Monthly Archives: April 2015

CA SB277 ON VACCINES MOVES TOWARD DISASTROUS PASSAGE

California Senate Bill 277 has passed through the Judiciary Committee, and needs another Committee’s rubber stamp before it arrives on the Senate floor for debate—and what looks like a ride into law.


Governor Brown will sign the Bill. Brown has become a standard fool. He’s worn out. Whatever interesting ideas he may have entertained in his former “moonbeam” incarnation are gone in the wind.

Bill277 eliminates the personal belief and religious exemptions from vaccination. It also states that children cannot attend public or private school unless they are vaccinated according to the State’s schedule.

Medical exemptions are still allowed, but these won’t be easy to come by, because physicians who grant them will be scrutinized and harassed.

In Committee, before the vote, the Bill was changed to offer two compromises. Personal belief exemptions will be permitted for all future vaccines, beyond the current 10 mandated shots. And children who are now in school will be allowed to forego vaccination (with some limitations).

Eventually, in years to come, you can expect these two “gifts” to be rescinded.

All in all, personal freedom and choice are gone.

Vaccine manufacturers are popping the champagne corks.

For those California parents who are looking for a way out, there is home-schooling. But you can be sure that, at some point up the road, those children will be falsely blamed for “an outbreak,” and pressure will build to force them to take shots.

This Bill is going to become law, unless there is huge uprising of parents between now and the final legislative vote.

Seen in a larger context, the Bill is one element in a thousand-element program that standardly proclaims: if you want security and protection, you must give up your freedom.

Of course, as I’ve pointed out before, this program always overstates the threat from which one needs protection. In fact, quite often, the same agents of the State who offer that protection manufactured the threat in the first place.

In the case of vaccines, the preposterous notion that vaccinated children (who are purported to be immune) need shielding from unvaccinated children is a contradiction on its face.

So is the idea that children who live in poverty, lack nutritious food, and consequently function on grossly weakened immune systems can gain substitute-protection via vaccines. The reverse is true: vaccinations attack their already-compromised level of health.

In any event, parents seeking their own information about vaccines becomes a useless fantasy under this new California Bill. Everything is decided for them by the State.

In case you want to place all the blame on Big Pharma and its undue influence, keep in mind that government is where the buck is supposed to stop. This is the place where officials can say no if they want to.

Letting them off the hook as helpless victims of corporate power is absurd. They aren’t helpless. They go to the slaughter willingly. Sometimes, with deeper pockets.

Vaccination=protection is the equation that has been shoved down the throats of the population. And to back it up, we have the ever-popular, “This is science. Only crazy people oppose science.”

Ever since 9/11, protection has risen as the most important government theme: “Let us protect you, let us do our jobs, keep your mouths shut and everything will turn out well.”

People buy it. Their minds are vacuums, and they need something to fill it. Might as well be “protection.” Seems important. Seems right.

Seems like the sort of thing a parent is supposed to provide.

“Yes, I remember as a child that Daddy told me (or I wish he had) that everything would be all right. When the government tells me that now, it feels good.”

So does an endless supply of tranquilizers. Until it doesn’t.

Until the brain turns to mush.

Case of the week. A practitioners Problem.

The clinic received a call from Japan where a Dr colleague has traveled to run a workshop. 20 some years ago, this colleague fell on his right hip and had a slight fracture in  his hip. Over a short time, it went on to become a serious problem and the X-rays and surgeons advice was to replace the hip. However with homoeopathy and recuperative therapy, the problem went away and the hip became sound once more.

My colleague, 4 weeks ago, was demonstrating to a class how to rotate joints for proper placement of, and used himself as the model. his leg and hip was rotated and seated. He noticed a ‘sensation’ of something ‘not right’ when the leg was everted. The sensation increased to a point where it now a definite pain. The Practitioner took BRYONIA as the pain was not present when still. It didnt work.

In the call this morning, it was established that the localised hip pain, including bones, ligaments and muscle had now spread to the hip area, Pain was exacerbated when rotating and extended the leg sideways and walking up stairs was extremely difficult. Upon questioning he also stated that he noticed during training sessions, that he felt a little easier for movement but too much would make it sore again.

