Fake vaccine data - go to jail!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146788/Ex-Iowa-State-University-scientist-gets-four-years-prison-altering-research-HIV-vaccine-mixing-RABBIT-blood-human-blood.html 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/847589  

In a previous post I opined that we need a Sarbannes-Oaxley law for vaccines. There is, apparently, some form of accountability for fraud when using federal funds for research - the above headlines demonstrate that. Though given the growth of blogs like Retraction Watch  (among other reasons) my inner skeptic suspects this is the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg. 

The Merck whistleblower lawsuit is about efficacy, not safety. But any Sarbannes-Oaxley (SOX) law for vaccines should include provisions to hold corporate heads accountable for fraud in either efficacy or safety. But to prove either allegation would be difficult given the conflicts of interest embedded in so much research, including research in vaccines. 

Safety data on vaccines is incomplete, at best, because they are never tested against a control group of unvaccinated individuals. Not just people who do not receive the vaccine in question - but people who have never been vaccinated, period. In the bizarro world of vaccine research all manner of epidemiological studies are done all concluding that vaccines are "safe and effective" all while violating the important principle of having a comparison group of unvaccinated individuals. It's not like they aren't out there. Well, at least for the time being there are unvaccinated people - but as we continue to lose our freedom to determine what medical treatments we will, or will not accept, it will become harder to find people who have not been vaccinated - and this will obfuscate and confuse any attempt to answer the question of vaccine safety and efficacy. 

In the world of vaccine research it is acceptable to violate another principle of scientific study - the use of a placebo (an inert, not biologically active substance). In vaccine research, the "placebo" may be the diluent of the vaccine, which has multiple ingredients (any of which are biologically active by design) with the antigen in question removed. The point of the placebo is to be biologically **inactive** so a true comparison can be made about the safety and efficacy of the substance in question. 

The current vaccine schedule (for anyone - child or adult) has never been studied in toto. Single vaccines are deemed "safe and effective" by policy makers saddled with conflict of interest and are added to the "schedule" which itself has never been tested for either safety or efficacy. We worry about poly-pharmacy - people being harmed by being on multiple medications simultaneously yet have not a care in the world about injecting people with multiple vaccines multiple times?! Cognitive dissonance and selective reasoning is an amazing thing to behold. And also very frightening. 

This isn't research. It is manipulation. It isn't science. It is assumption. 

We all deserve better. 

Edgy - Yes, Truth - No: Clickbait Warning

http://edgytruth.com/2015/09/04/pregnant-women-pushed-pertussis-vaccine/?utm_source=CCNewsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=PregnantPertussis 

The self-described mission of the Edgy Truth website is to " ... present information in the hopes of sparking discussions and insight". It may be "edgy" but it certainly isn't truthful. It's a good thing that truth is far more than mere facts. 

Some problems: 
1) No date on the post (it is embedded in the url) - this makes it more difficult to know how current is the information they are presenting. Even if a website provides a date it may have code embedded to automatically present the current date rather than the date a post was originally made or written. 
2) The post is not attributed to a specific author - this makes accountability more difficult. 
3) Lots of ads, little content. About half of the content is quotes from other sources. 'nuf said. 
4) Links for references are either non-existent or half-baked, see below. 
5) There is a place for comments but no way to make them. Odd, especially given their stated "mission". I have seen others comment on other Edgy Truth posts but I don't know how they are doing so - whenever I have opened one of their pages I see a place asking for comments but no hyper link to do so. 

Point #4 is really what motivated me to write this post. I was so disgusted by the last link provided as a "reference" - it is, for all intents and purposes, a lie. It claims to be a link to a study, when in point of fact it is a reference to an informational website of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) providing definitions of pregnancy risk categories for drugs. The Edgy Truth article appears to be quoting a study but the link does not take the reader to the study from which they seem to derive the quote but instead links to the NIH website. This particular Edgy Truth opinion piece is based on a BBC article (for which they provide a link) - but the BBC article also makes unsupported claims (ie: that a study shows a 91% decrease in whooping cough in infants following maternal vaccination ... yet there is no link or reference citing this study). Sources should be cited (ie: written out), and links to sources provided whenever possible. 

