented to both the Scottish and UK Government.
These documents have looked at in particular 10 girls who have been in the UK press recently because they have had an adverse reaction to Cervarix.
Carley Steele Stockport – Manchester
Rebecca Ramagge – Surrey
Paige Brennan – West Midlands
Ashleigh Cave – Liverpool
Hattie Vickery – Devon
Lauren Smith – Surrey,
Sarah Chandler – Surrey,
Leah Mann – Nottinghamshire
Debbie Jones ‘daughter’ – Orkney
Stacey Jones – West Midlands whose story is not released as yet.
Another 2000 reports of adverse reactions have been received in the UK as reported on MHRA website.”
There has only been one suspension of Cervarix so far, after a death occurred in the UK but it later emerged that the child was already ill and the death was not found to be due to the vaccine.
As problems mount for GSK we have to ask ourselves just how safe are the vaccines and medications that this company is producing. GSK not only faces huge problems with its vaccines but it is also facing problems with its medications. Seroxat (Paxil) an antidepressant has been reported to have severe side effects for many years. The website Seroxat Sufferers Stand up and be Countedvisitors have been writing at length about this medication and reports that GSK goes to a lot of trouble to cover up the side effects that Seroxat/Paxil causes. Bob Fiddaman who runs the site reported that -
“Later this year…or early next year, GlaxoSmithKline will be in the High Court in London, UK, defending a group action brought against them that claims that consumers had difficulty withdrawing from their product, Seroxat [known as Paxil in the US]”
As if things were not bad enough for GSK, today, reports flood in about another GSK disaster area, a drug called Avandia. Avandia is a drug for diabetes and has been reported to be causing heart problems in some patients. Avandia has been suspended in Saudi Arabiaalong with the FDA in the USA partially suspending trials and India suspending trials.
Can we really trust this company or any other company manufacturing drugs and vaccines with our health? Only time will tell.
Image by krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net