He was prescribed Rhus Tox, All the ‘peculiar’ symptoms, that is the symptoms pertaining to production from the medicine RHUS TOX, were present. We will see what happens over the course of time.

You might be asking, ‘why could the practitioner not see the symptoms?”. The answer is simple, when a person is in pain or busy, they do not notice the exhibition of symptoms until questioned to bring it to mind. Unless a person is of a totally analytical turn of mind, it is difficult to determine and observe clearly the state.

This is why Hahnemann said to leave a space under an important occurrence or change, and write ALL the modalities and sensations pertaining to that one symptom.

AS PUBLIC CELEBRATES VERMONT GMO LABELING, STATE REMOVES VACCINE EXEMPTION

SOURCE: JEFFERY JAXEN

Picture

With the public focused on the lobbyist-driven California Senate Bill 277 (SB-277), the Vermont Senate quietly eliminated vaccine exemptions Thursday with an 18-11 vote. Missing the starting gun, communities across America are now facing the political push to remove the barrier between their bodies and a private company’s medical product. Attempting to squeeze every last drop of credibility from the “safe and effective” argument, senators across the U.S. appear to be ignoring the voices of their people in addition to over $3 billion of payouts in the U.S. alone from The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Recently, the population of Vermont, and the rest of the country, is swooning over the state’s political representatives for enacting the nation’s first mandatory GMO labeling law. After a short legal hang-up forced by corporate influence, the law will begin on July 1st, 2016. What better state to remove vaccine exemptions than one in which its politicians can do no wrong. As first reported by AgeofAutism:

“Friday, April 10th, Jennifer Stella, head of the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice learned that Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, and Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, had tried to tack the exemption removal language onto another bill. The move was ruled to be non-germane and was disallowed.

The following Tuesday evening Stella learned that another attempt was coming, this time to tack the bill onto a vaccination registry expansion bill that had already passed the house, and would be debated the following morning. By the time the bill (H98) hit the senate floor on Wednesday, a barrage of phone calls had been made to concerned parents, who showed up in the Senate Chamber ready to fight the measure. The bill surfaced as an amendment introduced, again by Senators Mullin and Campbell, and this time joined by Senator Sears, D-Windsor.”

It was at this point the process went from underhanded to simply corrupt. Appearing it would fail, the Vermont H98 sponsors decided to postpone their bill a week mirroring the exact techniques seen during California SB-277. This was presumably at the advice of lobbyists who were present on the Vermont Senate floor from the American Academy of PediatricsphRMA, and others. Reconvening a week later, on the same day as the final California vote (4/22), Health and Welfare Committee Chair, Senator Ayer announced that no testimony was to be heard from parents. Only “experts” would be allowed to testify with an MD, PhD or greater. Among those testifying for removal of parent’s rights was Dr. John Modlin, MD, Deputy Director of Polio for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation via phone from Geneva, Switzerland.

Minutes before the Vermont bills final 18-11 approval, Senator David Zuckerman proposed an amendment (to the vaccine exemption elimination amendment) that would allow children with genetic vulnerabilities to vaccine injury to be immune from mandated injections. In a truly telling move, Zuckerman’s plea to exempt children virtually guaranteed complications from vaccines, was quickly denied.

Both the California and Vermont bills come at a time when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is calling for, at The Centers for Disesase Control, a “Credible (vaccine) regulatory process with regulators with integrity and we don’t have that today.”

Australia: everyone must get vaccinated, except the Prime Minister’s daughters

Australia: everyone must get vaccinated, except the Prime Minister’s daughters.

We’re talking about Tony Abbott, who just ruled from on high that there are no more exemptions from vaccines in Australia.

No more conscientious objections, no more religious exemptions. Only the rare medical exemption, permitted by a doctor. And suddenly, every family who refuses vaccinations for their children will lose up to $15,000 per year, per child, in federal support money. Every family in Australia is eligible for federal money.