I expect better from the BBC - an organization that should do far better in meeting basic journalism standards. Edgy Truth is barely rising to the level of clickbait. What's worse is that this came to me from Dr. Sherri Tenpenny - I'm not sure why she chose to associate herself with Edgy Truth but she could do better. I hope whatever revenue she is gaining from this is worth it. In general I respect her analysis regarding vaccine issues and have encouraged others to use her as a resource. Unfortunately I may need to put a qualification 
on that recommendation. 

I sent this email to info@edgytruth.com while writing this post (9.5.2015 @ 1722): 

 Hi - 
Before I post my opinion about your Sept 4 post about
pertussis vaccine in pregnancy I think I should at least
contact you about my concerns.
No specific authorship - makes accountability difficult
No date in the body of the post (only in the url)
Scanty content and at least one of the links as a "source"
is incorrect - the last link does not take the reader to the
study that seems to be quoted but instead to an informational
NIH website giving pregnancy risk category definitions for
drugs.
Lastly, if the point of Edgy Truth is to "spark discussions and
insight" why are there no comments on the website?
Thanks,
Anne
Amor Vincit Omnia 
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/

http://anne-eklektikos.blogspot.com/

Protect your friends identity, use BCCIf forwarding, please delete the forwarding history, which includes my email address.This courtesy helps prevent Spammers from mining addresses and viruses from being propagated!Thank you!

I at least owed them that courtesy.

To date (as of Sept 19, 2015) there has been no response. I'll post an update if I ever get one.

Caveat Emptor is a good principle in general - it would be lovely if we were free to use that in regards to whether we do, or do not, get vaccinated.

Update (on Oct 31, 2015):
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is no longer associated with EdgyTruth (as of Oct 1, 2015).

Here is the statement from a post on her Facebook wall:

**NOTICE: On Oct 1, 2015, DrTenpenny.com severed ALL connections and affiliations with EdgyTruth.com - We have partnered with several other sites to bring you information on vaccines, breast health and general wellness. This is pro-active, protective step to broaden the VaccineInfo page so FB won't view it as "solely anti-vaccine." After a disastrous and difficult web host migration, Dr Tenpenny's 3 other websites will be back up soon, and even better than before. Thank you for your patience. Please share this with your friends and fans.

Given the poor quality of content on EdgyTruth.com I am glad she is no longer associated with them because I think her analysis and critique of vaccine related information is generally excellent and EdgyTruth.com certainly is not in her league.

Sarbanes-Oxley for vaccines

We need a Sarbanes-Oxley type law for vaccines and other pharmaceuticals. 

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was passed by Congress in 2002 following a series of corporate financial scandals (chiefly involving Enron, but there were others as well) in order to hold corporate boards and company officers accountable for how their business was conducted, in order to reduce the risk that they would engage in unethical practices. 

Merck is currently embroiled in a whistleblower lawsuit with two of their scientists alleging that the mumps portion of the MMR is not as efficacious as it has been represented. Merck has a monopoly on the MMR vaccine because of tests presumably demonstrating it has greater efficacy than other vaccines. The scientists are alleging that the tests were spiked to get the desired results. If the fraud is proved in court this may threaten Merck's monopoly of this portion of the vaccine market. 

An HIV vaccine researcher has been sentenced with jail for his fraudulent research. 

Why do we not have a similar requirement (ie: SOX) for the corporate heads and boards of pharmaceutical companies (as well as FDA/CDC/ACIP officials)? Would Vioxx have hurt and/or killed so many if they had been required to sign off on the nature and manner (ie: the quality and soundness) of the research done to justify its development and approval? 

If we had this sort of requirement would we have editorials (Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) by major researchers decrying (John Ioannidis) the poor quality (Richard Smith, former editor of The British Medical Journal) of studies healthcare providers are using as a basis for care? 

