Monthly Archives: January 2013

Israel Workshop. THURSDAY FEBRUARY 28TH 2013

A workshop for professionals:

Case-Taking and Symptom Choice – The Finer Points

Lecturer: Vera Resnick

4-hour intensive workshop on case-taking and symptom choice for increased precision and accuracy.  Spaces limited.

The workshop covers:
* Relevant aphorisms from the Organon
* Focused case-taking
* Symptom classification and prioritization
* Boenninghausen’s techniques
* Provings orientation
* How to use mind symptoms
* Practical Work on cases
* and more

Cases will be demonstrated using the P&W Boenninghausen Therapeutic Pocketbook software, but the techniques learned can be applied with other repertories.

DATE:  THURSDAY FEBRUARY 28TH
TIME:  13:00 – 17:30
VENUE:  JBC, RECHOV HILLEL 24, 5TH FLOOR, JERUSALEM

ADVANCE REGISTRATION AND PAYMENT ONLY.
COST:  NIS 450 (payment before 20th February); NIS 490 (payment after 20th February).  Payment can be made by cash, cheque or credit card

If you wish to register, please write to vera.homeopath@gmail.com to reserve your place.  Call 054-4640736 if you do not receive a reply and registration information within 24 hours.

Special Discounts for participants:
– Special Discounts on the P&W Boenninghausen Therapeutic Pocketbook (valid till 31st March 2013)
– Special Discounts on future workshops

verasem

Advertisements

Piers Morgan Falls Ill Days After Public Flu Shot with Dr. Oz

Anthony Gucciardiby
January 24th, 2013 | Updated 01/24/2013 at 1:28 pm

piersmorgan 265x167 Piers Morgan Falls Ill Days After Public Flu Shot with Dr. OzJust two days after it was reported that GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine has actually caused a whopping 800 cases of narcolepsy in children according to Reuters, a major publicity stunt for the efficacy of the flu shot as presented by CNN has crashed and burned. After receiving his very first flu shot live on air from vaccine advocate Dr. Oz in attempt to showcase the ‘safety and effectiveness of the shot’, Piers Morgan has now developed flu-like symptoms that even he and his guest have attributed to the reception of the shot.

In the January 23 interview with country music celebrity Dwight Yoakam, Piers and Dwight discuss the connection between the recent shot and his new sickness. In the interview, which can be seen below, Piers asks “…As you can tell, things are deteriorating. Is there any advice you can give me?”

Yoakam replies with a simple “Don’t ever take a flu shot again,” sparking further discussion surrounding the public injection that ultimately turned into a PR nightmare for Big Pharma. In a surprising reply, Piers says ““We’re both doing the math, so I mean, we both saw him put that thing in my arm and within 10 days I’m struck down.” It was Piers’ first flu shot in his life, according to his own testimony.

You can watch this segment below:

As pointed out by Adan Salazar, the sickness is also highly ironic as Piers actually questioned Dr. Oz about the so-called ‘myths’ surrounding the shot before it was administered. One such ‘myth’ was whether or not the shot could actually lead to the flu. In dialogue with Dr. Oz, Piers nervously asked:

“So the myth about these, and I’m told it’s a myth, is that you can actually get flu or flu-like symptoms simply by having the shot. Is that true?”

Dr. Oz, of course, regurgitated information provided by the CDC in stating that such an event is impossible due to the fact that the flu shot contains the dead flu virus. Dr. Oz also fails to mention that even the FDA’s own website admits that vaccines contain toxic additives like:

Antibiotics: Linked to the development of mental illness, obesity, and serious gut imbalance due to the depletion of beneficial bacteria in the gut, superbug-spawning antibiotics are used in vaccinations as an ‘additive’ as admitted by the FDA.

Formaldehyde: This of course is the known carcinogen used in the preservation of corpses by funeral homes and elsewhere. Even Cancer.gov admits that formaldehyde is a serious cancer-causing chemical, stating “Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer…” So why is this cancer-causing substance being used an additive for vaccinations?

Aluminum: Popularly associated with Alzheimer’s disease and a bunch of other brain disorders, aluminum is used as a vaccine additive to ‘stimulate a response’ from the body.

Thimerosal: One of the most widely known additives, thimerosal is a mercury-containing substance that is unsafe at any dose. Your doctor is likely entirely misinformed on this additive, stating there is no mercury-containing thimerosal in a vaccine when even the FDA and CDC plainly state this. As stated by Dr. David Wallinga from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, mercury is ‘toxic in all its forms.”

Instead of giving Piers a vaccination full of these toxic additives, Dr. Oz could have simply recommended that Piers begin supplementing with high quality, inexpensive vitamin D3 — or simply take a walk around outside in a warmer climate. Even in considerably low doses, vitamin D3 has been found to flash the risk of flu development by nearly half – a much great success rate than the flu shot.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/piers-morgan-falls-ill-days-after-public-flu-shot-with-dr-oz/#ixzz2JJiTe27A

Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism

spuitThe federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, better known as “vaccine court,” has just awarded millions of dollars to two children with autism for “pain and suffering” and lifelong care of their injuries, which together could cost tens of millions of dollars

The government did not admit that vaccines caused autism, at least in one of the children. Both cases were “unpublished,” meaning information is limited, and access to medical records and other exhibits is blocked. Much of the information presented here comes from documents found at the vaccine court website.

Some observers will say the vaccine-induced encephalopathy (brain disease) documented in both children is unrelated to their autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Others will say there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

What’s more, these cases fit the pattern of other petitions, (i.e., Poling and Banks) in which the court ruled (or the government conceded) that vaccines had caused encephalopathy, which in turn produced permanent injury, including symptoms of autism and ultimately an ASD diagnosis.

And most of these children now have taxpayer dollars earmarked for applied behavioral analysis (ABA), an effective therapy specifically designed to treat ASD.