Tony has officially ripped away citizens’ right to choose. Australia is now officially a medical police state.

But…

2006: AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER TONY ABBOTT REFUSED TO VACCINATE HIS DAUGHTERS

On November 9, 2006, news.com.au had the story: “Abbott rules out cancer vaccine for his daughters” (see also theaustralian.com.au “I could be seen as ‘cruel’ on Gardasil: Abbott”):

“FEDERAL Health Minister [at the time] Tony Abbott has said that while he may be seen as a ‘cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard’, he would not be rushing to have his own daughters vaccinated [with the HPV shot] against cervical cancer.

“‘I won’t be rushing out to get my daughters vaccinated, maybe that’s because I’m a cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard but, look, I won’t be,’ Mr Abbott said on Southern Cross radio.”

How interesting. How revealing. Tony Abbott, a vaccine refuser. Then. But now he’s the Pope of forced vaccinations for all Australians, whether they want them or not.

I don’t see Australian media outlets rushing to cover this contradiction. A reader pointed me to the 2006 article. Otherwise I never would have known about Tony’s double life.

Back in 2006, Tony had a bizarre justification for his anti-vaccine stance. The news.com.au article spells it out:

Tony: “If there is a national immunisation program [that includes the HPV shot], I certainly will be making sure that they [his daughters] get vaccinated under the program.”

Tony: “The [national] program is what the experts think clearly is absolutely necessary, and at the moment the experts don’t think this [HPV shot] is absolutely necessary.”

The article continues:

“The PBAC [Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee] yesterday knocked back the application from Australian manufacturer CSL to make the Gardasil [HPV] vaccine available free to all females aged 12 to 26.

“Gardasil halts the spread of sexually-transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes 70 per cent of cervical cancers. At present it costs $460 for the recommended three doses.

“The PBAC said it made the decision because the vaccine program – which would have cost about $625 million during its first four years – was not value for money.”

Let me take this apart.

Tony was saying he wouldn’t have his daughters vaccinated with the HPV shot because there was no national program for it.

That’s like saying, “If the supermarket doesn’t sell cherries, I won’t let my daughters eat them.”

You see, the only reason a national program to vaccinate girls with the HPV shot wasn’t instituted, in 2006, was because of money. The cost vs. value of the program was determined to be “not worth it.”

Conventional researchers, doctors, and vaccine manufacturers in Australia were quite confident, in 2006, that the vaccine was safe and effective. Otherwise, they never would have considered it, in the first place, for the national vaccine program.

(As far I’m concerned, HPV is one of the most useless and dangerous vaccines in existence, but for the purposes of this argument, we’re talking about the conventional mainstream view.)

Tony was deciding to reject what he considered to be a safe and effective vaccine for his own daughters—for whatever bizarre reasons he cared to advance. Because he had the right to choose. And because he held a high post in government. And because he decided he could do whatever he wanted to do.

But now, flashing forward nine years, Tony is telling every person in Australia what they have to do. No choice. No freedom. No right to seek out information independently and make a decision based on that information.

Australia is a medical police state, with Tony, the old vaccine refuser, at the helm.

If that isn’t cause for uproar in the Land Down Under, what is?

“Hi, I’m Tony. I’m your boss, your ruler, your King. What I say goes. For you. But not necessarily for me. That’s the way it works, don’t you know? The King makes rules for everyone else, but he can do what he damn well pleases. He’s above the rules. He’s different. He’s the Lord of the idiots and slaves, but he himself is free. That’s the deal. It’s none of your business. Just keep your eyes straight ahead and your mouths shut and march forward. That’s your fate. I so command it.”

Mandatory vaccinations in California. Coming soon to your country.

A Bill that would require more California children to be vaccinated before they enter school was approved Wednesday by the Senate Education Committee, a week after it stalled when members of the panel voiced concerns that it would deprive many young people of an education.

The bill next goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration of its legal ramifications.

The measure by Democratic Sens. Richard Pan of Sacramento and Ben Allen of Santa Monica would eliminate the option of parents to exempt their children from vaccinations based on a “personal belief,” meaning the only waiver available would be for medical reasons.