What good are IRBs (Institutional Review Boards) doing given all of the above? If they are doing their job why is it that we cannot trust the research that is being published? In theory the IRBs are the first line of defense against bad research and peer-review prior to publication is the second. Apparently these safeguards are not working or are themselves seriously compromised.  

Even if our Congress were to pass such a law (an event I consider unlikely given the influence of the pharma lobby upon them), and even if research were strengthened so the results were more trustworthy it would still be my position that we deserve freedom in medical decision-making, including receipt or declination of vaccination.  

Data dump, the CDC way ...

Ordinarily a "data dump" means downloading a large batch of data so one can comb through it and examine the contents for meaningful analysis. 

But when it comes to vaccine related study data the term takes on a new and different meaning. It is now alleged (by Dr. William Thompson, aka the "CDC Whistleblower") that he and his colleagues met to destroy (dump in a garbage can) documents linking an increased risk of autism with receipt of an MMR vaccine prior to 36 months (particularly in black males). 

In his statement Dr. Thompson refers to the Verstraten study - a study often cited as "proof" that there is no association between the preservative thimerosal (a form of mercury) and autism - and he refers to it as a "debacle"! Here is one analysis as to why this "study" is rightly called a debacle. 

While Dr. Thompson kept silent until 2014 he at least had enough sense of personal ethics not to destroy his own copies - he didn't dump his data. He also finally responded to the nagging of his conscience about this matter. 

As Congressman Posey has stated, a thorough investigation and congressional hearings are called for. 

What's also called for is a return to greater freedom in medical decision-making ... those who want vaccines should get them, those who decline should not face an retaliation for this decision. Vaccination should not be linked to school participation, employment, nor anything else. 

Vaccination - A Useful Tool ... for genetic alteration

Epigenetics studies how exposures (through diet, chemicals, lifestyle, etc) alters the expression of our genes - turning genes on or off essentially. 

But we are moving into an era of genetic modification - of altering the genome itself (a permanent change that could be passed on to the next generation), not changing whether a gene is or is not expressed (which, in theory, is temporary). 

So many have been trained to accept vaccination without question - and this is one way that vaccination could be so very useful as a tool to alter the genome of a population. 

A concept called "Immunoprophylaxis by Gene Transfer" is being researched - human trials have already begun. It involves inserting synthetic genetic material into the genome of the host by injection into the muscle. There is no way to control where the synthetic genes go - no way to limit which tissue into which they are inserted - so yes, this synthetic genetic material could be transmitted to the next generation. 

But who's to say this hasn't already happened? How do we know it hasn't? Genetic material from substrates used to produce vaccines are a known contaminant - human DNA from cell lines from aborted babies is used in various vaccines (WI-38, MRC-5, PER C6, HEK-293, among others). This is no different for vaccines developed using animal tissues as substrates as well (chicken eggs, monkey kidneys, insects, for starters). SV40 (Simian, or monkey Virus 40) was a horrible scandal in the polio vaccine program. 

While IGT may be initially developed for all the right reasons - to help people - knowing human nature (sinful) there can be no reassurance that it may well be used for more sinister reasons. One blogger is already speculating about how this sort of technology could be used. 

For all that we do know about vaccination there is much that we don't know - and for this reason, no one should be required to be vaccinated. Linking vaccination to employment, or school or anything else is coercive - "soft" force, if there is such a thing. This is one of many areas of life that people must have freedom to determine what they will to do. 

First US measles death - some questions for consideration

Earlier this year a young woman (exact age unknown) died of pneumonia in Clallum County in Washington State, the first official, or documented measles-related death in the USA since 2003. Pneumonia is a known complication of measles. While her death is tragic, as is common in many deaths from secondary complications (well, or even primary causes) she reportedly had other health issues that increased her risk of death from an infection (measles or otherwise). 