Meanwhile, parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors of both children testified they were developmentally normal, if not advanced for their age when they developed seizures, spiking fevers and other adverse reactions to their vaccines. According to these eyewitnesses, the children never fully recovered, and instead began losing vocabulary, eye contact and interest in others around them, all classic symptoms of regressive autism.

In the first case, involving a 10-year-old boy from Northern California named Ryan Mojabi, the parents allege that “all the vaccinations” received from 2003-2005, and “more specifically, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations,” caused a “severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’).”

The parents, who did not want to be interviewed, specifically asserted that Ryan “suffered a Vaccine Table Injury, namely, an encephalopathy” as a result of his MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003.” (“Table injuries” are known, compensable adverse reactions to immunizations.)

Alternatively, they claim that “as a cumulative result of his receipt of each and every vaccination between March 25, 2003 and February 22, 2005, Ryan has suffered . . . neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD.”

In vaccine court, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services acts as the defendant and Justice Department attorneys act as counsel.

In 2009, Ryan’s case was transferred to vaccine court’s Autism Omnibus Proceedings, according to the docket. A year-and-a-half later, the government conceded that MMR vaccine had indeed caused Ryan’s encephalopathy.

HHS agreed that “Ryan suffered a Table injury under the Vaccine Act — namely, an encephalitis within five to fifteen days following receipt,” of MMR, records show. “This case is appropriate for compensation.”

Whether HHS agreed with Ryan’s parents that his vaccine-induced brain disease led to ASD is unknown. The concession document is under seal.

In December 2003, when Ryan was nearly two, he received his first MMR and hepatitis B vaccines before his family left for an extended trip overseas. That day, his mother testified, Ryan began shaking with uncontrollable tremors and “was really uncomfortable, he didn’t feel well at all.”

The nurse at Ryan’s pediatrician said the symptoms were “pretty normal after the vaccination,” and advised Tylenol. The next day, Ryan began crying, “but it’s not a normal crying,” his mother testified. “He didn’t go to sleep, he was without energy.”

The family considered postponing their holiday, but that wasn’t feasible. The doctor’s office said it was fine to travel. Prior to leaving, Ryan’s mother said, the boy had difficulty breathing and “was without energy and sleepy.” He could no longer hold his head up, something “he could do prior to the vaccinations.” At the airport, Ryan began “screaming,” she recalled. “He was just opening and closing his eyes so hard, he was pulling my hair.”

After his shots, she added, Ryan “stopped saying those words that he had, even mommy and daddy, that he had repeated a hundred times before.”

In early January, while still abroad, Ryan was rushed to the hospital with vomiting, high fever and red spots covering his body “from head to toe in a measles-like rash,” the attending physician said. Ryan was diagnosed with “febrile convulsion, probably related to MMR.”

The next day, another doctor diagnosed him with “high fever, skin rash, tremors, and lethargy,” which were “most likely due to an adverse reaction to multiple vaccines he received earlier.”

Two days later, Ryan returned to the hospital with a persistent fever of 104 or more.

Ryan’s parents testified that, upon returning home, they expressed worry to their pediatrician about behavioral problems, non-responsiveness and language loss, which later produced an ASD diagnosis.

At trial, however, the government argued powerfully that written medical records, and the recollections of Ryan’s doctor, were inconsistent with his parents’ testimony. If Ryan had truly suffered an MMR encephalopathy, for example, his family would never have taken him overseas. And his parents’ complaints of ASD symptoms were raised a full year after returning from abroad, they alleged. It looked like the family had a weak case.

But then something changed.

In October, 2010, Ryan’s attorney filed four new exhibits (under seal) and proposed amending the court’s “findings of fact.” In January and May of 2011, several more exhibits were filed, along with a motion to further supplement the findings of fact.

A month later HHS conceded the case, which moved into the damages phase.

Award details were announced a few days ago: A lump sum of $969,474.91, to cover “lost future earnings ($648,132.74), pain and suffering ($202,040.17), and life care expenses for Year One ($119,302.00),” plus $20,000 for past expenses.

Another undisclosed sum, several millions more, will be invested in annuities to cover yearly costs for life, which could total $10 million or more, not accounting for inflation. Nearly $80,000 was earmarked for ABA in the first two years.

The second case involves a girl named Emily, whose mother, Jillian Moller, filed back in 2003 and has been fighting in vaccine court since. The docket, crammed with 188 items, documents Moller’s extended but victorious struggle to win compensation for Emily, who has seizure disorder and PDD-NOS, a form of ASD.

Moller alleged that Emily was severely injured by a reaction to the DTaP vaccine at 15 months (when MMR, HiB and Prevnar were also given). “She had a vaccine reaction and she just spiraled out of control,” Moller said in an interview.

Emily’s fever spiked to 105.7 and she began screaming. She stared blankly and developed seizures. Before long she began “shaking episodes” at night and “repetitive behaviors, including arm flapping and spinning,” court documents show. Like Ryan, she developed a measles-type rash.

Things went from bad to worse. Emily’s medical record is filled with damage and suffering. One neurologist, for example, noted that Emily “had staring spells and an abnormal EEG.” Another diagnosed “encephalopathy characterized by speech delay and probable global developmental delay that occurred in the setting of temporal association with immunizations as an acute encephalopathy.”

Moller filed for an encephalopathy Table injury in 2003, unaware her daughter would be diagnosed with ASD.

Two hearings were held in 2005. “I was badgered and harassed for four hours on the stand,” she said. “They said Emily couldn’t have been that sick, or else I would’ve taken her to the ER. But I took her to my doctor and he said not to bring her to the hospital!”

Government lawyers insisted that Emily had suffered neither a vaccine injury nor encephalopathy. But every alternative cause they suggested “made no sense, because she showed no signs of those things before that vaccination,” Moller said.

The case dragged on for years, with motions and counter-motions, status reports and expert medical reports. In 2007, Moller filed for summary judgment. That also took years, as more medical records were submitted to bolster Emily’s case.

