Category Archives: Questions

Video

Does your patient exhibit mercurial symptoms?

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

July 7, 2013

July 7, 2013. Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.

Drug companies failed to warn patients that toxic epidermal necrolysis was a side effect. But the Supreme Court ruled they’re still not liable for damages.

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.


Karen Bartlett vs. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company

In 2004, Karen Bartlett was prescribed the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical, for her sore shoulder. Three weeks after taking the drug, Bartlett began suffering from a disease called, ‘toxic epidermal necrolysis’. The condition is extremely painful and causes the victim’s skin to peel off, exposing raw flesh in the same manner as a third degree burn victim.

Karen Bartlett sued Mutual Pharma in New Hampshire state court, arguing that the drug company included no warning about the possible side effect. A court agreed and awarded her $21 million. The FDA went on to force both Mutual, as well as the original drug manufacturer Merck & Co., to include the side effect on the two drugs’ warning labels going forward.

Now, nine years after the tragedy began, the US Supreme Court overturned the state court’s verdict and award. Justices cited the fact that all generic drugs and their manufacturers, some 80% of all drugs consumed in the United States, are exempt from liability for side effects, mislabeling or virtually any other negative reactions caused by their drugs. In short, the Court ruled that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over actual facts, real victims and any and all adverse reactions.

Court ruling

The Court’s ruling a week ago on behalf of generic drug makers is actually a continuation of a ruling made by the same Court in 2011. At that time, the Justices ruled that the original inventors and manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, also known as ‘name brand’ drugs, are the only ones that can be sued for mislabeling, fraud or adverse drug reactions and side effects. If the generic versions of the drugs are made from the exact same formula and labeled with the exact same warnings as their brand name counterparts, the generics and their manufacturers were not liable.

The Court ruled, “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire’s warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to FDA-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce.”

And that ruling flies in the face of both common sense and justice. And as Karen Bartlett can now attest, it leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from the deadly and torturous side effects of pharmaceutical drugs. As a reminder, the number one cause of preventable or accidental death in the US is pharmaceutical drugs.



Critics react

Immediately upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, both drug manufacturers and Wall Street investors were celebrating. As one financial analyst pointed out, drug company profits should skyrocket going forward. Not only do the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects, they are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs.

One industry critic was quoted by Reuters after the verdict. “Today’s court decision provides a disincentive for generic makers of drugs to monitor safety of their products and to make sure that they have a surveillance system in place to detect adverse events that pose a threat to patients,” Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group told the news outlet.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was quick to react to the ruling by writing a stern letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, “A consumer should not have her rights foreclosed simply because she takes the generic version of a prescription drug.”

But an attorney for the drug companies, Jay P. Lefkowitz, took the opposing position saying, “It makes much more sense to rely on the judgments of the scientific and medical experts at the FDA, who look at drug issues for the nation at large, than those of a single state court jury that only has in front of it the terribly unfortunate circumstances of an adverse drug reaction.”

In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives. That result leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from an industry responsible for more preventable deaths in the US than any other cause.

Free Speech Rights Under Attack in Australia

Free Speech Rights Under Attack in Australia

March 29, 2013 by admin in Featured, Politics, Vaccines with 0 Comments

Whatever you believe about vaccination, surely those who disagree with forced inoculations and medical treatment have the right to their views and to choose whether they’ll be subjected to medical treatments of any sort, including vaccination. But the right is under siege in Australia, as the Australian Vaccination Network struggles against obvious attempts to shut them down.

Australian Flag with Fist-Held Syringe Superimposed

Australian Flag (by erjkprunczýk) with Fist-Held Syringe Superimposed

by Heidi Stevenson

The Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) has actively advocated for vaccination choice and provided information about vaccine risks for many years. Suddenly, the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading (DFT) has decided that their name is misleading and demanded that they change it. They have refused to state how it’s misleading and provided no advice about what change is required. They simply demand that the name be changed.

This may seem like a minor problem, but when an organization has existed for a long time, has a website based on their name, and trades under that name, being forced to change it is onerous. Nonetheless, AVN has done its best trying to cooperate, but they haven’t even been informed of how their name is supposed to be misleading! They have sent polite letters stating that they want to cooperate and asking the DFT to provide guidance. You can see three of them by clicking on these links: 27 December 201318 February 2013, and 6 March 2013.

They’ve gotten no response to their requests. So AVN requested a stay of the order, which is normally a fairly routine procedure. But their response was to declare that they must change their name immediately because it’s an emergency! AVN has existed since 1994—nearly 20 years—and it’s suddenly an emergency that they change their name?

After all, their actions against AVN clearly demonstrate that the Department of Fair Trading is most assuredly not living up to its name. It is, in fact, doing the oppositve—attempting to shut down a legitimate organization that is precisely what it claims, an organization that is a network of people in Australia on the subject of vaccination.

Obviously, there’s more to this than the desire to see their name changed. This is nothing less than part of an ongoing program designed to destroy the AVN. What reason could there be, other than to silence their voice?