“While this bill won’t reach everyone, it will increase everyone’s safety against preventable diseases,” Allen told the committee Wednesday. “We think we’ve struck a fair balance here that provides more options to parents who are concerned about not vaccinating their children.”

Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) voted against the bill, which was approved by a vote of 7-2. “I just still have a concern it will not go far enough to help a two-income family who can’t home-school their child or a single, working parent.”

More than a hundred opponents of the bill, many wearing red shirts, packed the committee hearing Wednesday and many said afterward they would continue their opposition as the bill heads to Judiciary Committee.

“I am shocked and disappointed,” said Tina Kimmel, an opponent who said she is a former research scientist with the Department of Public Health.

More than 13,500 California kindergarten students have waivers due to their parents’ personal beliefs, including 2,764 based on religious beliefs, state health statistics show.

The measure was introduced partly in response to a measles outbreak that began at Disneyland and eventually infected 131 California residents as well as at least 26 people in seven other states, Canada and Mexico.

However, many parents and their children testified against the measure last week, saying they didn’t believe vaccines were safe and worried that the bill would deprive young people of the right to an education. Committee members including Chairwoman Carol Liu (D-La Cañada-Flintridge) had voiced similar concerns last week.

Since then, Pan and Allen changed their bill to broaden an exemption for home-schooled children by deleting reference to students having to be members of the same household or family. That would allow multiple families to join in home-schooling their children and also receive the vaccination exemption.

Another change would add an exemption for students enrolled in an independent study program run by a public school system.

Brain-Damaged Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine Win $63 Million Lawsuit Against GlaxoSmithKline

Published: April 20, 2015
 Source: Jefferey Jaxen

Flickr

GSK has paid out $9.1 billion since 2003

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is in the news again making headlines after having to settle another major lawsuit bringing the latest total to over $9.1 billion since 2003. This time, it is due to GSK’s product Pandemrix, which was the swine flu vaccine forced upon the public during the pandemic of 2009 (which is argued by some to have been fake). As the victims are being compensated in the U.K., the same neurological mechanisms that damaged the children in the lawsuit are still potentially at work in the confirmed excitotoxicity that takes place after many vaccine injections.

According to the International Business Times U.K. Edition, each of the victims is “expected to receive £1 million each.” Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants, told the Sunday Times (U.K.):

“There has never been a case like this before. The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”

Unfortunately for Peter Todd and the countless other victims, there has been cases like this before. Neurological damage from vaccines is not a rare occurrence. In fact, the U.S. government has paid out $3 billion and counting to families of vaccine-injured children. Most of which were due to direct neurological damage or complications arising from such damage.

According to The Global Research Project, the GlaxoSmithKline rap sheet states:

“In recent years, GlaxoSmithKline has become known as the company that pays massive amounts to resolve wide-ranging charges brought by U.S. regulators and prosecutors.

These included a $750 million payment relating to the sale of adulterated products from a facility in Puerto Rico and a record $3 billion in connection with charges relating to illegal marketing, suppression of adverse safety research results and overcharging government customers. The company also set a record for the largest tax avoidance settlement with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.”

Related: GSK Swine Flu Shot Sparks Cases of Narcolepsy

If GlaxoSmithKline wasn’t afforded legal and financial government protection status, they would have went under years ago. However, this corporate zombie still damages populations with little oversight and deep pockets to pay for any legal or ethical challenges that get in the way.

Currently, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and other pharmaceutical houses were influential in the passing of California Senate Bill 277 to remove the “parental opposition” that was slowing their product’s revenue stream. What wasn’t disclosed during the senate hearing, or vote following, was that the bill’s author Richard Pan had financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. In a fair legal system, this should immediately disqualify the bill and bring serious moral and ethical challenges to Pan’s legitimacy.

The FDA Might Finally Crack Down on Homeopathy

Remedies debunked by science make up a multibillion dollar market in the U.S.


Royal Copeland, a New York senator and homeopath, got the treatments treated as drugs in a 1938 law.