After the ASD diagnosis, the judge reportedly became convinced that Emily would prevail. “My attorney said she was angry, she felt forced into a corner with no choice but to find for us,” Moller said. “She said, ‘Emily has autism, and I don’t want to give other families who filed autism claims any hope.'”

The government agreed to settle. Last spring the case went into mediation and, on December 3 HHS made its proffer, which was entered into the record on the 28th. Emily was awarded a lump sum of $1,030,314.22 “for lost future earnings ($739,989.57), pain and suffering ($170,499.77) and life care expenses for Year One ($119,874.88) plus $190,165.40 for past expenses.” Some of that money will go to ABA therapy.

Based on the first year payout, another estimated $9 million will buy annuities for annual expenses through life, which after inflation has the potential to pay over $50 million dollars.

HHS did not admit that vaccination caused encephalopathy or autism, but merely decided not to dedicate more resources to defending the case.

“I don’t understand why they fought so hard,” Moller said. “We had the evidence: the EEG, the MRI, everything was consistent with encephalopathy, post-vaccination. How can government attorneys claim what our doctors said happened, didn’t happen?”

Perhaps the feds were loath to concede yet another vaccine case involving autism. Four cases in the Autism Omnibus Proceedings were recently compensated. Three of those cases are marked with asterisks, indicating the government did not conclude that autism can be caused by vaccines. But the fourth autism case that was paid out in 2013 (Ryan’s case? We don’t know) has no such caveat.

As for Emily, she is “not too good,” Moller said. “Her emotional state is fragile, at best. She has seizure problems and autoimmune issues… And it’s a constant fight when you have a vaccine-injured child. It’s not just the disability, it’s the ignorance. The hatred from the medical community towards families like ours is intense.”

Meanwhile, as HHS says it “has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination,” it is still underwriting autism treatments such as ABA for children in its vaccine-injury program.

The ineffectiveness and unintended consequences of measles vaccination

by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)
International Medical Counsel on Vaccination

Measles vaccine introduction

Measles vaccination in the US and many other countries started in the early 1960s, at the time when measles was naturally abating and was heading for the 18 year low. That’s why the vaccine seemingly lowered the incidence; however, this was only coincidental with the natural dynamics of measles.

us measles 1024x637 Outbreaks of Measles in Vaccinated Children Intensifying

Image from healthsentinel.com – Click image to enlarge.

As one of many examples involving all infectious diseases of childhood against which vaccines have been developed, ever since any measles vaccines have been introduced and used in mass proportions, reports of outbreaks and epidemics of measles in even 100% vaccinated populations started filling pages in medical journals.

Reports of serious reactions including deaths also appeared with increasing frequency. They are the subject of a separate essay.

Atypical measles – a new phenomenon only in the vaccinated

It is less well known to the general public that vaccinated children started developing an especially vicious form of measles, due to the altered host immune response caused by the deleterious effect of the measles vaccines. It resisted all orthodox treatment and carried a high mortality rate.

It has become known as atypical measles. (AMS)

Rauh and Schmidt (1965) described nine cases of AMS which occurred in 1963 during a measles epidemic in Cincinnati. The authors followed 386 children who had received three doses of killed measles virus vaccine in 1961. Of these 386 children, 125 had been exposed to measles and 54 developed it [i.e. measles].

The new, atypical measles, occurring in the vaccinated was characterised by high fever, unusual rash and pneumonia, often with history of vaccination with killed measles vaccine.

Rauh and Schmidt (1965) concluded that, “It is obvious that three injections of killed vaccine had not protected a large percentage of children against measles when exposed within a period of two-and-a-half years after immunization”.

Fulginiti (1967) also described the occurrence of atypical measles in ten children who had received inactivated (killed) measles virus vaccine five to six years previously.

Nichols (1979) wrote that atypical measles is generally thought to be a hypersensitivity response to natural measles infection in individuals who have previously received killed measles vaccine, although several investigators have reported AMS-like illness in children who had been vaccinated only with live measles vaccine.

He wrote that during a measles epidemic in 1974-1975 in Northern California, a number of physicians reported laboratory-confirmed measles in patients who had signs and symptoms, compatible with AMS…”We developed case criteria on the basis of serology and rash distribution and morphology. In typical measles a maculopapular rash occurs first at the hairline, progresses caudally, is concentrated on the face and trunk, and is often accompanied by Koplik’s spots. In AMS the rash Is morphologically a mixture of maculopapular, petechial, vesicular, and urticarial components. It usually begins and is concentrated primarily on the extremities, progresses cephalad, and is not accompanied by Koplik’s spots. Cases were classified as AMS if patients had 1) a rash with the distribution and morphology characteristic of AMS, and 2) a fourfold or greater rise in titer of complement-fixing measles antibody or a convalescent titer of 256”.

Continuing measles outbreaks signal increasing incidence comparable with the prevaccine era.

In the meantime, outbreaks of measles in vaccinated children have continued and intensified to this day. Contemporary observations of the ineffectiveness of vaccination indicate to me that the incidence of measles has increased and has not continued decreasing as it did for some 100 years before any type of measles vaccination was introduced.

Conrad et al. (1971) published about the dynamics of measles in the US in the last four years and conceded that measles was on the increase and that “eradication, if possible, now seems far in the future”.

Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Right through the 1980s, measles outbreaks in fully vaccinated children have continued all over the US and all other countries with high vaccination rates all over the world.

Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986. 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance”.

To cap it all: the largely unvaccinated Amish (they claim religious exemption) had not reported a single case of measles between 1970 and December 1987, for 18 years (Sutter et al. 1991). It is quite likely that a similar situation would have applied to outside communities without any vaccination and that measles vaccination had actually kept measles alive and kicking. According to Hedrich (1933), there is a variety of dynamics of measles occurrence, from 2-3 years to up to 18 years, as later also witnessed by the unvaccinated Amish.

Unfounded optimism for measles eradication in the US by 1 October 1982

Despite the obvious lack of success with measles vaccination, in October 1978, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Joseph A Califano Jr. announced, “We are launching an effort that seeks to free the United States from measles by 1 October 1982″.