Here is what has been reported: 

- She had more than 1 medical conditions 

- She was on multiple medications, including immune suppressing drugs 

- She did not have the rash typical of measles so the presence of measles was not 

  discovered until the autopsy was done. 
- She had Type D9 strain of measles. 

Here is what is unknown: 

- Her vaccination status. She was believed to have been vaccinated at least once per 

  verbal report of her family members, though they did not have written documentation of 

  her vaccination status.  

- In what tissue the measles was found (gut, lung, brain, other). 
- Her nutrition status (Vitamin A, in particular, is important to recovery from measles; Vit D3
  is also an immune-modulator - not showing overt signs of deficiency of a vitamin is not 
  proof of sufficiency, or having enough of the substrate to maximize your body's ability to
  manage an infection). 

She is believed to have been exposed when in the same facility at the same time as a person who later developed a rash and was diagnosed with measles. Were they in the same room? Yes - measles is highly contagious - but how close was their contact? If they were merely in the same facility at the same time (but not in the same room) why did others not also come down with measles - hospitals are filled with people who are immune compromised for a variety of reasons. Certainly she was not the only immune-compromised person who was exposed. Yet she was the only one to become sick ... and she was likely vaccinated as well.

No one died during the Disneyland outbreak, yet there was a great hugh and cry - this woman died from an illness that is presumed to be measles associated yet there was very little chatter. Why? 

If she had had measles as a child (spontaneous, "wild" infection), perhaps she never would have developed this pneumonia at all, as recovery from spontaneous infection from measles is known to provide more robust, and longer-lasting immunity than artificial, man-made, temporary risk-reduction via vaccination. That is why those born before 1957 didn't need to be vaccinated - they were presumed to be protected by having had and recovered from a community acquired infection. 

Because nothing is risk free, and because all decisions have both risks and benefits the writer of Vaccine Depot believes in freedom in healthcare decision-making ... if you want to be vaccinated, you should get whatever vaccines you think you need. Conversely, those who are not convinced the benefit of vaccines is greater than the risk should be free to make that decision as well. 

VE Voodoo

VE is Vaccine Effectiveness - an estimate of how well a vaccine does (or does not) work. 

The VE for the 2014 - 2015 flu vaccine was 18% (with a 95% Confidence Interval of 6-29%); 

Perhaps I could have titled this one "How a Confidence Interval can be a Confidential Informant". 

In statistics, the Confidence Interval (or CI) is interpreted as giving the range within which we can be x certain (in this case, 95%) that the true effect exists. In general, the wider the interval between the two numbers the less certain one can be of the effect. The width of the CI is influenced by the sample size of the study - and in general the larger the study the smaller the width of the CI, providing greater confidence in the precision of the estimation of the effect in question. 

The CI associated with the CDC's VE for flu vaccines in the 2014 - 2015 influenza season is wide. It is unknown how large was the sample size used to generate the VE (this information is not provided). But if the sample size was large a wide CI is all the more concerning.  In their report they do at least acknowledge "reduced protection" and indirectly allude to the fact that even when the vaccine strain is well-matched to the circulating strain VE is about 50% at best. 

But then the last paragraph of the report contains this sentence: "None of the VE estimates by age for this season are statistically significant at this time." A polite way of saying that even the 18% VE may well be meaningless - that there may have been no statistically significant effect from the vaccine at all, or that it didn't work. At all. 

Given this information, how is it rational to demand healthcare workers use this product or risk losing their jobs? How can healthcare providers recommend this to a client? Why is the government and why are health insurers paying for this product? Why accept the risks of using this product when the odds of benefit are so slim (even IF the risk of harm is low)? 

No one should be forced to use a vaccine - nor manipulated, nor coerced in any way, shape, or form. Being threatened with loss of employment is a form of manipulation and/or coercion. Being threatened with not being able to go to school because you have not been vaccinated is likewise manipulative and coercive - it causes people to make a medical decision under an influence other than objective information and it introduces a third party into a relationship (and decision) that should be private. 

We deserve better - especially from people whose salaries we pay (ie: CDC officials).