Source: Library of Congress

Homeopathic remedies are based on an idea, developed at the end of the 1700s, positing that the substances responsible for medical problems, when delivered in highly diluted doses, can cure diseases instead. Since then, homeopathy has had staying power. In 1938, a U.S. senator (and homeopath) named Royal Copeland bolstered the practice by passing a law classifying homeopathic treatments as drugs. And in the 1970s, a wave of interest in New Age and alternative medicine again brought homeopathy to the fore. Scientists now agree—overwhelmingly—that the remedies don’t work. But each year, billions of dollars worth of homeopathic products are sold in the U.S.

Historically, regulators have generally looked the other way. That stance may be poised to change: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is this week holding a public meeting to evaluate “whether and how to adjust the current enforcement policies” to keep up with the growing homeopathic industry and a corresponding increase in safety problems. Since 2009, the FDA has sent nearly 40 warning notices to homeopathic manufacturers and has overseen three recalls. Pulled products include zinc cold remedies that caused people to lose their sense of smell and “teething tablets” with toxic levels of the plant belladonna.

About 3.3 million Americans spent $2.9 billion on homeopathic treatments in 2007, according to the latest estimates from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), though private industry research suggests a smaller market. The industry has “mushroomed” since the early 1980s, when homeopathic sales were just $1.5 million a year, says Bill Nychis, who worked at the FDA for 39 years in compliance and enforcement. At the time, the agency was midway through a decades-long process reviewing older over-the-counter drugs for safety and efficacy. The FDA had the authority to regulate homeopathic remedies, but because sales were so small, the agency opted to outsource much of that job to the industry itself. “Risk is always depending upon the number of products on the market and the sales volume of the products,” says Nychis, who now advises importers at FDAImports.com.

In 1988, the FDA issued a policy guide “where we basically allow these drugs to come to the market without premarket approval,” says Cynthia Schnedar, director of compliance for the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Federal regulators allow the sale of any substance listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia, a document published since the 1800s and maintained by a nonprofit industry association. The remedies need to meet certain FDA manufacturing guidelines and can be marketed over the counter only for “self-limiting” conditions, meaning illnesses like colds that go away on their own.

Schnedar acknowledges it’s time for the FDA to reevaluate that policy. “We’ve seen a huge expansion of the market and we’ve also seen some emerging safety and quality issues,” she says. A panel of nine FDA officials, including lawyers, a pediatric ethicist, and the director of the over-the-counter drugs division, will hear “from people on all sides of this question,” Schnedar says. She wouldn’t elaborate on changes the FDA is considering, but in its notice about the sessions, the agency said it would seek data about the risks and benefits of homeopathic products, recommendations on regulatory processes, and would look into whether consumers “have adequate information to make informed decisions” about such remedies.

Critics of homeopathy say FDA action is overdue. Stephen Barrett, a retired North Carolina psychiatrist who operates the fraud-busting site Quackwatch, petitioned the agency in 1994 to require that homeopathic remedies meet the same standards for safety and effectiveness as other drugs. The agency has cracked down on claims that homeopathic products can treat cancer or substitute for flu vaccines, but Barrett says it hasn’t done enough to warn consumers about common over-the-counter remedies. “You can’t separate safety from effectiveness,” he says. “If it’s not effective, it’s not safe.”

Manufacturers of homeopathic products argue that the consumer should be the judge. “Millions of Americans use homeopathic medicines and want access to them,” says John P. Borneman, chief executive of Hyland’s Homeopathic and president of the industry association that publishes the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. “These medicines are very effective, people like using them, [and] it’s part of consumer choice in the United States.”

Authorities worldwide disagree with Borneman’s claims that homeopathy is effective. A recent evaluation of scientific evidence by the Australian government concluded that “that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.” A U.K. government review five years ago reached a similar conclusion, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health says there’s little evidence to support the practice, and notes that “several key concepts of homeopathy are inconsistent with fundamental concepts of chemistry and physics.”