Predictably, this unrealistic plan fell flatly on its face: after 1982 the US was hit repeatedly by major and even more sustained epidemics of measles, mostly in fully vaccinated populations. First, the blame was laid upon the “ineffective, formalin-inactivated (‘killed’) measles vaccine, administered to hundreds of thousands of children from 1963 to 1967″. However, outbreaks and epidemics of measles continued occurring even when this first vaccine was replaced with two doses of ‘live’ measles virus vaccines and the age of administration was changed.

These warnings have not been heeded. As the Swiss doctors wrote (Albonico et al. 1990), “we have lost the common sense and wisdom that used to prevail in the approach to childhood diseases. Too often, instead of reinforcing the organism’s defences, fever and symptoms are relentlessly suppressed. This is not always without consequences”.

Destruction of transplacentally-transmitted immunity by vaccination

Many researchers warned straight after the introduction of measles vaccine in the US that the generations of children born to mothers who were vaccinated in childhood will be born with poor or no transplacentally-transmitted immunity and will contract measles and other diseases too early in life.

Lennon and Black (1986) demonstrated that “haemaglutinin-inhibiting and neutralizing antibody titers are lower in women young enough to have been immunized by vaccination than older women”. The same applied to whooping cough. It explains why so many babies before vaccination age develop these diseases, and most particularly the much publicised whooping cough.

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/01/18/the-ineffectiveness-of-measles-vaccines-and-other-unintended-consequences-by-dr-viera-scheibner-phd

About the author

Dr Viera Scheibner is Principal Research Scientist (Retired) with a doctorate in Natural Sciences from Comenius University in Bratislava. After an eminent scientific career in micropalaeontology during which she published 3 books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed scientific journals in Australia and overseas, she studied babies’ breathing patterns with the Cotwatch breathing monitor developed by her late husband Leif Karlsson in the mid 1980s. Babies had alarms after vaccination, indicating stress. This introduced her to the subject of vaccination. She then started systematically studying orthodox medical papers dealing with vaccination issues. To this day she has collected and studied more than 100000 pages of medical papers.

Despite such extensive research of orthodox medical papers published on vaccines over the past 100 years, she established that there is no scientific evidence that these injections of highly noxious substances prevent diseases, quite to the contrary, that they increase susceptibility to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and also to a host of related and unrelated viral and bacterial infections. Vaccines are involved in a great number of modern ills of childhood such as immunoreactive diseases (asthma, allergies), autoimmune diseases (diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis), cancers, leukaemia, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, behavioural and learning problems, to mention just the most important conditions.

Her research into vaccination has culminated so far in two books and a number of shorter and longer individual papers published in a variety of scientific and medical publications. She has also conducted frequent international lecture tours to present the results of her research to parents, health and medical professionals and anyone else who is interested. She has also provided a great number of expert witness reports for court cases relating to deaths and injuries caused by vaccines, such as so-called “shaken baby” syndrome.

Narcolepsy diagnosis in Sweden and Finland

 

Emelie Olsson falls asleep as he watches television in her apartment in Stockholm, January 17, 2013. Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunised in 2009 with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline. Picture taken January 17, 2013. REUTERS-Ints Kalnins
Emelie Olsson shows her paintings in Stockholm January 17, 2013. REUTERS-Ints Kalnins
The first shipment of pandemic vaccine against the swine influenza A (H1N1) Pandemrix arrives in Malmo in this October 9, 2009 file photo. REUTERS-Scanpix

By Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent

STOCKHOLM | Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:26am EST

(Reuters) – Emelie Olsson is plagued by hallucinations and nightmares. When she wakes up, she’s often paralyzed, unable to breathe properly or call for help. During the day she can barely stay awake, and often misses school or having fun with friends. She is only 14, but at times she has wondered if her life is worth living.

Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunized with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in 2009.

Finland, Norway, Ireland and France have seen spikes in narcolepsy cases, too, and people familiar with the results of a soon-to-be-published study in Britain have told Reuters it will show a similar pattern in children there.

Their fate, coping with an illness that all but destroys normal life, is developing into what the health official who coordinated Sweden’s vaccination campaign calls a “medical tragedy” that will demand rising scientific and medical attention.

Europe’s drugs regulator has ruled Pandemrix should no longer be used in people aged under 20. The chief medical officer at GSK’s vaccines division, Norman Begg, says his firm views the issue extremely seriously and is “absolutely committed to getting to the bottom of this”, but adds there is not yet enough data or evidence to suggest a causal link.

Others – including Emmanuel Mignot, one of the world’s leading experts on narcolepsy, who is being funded by GSK to investigate further – agree more research is needed but say the evidence is already clearly pointing in one direction.

“There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pandemrix increased the occurrence of narcolepsy onset in children in some countries – and probably in most countries,” says Mignot, a specialist in the sleep disorder at Stanford University in the United States.

30 MILLION RECEIVED PANDEMRIX

In total, the GSK shot was given to more than 30 million people in 47 countries during the 2009-2010 H1N1 swine flu pandemic. Because it contains an adjuvant, or booster, it was not used in the United States because drug regulators there are wary of adjuvanted vaccines.

GSK says 795 people across Europe have reported developing narcolepsy since the vaccine’s use began in 2009.

Questions about how the narcolepsy cases are linked to Pandemrix, what the triggers and biological mechanisms might have been, and whether there might be a genetic susceptibility are currently the subject of deep scientific investigation.

But experts on all sides are wary. Rare adverse reactions can swiftly develop into “vaccine scares” that spiral out of proportion and cast what one of Europe’s top flu experts calls a “long shadow” over public confidence in vaccines that control potential killers like measles and polio.

“No-one wants to be the next Wakefield,” said Mignot, referring to the now discredited British doctor Andrew Wakefield who sparked a decades-long backlash against the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) shot with false claims of links to autism.