So, AVN’s president, Greg Beattie, attended a hearing on 20 March 2013 regarding their request for a stay. Note that this now has moved into a legal matter requiring attorneys and their costs. Clearly, there’s no reason for doing this. After all, the AVN indicated willingness to cooperate, but they don’t know what needs to be done to satisfy the DFT—and the DFT has refused to advise them.

For this hearing, the DFT paid a group of people as expert witnesses. Why would they need expert witnesses for a simple extension hearing? And how much was paid to them? In any case, their expertise—whatever it is—seems not to have come into play, or if it did, it wasn’t clarified to AVN. Perhaps they should, instead, look inward and consider changing their name. I’ll even help them out: The Department of Speech Suppression would be ever so much more accurate!

AVN’s barrister laid out the reasons for granting a stay to allow the AVN staff time to consult with the membership. The government’s solicitor didn’t respond to what was said, merely stated that the public’s interest requires that AVN change it’s name now! Why, though, wasn’t explained.

To save money, both Beattie and AVN’s barrister appeared by telephone, since they are not located in New South Wales. DFT’s solicitor, though, in a show of pettiness, complained that it was an imposition, and the Member—Australian term for a judge—went along with it. Therefore, AVN’s barrister must show up in person, which means that AVN must cover the cost of flights and expenses.

Lest you have any doubts about DFT’s attitude towards AVN, the night before the hearing, AVN’s barrister was contacted by DFT’s legal representative. He treated AVN”s barrister extremely rudely and called AVN “fucking wackos”. They don’t like having their actions pointed out to the public, so deny AVN’s right to post the fact of this abominable behavior.

Attack on the Right to an Independent Viewpoint

AVN is clearly under attack. It isn’t because of any actual crime. It’s simply because they’re espousing a viewpoint that runs counter to the government’s. What’s under attack is the right to free speech. The point that needs to be understood is that this is not about whether vaccinations are good or bad. It’s about whether an organization or individual has the right to espouse a point of view that’s different from the government’s.

As it now stands, the government is acting as an enforcer of corporate interests. Big Pharma and Big Medicine want to promote and sell vaccines. AVN, apparently, is making headway against their profit machine … so the government is attacking AVN in the pettiest manner possible. There can be little doubt that the goal is to shut them down, to quiet their voice.

This is not the first attack on AVN. As reported earlier, a vicious attack on Meryl Dorey, AVN’s founder, was launched. She was subjected to vile pornographic messages and threatened over and over by phone. A distributed denial of service attack was launched against their website. Yet, the police and agencies that are supposed to protect people from such treatment failed to respond.

Last year, on the basis of two complaints, the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) launched an investigation of AVN. They ordered AVN to include a statement on their site that states:

the Australian Vaccination Network’s purpose is to provide information against vaccination in order to balance what it believes is the substantial amount of pro-vaccination information available elsewhere;
the information should not be read as medical advice and;
the decision about whether or not to vaccinate should be made in consultation with a health care provider.

Obviously, only the medical monopoly is granted the right to make statements about health issues. It matters not if they’re right or wrong, the general public is not supposed to question them.

The HCCC also stripped their right to fund raise. AVN fought back and that right was returned to them.

Current Status

The AVN has won an extension until June to consult with members, but have been forced to place a consumer warning notice on their website reading:

Consumer Warning: NSW Fair Trading has directed Australian Vaccination Network to change its name because it regards the name to be misleading. The Australian Vaccination Network is challenging this Direction and the challenge is currently before the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

AVN was quite happy to do so. It clearly indicates to anyone who isn’t completely blinded to the corporate-owned government that freedom of speech is no longer considered a right. You can see it posted proudly at the top of every page on their site.

If you can possibly help AVN, please do. It’s clear that they’re in a battle for their existence, and equally clear that they’re also fighting for our right to hear the other side of the vaccine debate. Surely it’s obvious that this is everyone’s cause. Whether you agree with AVN or disagree vehemently, surely it’s obvious that they have the right to express their point of view. If the suppression doesn’t stop here, where will it stop?

You can contact the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading and tell them that their function is not defined as suppression of speech. It’s to provide a fair ground for everyone to trade. The right to free speech belongs to us all, not only those who agree with the government.

The phone number is (02) 9228 5276.

As AVN has stated, “You can act now—or you can wait for the knock on your door telling you your right to say no to drug-based therapies and medical vaccination has been taken away for good. The choice is yours.”

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:

Video

Whats in a Vaccine?

Is there a proper way to take a case?

Ok. As a practitioner, you have read the Organon, or… you have attended lessons where the Organon was read to you and the teacher explained what was required.

Now, given the variety of practices that are used under the banner of Homoeopathy, It seems that depending upon your teachers bent, you may or may not have been taught Hahnemannian case taking. So.. I ask again, is there a proper way to take a case, and if so, what is it.?

Your comments please.

 

Where is it?










Kent's repertory, lists Acon. under "Mind, Fear Dark",
"Mind, Darknessaggr.", "Mind, Light desires", and these
entries have been copied into Synthesis (Schroyens).
I would like to ask anyone in this profession
(or outside of it) to provide the pharmacographic 
(provings) evidence for such listings.

Questions to Ponder

 

 

 

 

 

What is a Miasm?

How may Miasms are there?

How Many laws of Homoeopathy are there?