In the U.S., homeopathic remedies have become more common at national pharmacy chains, says Yale historian Naomi Rogers, who has studied the history of medicine and homeopathy. “Homeopathic drugs didn’t disappear, but they moved from prescription drugs to all over-the-counter drugs,” she says. “They start to be seen as—or even packaged as—the equivalent of special vitamins, special kinds of extra things you can take to stay healthy, or to get healthy, or to treat something that you have that you don’t want to go to a doctor for.”

At this week’s hearing, the FDA will consider whether its current approach is “appropriate to protect and promote public health in light of the tremendous growth of the homeopathic market.” Barrett says the answer is no, and he suggested a way 20 years ago to deal with it: “Hold homeopathic drugs to the same standards as other drugs.” Which would probably make them harder to find at your local pharmacy.

Video

Chicken Pox vaccine

1,000 BRITISH SOLDIERS GIVEN PSYCHIATRIC HELP AFTER CONSUMING ‘ZOMBIE DRUG’ – NEW FIGURES

The British military is accused of failing to protect its soldier’s mental health. Figures show nearly 1,000 have sought psychiatric treatment after being given the MoD’s budget price anti-malarial drug Lariam.

A Freedom of Information (FoI) request revealed the figure is much higher than previously thought, with 994 service personnel being admitted to mental health clinics or psychiatric hospitals since 2008.

The figures only go back to 2007, so the true number may be much higher, as Lariam, also known as mefloquine, has been in use for much longer.

The MoD has consistently defended the drug, which is one of several it issues to troops, amid concerns that Lariam is contributing to an Armed Forces mental health epidemic. This is despite growing pressure from senior military figures, campaigners and relatives of those affected.

The drug, banned by US Special Forces two years ago, and which the UK military avoids giving to pilots or divers, is still issued to UK troops.

Its use continues despite evidence linking the anti-malarial to the 2012 Panjwai Massacre, in which a US soldier slaughtered 17 Afghan civilians after taking the drug.

Sergeant Robert Bales has since been sentenced to life imprisonment.

In an internal report, Roche, the drug’s manufacturer, described the killings as an “adverse event.

Roche themselves have conceded that the side effects can include “hallucinations, psychosis, suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-endangering behavior” and may induce “serious neuropsychiatric disorders.

The figures come as it was revealed a retired British general, who took the drug during service, is currently in a secure psychiatric unit.

Major General Alastair Duncan commanded British troops in Bosnia. His wife, Ellen, told the Independent: “Like others, I believe that this is a scandal. If 1,000 troops have reported the effects then you can be sure there are others who have not. I know personally of several, and anecdotally of many more.

The long-term effects of this will be more and more in evidence over the coming years.

She said the MoD was “staggeringly unprepared to deal with the fallout.

In 2012, Dr Remington Nevin, a US Army epidemiologist whose research found the drug could be toxic to the brain, told the Daily Mail: “Mefloquine is a zombie drug. It’s dangerous, and it should have been killed off years ago.

He said Lariam was “probably the worst-suited drug for the military,” adding that its side effects closely matched the symptoms of combat stress.

Considering why the drug remains in use, one former general speculated that it was a matter of economics over welfare.

Former marine Major General Julian Thompson led 3 Commando Brigade during the Falklands War. He told the Independent: “I can only come to the conclusion that the MoD has a large supply of Lariam, and some ‘chairborne’ jobsworth in the MoD has decreed that as a cost-saving measure, the stocks are to be consumed before an alternative is purchased.

Larium is significantly cheaper than comparable anti-malarials, such as Doxycycline and Malarone.

An MoD spokesperson said: “All our medical advice is based on the current guidelines set out by Public Health England.

Based on this expert advice, the MoD continues to prescribe mefloquine (Lariam) as part of the range of malaria prevention treatments recommended, which help us to protect our personnel from this disease.

The Labour Party responded to the revelations by promising to fully address the impacts and use of Lariam if the party comes to power in the May general election.

Shadow Defense Secretary Vernon Coaker told Channel 4: “Given the growing evidence of the potential damage caused by this drug we are committed to immediately reviewing its use should we form the next government.

Start at the very beginning.