With the narcolepsy studies, there is no suggestion that the findings are the work of one rogue doctor.

Independent teams of scientists have published peer-reviewed studies from Sweden, Finland and Ireland showing the risk of developing narcolepsy after the 2009-2010 immunization campaign was between seven and 13 times higher for children who had Pandemrix than for their unvaccinated peers.

“We really do want to get to the bottom of this. It’s not in anyone’s interests if there is a safety issue that needs to be addressed,” said GSK’s Begg.

LIFE CHANGED

Emelie’s parents, Charles and Marie Olsson, say she was a top student who loved playing the piano, taking tennis lessons, creating art and having fun with friends. But her life started to change in early 2010, a few months after she had Pandemrix. In the spring of 2010, they noticed she was often tired, needing to sleep when she came home from school.

But it wasn’t until May, when she began collapsing at school, that it became clear something serious was happening.

As well as the life-limiting bouts of daytime sleepiness, narcolepsy brings nightmares, hallucinations, sleep paralysis and episodes of cataplexy – when strong emotions trigger a sudden and dramatic loss of muscle strength.

In Emelie’s case, having fun is the emotional trigger. “I can’t laugh or joke about with my friends any more, because when I do I get cataplexies and collapse,” she said in an interview at her home in the Swedish capital.

Narcolepsy is estimated to affect between 200 and 500 people per million and is a lifelong condition. It has no known cure and scientists don’t really know what causes it. But they do know patients have a deficit of a brain neurotransmitter called orexin, also known as hypocretin, which regulates wakefulness.

Research has found that some people are born with a variant in a gene known as HLA that means they have low hypocretin, making them more susceptible to narcolepsy. Around 25 percent of Europeans are thought to have this genetic vulnerability.

When results of Emelie’s hypocretin test came back in November last year, it showed she had 15 percent of the normal amount, typical of heavy narcolepsy with cataplexy.

The seriousness of her strange new illness has forced her to contemplate life far more than many other young teens: “In the beginning I didn’t really want to live any more, but now I have learned to handle things better,” she said.

TRIGGERS?

Scientists investigating these cases are looking in detail at Pandemrix’s adjuvant, called AS03, for clues.

Some suggest AS03, or maybe its boosting effect, or even the H1N1 flu itself, may have triggered the onset of narcolepsy in those who have the susceptible HLA gene variant.

Angus Nicoll, a flu expert at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), says genes may well play a part, but don’t tell the whole story.

“Yes, there’s a genetic predisposition to this condition, but that alone cannot explain these cases,” he said. “There was also something to do with receiving this specific vaccination. Whether it was the vaccine plus the genetic disposition alone or a third factor as well – like another infection – we simply do not know yet.”

GSK is funding a study in Canada, where its adjuvanted vaccine Arepanrix, similar to Pandemrix, was used during the 2009-2010 pandemic. The study won’t be completed until 2014, and some experts fear it may not shed much light since the vaccines were similar but not precisely the same.

It all leaves this investigation with far more questions than answers, and a lot more research ahead.

WAS IT WORTH IT?

In his glass-topped office building overlooking the Maria Magdalena church in Stockholm, Goran Stiernstedt, a doctor turned public health official, has spent many difficult hours going over what happened in his country during the swine flu pandemic, wondering if things should have been different.

“The big question is was it worth it? And retrospectively I have to say it was not,” he told Reuters in an interview.

Being a wealthy country, Sweden was at the front of the queue for pandemic vaccines. It got Pandemrix from GSK almost as soon as it was available, and a nationwide campaign got uptake of the vaccine to 59 percent, meaning around 5 million people got the shot.

Stiernstedt, director for health and social care at the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, helped coordinate the vaccination campaign across Sweden’s 21 regions.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) says the 2009-2010 pandemic killed 18,500 people, although a study last year said that total might be up to 15 times higher.

While estimates vary, Stiernstedt says Sweden’s mass vaccination saved between 30 and 60 people from swine flu death. Yet since the pandemic ended, more than 200 cases of narcolepsy have been reported in Sweden.

With hindsight, this risk-benefit balance is unacceptable. “This is a medical tragedy,” he said. “Hundreds of young people have had their lives almost destroyed.”

PANDEMICS ARE EMERGENCIES

Yet the problem with risk-benefit analyses is that they often look radically different when the world is facing a pandemic with the potential to wipe out millions than they do when it has emerged relatively unscathed from one, like H1N1, which turned out to be much milder than first feared.

David Salisbury, the British government’s director of immunization, says “therein lies the risk, and the difficulty, of working in public health” when a viral emergency hits.

“In the event of a severe pandemic, the risk of death is far higher than the risk of narcolepsy,” he told Reuters. “If we spent longer developing and testing the vaccine on very large numbers of people and waited to see whether any of them developed narcolepsy, much of the population might be dead.”

Pandemrix was authorized by European drug regulators using a so-called “mock-up procedure” that allows a vaccine to be authorized ahead of a possible pandemic using another flu strain. In Pandemrix’s case, the substitute was H5N1 bird flu.

When the WHO declared a pandemic, GSK replaced the mock-up’s strain with the pandemic-causing H1N1 strain to form Pandemrix.

GSK says the final H1N1 version was tested in trials involving around 3,600 patients, including children, adolescents, adults and the elderly, before it was rolled out.

The ECDC’s Nicoll says early warning systems that give a more accurate analysis of a flu strain’s threat are the best way to minimize risks of this kind of tragedy happening in future.

Salisbury agrees, and says progress towards a universal flu vaccine – one that wouldn’t need last-minute changes made when a new strain emerged – would cuts risks further.

“Ideally, we would have a better vaccine that would work against all strains of influenza and we wouldn’t need to worry about this ever again,” he said. “But that’s a long way off.”

With scientists facing years of investigation and research, Emelie just wants to make the best of her life.

She reluctantly accepts that to do so, she needs a cocktail of drugs to try to control the narcolepsy symptoms. The stimulant Ritalin and the sleeping pill Sobril are prescribed for Emelie’s daytime sleepiness and night terrors. Then there’s Prozac to try to stabilize her and limit her cataplexies.

“That’s one of the things that makes me feel most uncomfortable,” she explains. “Before I got this condition I didn’t take any pills, and now I have to take lots – maybe for the rest of my life. It’s not good to take so many medicines, especially when you know they have side effects.”

Shock study: Chemotherapy can backfire, make cancer worse by triggering tumor growth

Scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B, which boosts cancer cell survival. ‘The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” said Peter Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

AFP RELAX NEWS

Monday, August 6, 2012, 12:59 PM
cancer-treatment

Sven Hoppe /shutterstock.com

Healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secrete more of a protein called WNT16B, which boosts cancer cell survival

Long considered the most effective cancer-fighting treatment, chemotherapy may actually make cancer worse, according to a shocking new study.

The extremely aggressive therapy, which kills both cancerous and healthy cells indiscriminately, can cause healthy cells to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment.

Researchers in the United States made the “completely unexpected” finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.

They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.

Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumors.

The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.

“The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.

The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.

In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid re-growth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth kinetics,” wrote the team.

The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumors.

CANCER TREATMENT OVERVIEW

The result paves the way for research into new, improved treatment, said Nelson.

“For example, an antibody to WNT16B, given with chemotherapy, may improve responses (kill more tumor cells),” he said in an email exchange.

“Alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy.”

The deaths of children from multiple vaccine doses can only be called carnage. This study demonstrates that giving 5-8 doses instead of 1-4 doses at a time has resulted in an extra 51,750 to 103,500 child deaths in the last 20 years.

Mortality Rate 50% Higher with More Vaccine Doses

The deaths of children from multiple vaccine doses can only be called carnage. This study demonstrates that giving 5-8 doses instead of 1-4 doses at a time has resulted in an extra 51,750 to 103,500 child deaths in the last 20 years.

Shocked-Boy-by-Piers-Nye

 

 

 

Shocked Boy, by Piers Nye

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study using data from the US government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) shows that the more vaccines given, the more likely children will die or be hospitalized. The increased rates are highly significant, with a 50% greater chance of death with doubling the number of vaccines and  more than 100% increase in hospitalizations—that’s double the number of hospital visits!

VAERS is recognized to contain only a small percentage of all adverse vaccination events. As GS Goldman and NZ Miller point out,

[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.

Thus, the increased mortality and hospitalization suffered by children as a direct result of the aggressive vaccination schedule, with as many as 9 vaccines given in one day, is a huge number of children. If, according to the study’s report above, only 1 to 2 out of 100 adverse events is reported, then the numbers reported by VAERS need to be multiplied by 50 to 100!

Nonetheless, as this study has demonstrated, significant information about the hazards of vaccines can still be ascertained by running statistical analyses of the data given.

Graph of Hospitalization RatesThe graph on the right, produced by the study, displays the hospitalization rate charted against the number of vaccines. The solid diagonal line plots the linear regression calculated for the data. You can see that it’s a close match for the specific number of hospitalizations for each year.

The outlier references the hospitalizations for a single vaccine dose. This is likely explained by a combination of factors. One is that the earliest vaccines are generally given singly in the hospital shortly after birth. Newborns are at greater risk. Also, many parents will refuse to continue vaccinations, or will refuse multiple vaccines, after an early severe reaction.

R2 refers to the likelihood that the regression line is a good fit for the data. R2 of 0.91 is quite good. Perfect would be 1.00. Thus, it’s likely that the graph is showing the reality: When the number of vaccine doses increases, the number of hospitalizations increases dramatically, from 10% of VAERS reports with 2 doses to more than 20% with 8 doses.

Below is the table for the death rate by number of doses:

Table: Infant Mortality Rate, Number of Vaccine DosesInterestingly, the number of child deaths due to number of vaccine doses increases dramatically with 5. The reasons for this are unknown, but it may have to do with the particular vaccines given or simply be related to additive effects of toxins in the vaccines. That wasn’t analyzed in this report.

I’ve circled the salient data in red. They show the actual numbers of reported deaths, the numbers of reports of adverse events, and the rates of mortality for 1-4 vaccines added together and all adverse event reports of 5-8 vaccines added together.

Note: In reviewing the figures, I noted a possible small error. In my calculation, the circled 3.6% mortality rate should be recorded as 3.5%. It’s probably nothing more than a difference in method of rounding. I’ve written to the authors to ask about this and will report back on their response.

Update: Dr. Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. responded quickly and frankly within a few hours:

Dear Heidi,

Yes, your calculation looks correct. The paper went through several revisions and what I think happened is that initially we showed the percentages accurate to the nearest hundredths, so 3.546… was shown rounded to 3.55, then at some point we decided to round only to the nearest tenths. Unfortunately, we likely rounded the 3.55 to 3.6 when we should have gone back to the original data. Sorry about that! Thank you for your find!

In looking at the table, it’s quite clear that something is going on with increasing doses of vaccines given at the same time. You can see that there’s a huge jump in mortality with the fourth vaccine, jumping by a factor of 3.88, from 42 to 163 deaths. The statistical method of reporting doesn’t clarify this fact, nor does it show that the increase is almost as great with the fifth vaccine dose, from 163 to 523, 3.21 times more children dying.

The second four vaccine doses, 5-8, are resulting in 50% more deaths than the first four doses, 1-4. When we also consider the likelihood that there are 50-100 times more adverse reactions than reported, what this study reveals is frightening:

1,458 deaths at 5-8 doses – 423 deaths at 1-4 doses = 1,035 extra deaths for doubling the number of doses.

Multiply that by 50 and you have 51,750 extra deaths simply for giving 5-8 vaccine doses, instead of 1-4 doses, at one time.

If the true underreporting is double that (only 1% adverse reactions reported), then the real number of excess child deaths would be 103,500.

That’s only considering the deaths caused by the fifth through eighth doses. It eliminates the deaths caused by the first four doses. Those would add up to 21,150 if VAERS includes 2% of actual adverse effects, and 42,300 if it includes 1%. Adding those numbers together gives us a total of 145,800 children who’ve died as a direct result of vaccines from 1990 to 2010.

This is carnage that can be laid directly at the doorstep of our aggressive vaccination program.

If you do want to have your children vaccinated, at least insist on only single doses separated by enough time to assure that there’s no cumulative effect. It’s clear from the evidence here that multiple vaccine doses, which have become standard, are responsible for a huge number of deaths in children.

Source:

Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor

This is the future of Allopathic Medicine.

Make no mistake. Your life has no value in the long run in their business plan.

August 19, 2012

Human_fetus_10_weeks_with_amniotic_sac

Human fetus (credit: drsuparna/Wikimedia Commons)

Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just ‘responsible parenting’, claims an eminent Oxford academic, The Telegraph reports.

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a “moral obligation” as it makes them grow up into “ethically better children”.

He said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to “harm themselves and others”.

He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on personality — with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.

In the end, he said, “rational design” would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future.

“Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. ”They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others.”

He said that we already routinely screen embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down’s syndrome and couples can test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes. Rational design is just a natural extension of this, he said.

He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children.

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

January 21, 2013 Biotechnology, Commentaries 8 Comments

by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson

How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

Cauliflower Mosaic Virus

Cauliflower Mosaic Virus

What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).

The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.

The Choices for Regulators
The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.

It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.

Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).

Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.

Can the presence of a fragment of virus DNA really be that significant? Below is an independent analysis of Gene VI and its known properties and their safety implications. This analysis clearly illustrates the regulators’ dilemma.

The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:

1) Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing
RNA silencing is a mechanism for the control of gene expression at the level of RNA abundance (Bartel 2004). It is also an important antiviral defense mechanism in both plants and animals, and therefore most viruses have evolved genes (like Gene VI) that disable it (Dunoyer and Voinnet 2006).

Cauliflower mosaic virus genome

Gene VI (upper left) precedes the start of the 35S RNA

This attribute of Gene VI raises two obvious biosafety concerns: 1) Gene VI will lead to aberrant gene expression in GMO crop plants, with unknown consequences and, 2) Gene VI will interfere with the ability of plants to defend themselves against viral pathogens. There are numerous experiments showing that, in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses (Latham and Wilson 2008).

2) Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression
Multicellular organisms make proteins by a mechanism in which only one protein is produced by each passage of a ribosome along a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once that protein is completed the ribosome dissociates from the mRNA. However, in a CaMV-infected plant cell, or as a transgene, Gene VI intervenes in this process and directs the ribosome to get back on an mRNA (reinitiate) and produce the next protein in line on the mRNA, if there is one. This property of Gene VI enables Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to produce multiple proteins from a single long RNA (the 35S RNA). Importantly, this function of Gene VI (which is called transactivation) is not limited to the 35S RNA. Gene VI seems able to transactivate any cellular mRNA (Futterer and Hohn 1991; Ryabova et al. 2002). There are likely to be thousands of mRNA molecules having a short or long protein coding sequence following the primary one. These secondary coding sequences could be expressed in cells where Gene VI is expressed. The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted.

3) Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses
A very recent finding, not known by Podevin and du Jardin, is that Gene VI has a second mechanism by which it interferes with plant anti-pathogen defenses (Love et al. 2012). It is too early to be sure about the mechanistic details, but the result is to make plants carrying Gene VI more susceptible to certain pathogens, and less susceptible to others. Obviously, this could impact farmers, however the discovery of an entirely new function for gene VI while EFSA’s paper was in press, also makes clear that a full appraisal of all the likely effects of Gene VI is not currently achievable.

Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.

Is Gene VI Protein Produced in GMO Crops?
Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm, a crucial issue is whether the actual inserted transgene sequences found in commercial GMO crops will produce any functional protein from the fragment of Gene VI present within the CaMV sequence.

There are two aspects to this question. One is the length of Gene VI accidentally introduced by developers. This appears to vary but most of the 54 approved transgenes contain the same 528 base pairs of the CaMV 35S promoter sequence. This corresponds to approximately the final third of Gene VI. Deleted fragments of Gene VI are active when expressed in plant cells and functions of Gene VI are believed to reside in this final third. Therefore, there is clear potential for unintended effects if this fragment is expressed (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993; Ryabova et al. 2002; Kobayashi and Hohn 2003).

The second aspect of this question is what quantity of Gene VI could be produced in GMO crops? Once again, this can ultimately only be resolved by direct quantitative experiments. Nevertheless, we can theorize that the amount of Gene VI produced will be specific to each independent insertion event. This is because significant Gene VI expression probably would require specific sequences (such as the presence of a gene promoter and an ATG [a protein start codon]) to precede it and so is likely to be heavily dependent on variables such as the details of the inserted transgenic DNA and where in the plant genome the transgene inserted.

Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.

Even direct quantitative measurements of Gene VI protein in individual crop authorizations would not fully resolve the scientific questions, however. No-one knows, for example, what quantity, location or timing of protein production would be of significance for risk assessment, and so answers necessary to perform science-based risk assessment are unlikely to emerge soon.

Big Lessons for Biotechnology
It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information.  We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.

This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.

This sense of a generic failure is reinforced by the fact that this is not an isolated event. There exist other examples of commercially approved viral sequences having overlapping genes that were never subjected to risk assessment. These include numerous commercial GMOs containing promoter regions of the closely related virus figwort mosaic virus (FMV) which were not considered by Podevin and du Jardin. Inspection of commercial sequence data shows that the commonly used FMV promoter overlaps its own Gene VI (Richins et al 1987). A third example is the virus-resistant potato NewLeaf Plus (RBMT-22-82). This transgene contains approximately 90% of the P0 gene of potato leaf roll virus. The known function of this gene, whose existence was discovered only after US approval, is to inhibit the anti-pathogen defenses of its host (Pfeffer et al 2002). Fortunately, this potato variety was never actively marketed.

A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.

Biotechnology, it is often forgotten, is not just a technology. It is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on novel living organisms. Rather than treat that question as primarily a daunting scientific one, we should for now consider that the primary obstacle will be overcoming the much more mundane trap of human complacency and incompetence. We are not there yet, and therefore this incident will serve to reinforce the demands for GMO labeling in places where it is absent.

What Regulators Should Do Now
This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.

Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.

But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.

To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.

Footnotes
1)  EFSA regulators might now be regretting their failure to implement meaningful GMO monitoring. It would be a good question for European politicians to ask EFSA and for the board of EFSA to ask the GMO panel, whose job it is to implement monitoring.

References
Bartel P (2004)  MicroRNAs: Genomics, Biogenesis, Mechanism, and Function. Cell: 116, 281-297.
Dasgupta R , Garcia BH,  Goodman RM (2001) Systemic spread of an RNA insect virus in plants expressing plant viral movement protein genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 4910-4915.

De Tapia M, Himmelbach A, and Hohn T (1993) Molecular dissection of the cauliflower mosaic virus translation transactivator. EMBO J 12: 3305-14.

Dunoyer P, and  O Voinnet (2006) The complex interplay between plant viruses and host RNA-silencing pathways.  Curr Opinion in Plant Biology 8: 415–423.

Franck A, H Guilley, G Jonard, K Richards and L Hirth (1980) Nucleotide sequence of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA. Cell 2: 285-294.
Futterer J, and T Hohn (1991) Translation of a polycistronic mRNA in presence of the cauliflower mosaic virus transactivator protein. EMBO J. 10: 3887-3896.

Haas G, Azevedo J, Moissiard G, Geldreich A, Himber C, Bureau M, et al. (2008) Nuclear import of CaMV P6 is required for infection and suppression of the RNA silencing factor DRB4. EMBO J 27: 2102-12.

Kobayashi K, and T Hohn (2003) Dissection of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Transactivator/Viroplasmin Reveals Distinct Essential Functions in Basic Virus Replication. J. Virol. 77: 8577–8583.

Latham JR, and AK Wilson (2008) Transcomplementation and Synergism in Plants: Implications for Viral Transgenes? Molecular Plant Pathology 9: 85-103.

Park H-S, Himmelbach A, Browning KS, Hohn T, and Ryabova LA (2001). A plant viral ‘‘reinitiation’’ factor interacts with the host translational machinery. Cell 106: 723–733.

Pfeffer S, P Dunoyer, F Heim, KE Richards, G Jonard, V Ziegler-Graff (2002) P0 of Beet Western Yellows Virus Is a Suppressor of Posttranscriptional Gene Silencing. J. Virol. 76: 6815–6824.

Podevin N and  du Jardin P (2012) Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. GM Crops and Food 3: 1-5.

Love AJ , C Geri, J Laird, C Carr, BW Yun, GJ Loake et al (2012) Cauliflower mosaic virus Protein P6 Inhibits Signaling Responses to Salicylic Acid and Regulates Innate Immunity. PLoS One. 7(10): e47535.

Richins R, H Scholthof, RJ Shepherd (1987) Sequence of figwort mosaic virus DNA (caulimovirus group). NAR 15: 8451-8466.

Ryabova LA , Pooggin, MH and Hohn, T (2002) Viral strategies of translation initiation: Ribosomal shunt and reinitiation. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 72: 1-39.

Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vendômois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol.

Takahashi H, K Shimamoto, Y Ehara (1989) Cauliflower mosaic virus gene VI causes growth suppression, development of necrotic spots and expression of defence-related genes in transgenic tobacco plants. Molecular and General Genetics 216:188-194.

Wilson AK, JR Latham and RA Steinbrecher (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 23: 209-234.

Zijlstra C, Schärer-Hernández N, Gal S, Hohn T. Arabidopsis thaliana expressing the cauliflower mosaic virus ORF VI transgene has a late flowering phenotype. Virus Genes 1996; 13:5-17.

This vaccine regime is being made mandatory all over the world.

Vaccinated Children Have More Than Twice the Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children

50-Reasons-NOT-to-Vaccinate-your-Children1This survey was A German study released in September 2011 of about 8000 UNVACCINATED children, newborn to 19 years, show vaccinated children have more than twice the diseases and disorders than unvaccinated children.

The results are presented in the bar chart below; the complete data and study results are here. The data is compared to the national German KIGGS health study of the children in the general population. Most of the respondents to the survey were from the U.S. (Click on the chart to see it better)


Salzburger Study

Results: of 1004 unvaccinated children, had

Asthma, 0% (8-12% in the normal population)

A-topic dermatitis 1.2% (10-20% in the normal population)

Allergies 3% (25% in the normal population)

ADHD 0.79% (5-10%) in children

Longterm Study in Guinea-Bissau (1 Kristensen I, Aaby P, Jensen H.:“Routine vaccinations and child survival: follow up study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa”, BMJ 2000; 321: 1435–41)

The children of 15,000 mothers were observed from 1990 to 1996 for 5 years.

Result: the death rate in vaccinated children against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough is twice as high as the unvaccinated children (10.5% versus 4.7%).

New Zealand Survey (1992) (http://www.ias.org.nz)

The study involved 254 children. In which 133 children were vaccinated and 121 remained unvaccinated.

Result:

Symptom vaccinated unvaccinated
Asthma 20 (15%) 4 (3%)
Eczema or allergic rashes 43 (32%) 16 (13%)
Chronic otitis 26 (20%) 8 (7%)
Recurrent tonsillitis 11 (8%) 3 (2%)
Shortness of breath and sudden infant death syndrome 9 (7%) 2 (2%)
Hyperactivity 10 (8%) 1 (1%)

 

 

 

 

Download and read the IAS1992study now.