Archive for the ‘vaccines’ Category

Evidence-based Medicine Group in Turmoil After Expulsion of Co-Founder

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/evidence-based-medicine-group-turmoil-after-expulsion-co-founder

Evidence-based medicine group in turmoil after expulsion of co-founder

By Martin Enserink Sep. 16, 2018

A bitter dispute with one of its co-founders has plunged Cochrane, an international network of scientists promoting evidence-based medicine, into a crisis on the eve of an international gathering that marks its 25th anniversary. Late last week, a narrow majority of the organization’s Governing Board apparently decided to end the Cochrane membership of Peter Gøtzsche, director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen and a member of the board himself, for causing “disrepute” to the organization. Four other board members then resigned in protest.

Gøtzsche announced his own expulsion in a three-page statement issued on Friday that said Cochrane was going through a “moral governance crisis.”  https://nordic.cochrane.org/news/moral-governance-crisis-growing-lack-democratic-collaboration-and-scientific-pluralism-0

In a phone interview with Science, Gøtzsche speculated that some foundations funding the collaboration had pressured it to get rid of him because of his highly critical views about pharma. He says he had become increasingly unhappy with what he describes as a “more commercial and more industry-friendly direction” in the organization. Gøtzsche had also launched a broadside against a favorable Cochrane analysis of vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV), charging it may have overlooked side effects—a position embraced by antivaccine groups.

“As most people know, much of my work is not very favourable to the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry,” Gøtzsche said in his statement. “Because of this Cochrane has faced pressure, criticism, and complaints. My expulsion is one of the results of these campaigns.” Gøtzsche says he does not have “a personal issue” with Cochrane CEO Mark Wilson but says many of the problems have gotten worse since Wilson arrived in 2012.

Wilson did not respond to an interview request today; neither did the Governing Board’s two co-chairs, Martin Burton and Marguerite Koster. Burton referred the inquiry to a Cochrane spokesperson, who did not answer emailed questions today. A short statement from Burton and Koster on Saturday did not mention Gøtzsche by name or the expulsion, but it said the board had “considered … the findings of an independent review and additional complaints related to the conduct of a Member.” They said this was “an ongoing process” and that more details would follow.  https://www.cochrane.org/news/message-governing-board

Gøtzsche’s expulsion was confirmed by the four resigning board members in a statement sent to Science by one of them, Gerald Gartlehner of Danube University in Krems, Austria.  https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/files/2018/09/Why-we-resigned.pdf

“We consider the Board’s use of its authority to expel Peter from Cochrane to be disproportionate,” says the statement, which did not explain what Gøtzsche was punished for. “We believe that the expulsion of inconvenient members from the Collaboration goes against Cochrane ethos and neither reflects its founding spirit nor promotes the Collaboration’s best interests.”

The drama unfolded just as almost 1300 scientists from 57 countries were beginning to gather in Edinburgh for the Cochrane Colloquium, an annual scientific meeting that officially opened today. Cochrane, formerly known as the Cochrane Collaboration, is a nonprofit organization that produces literature reviews on medical interventions and diagnostics, which are published in the Cochrane Library to help medical professionals make evidence-based decisions. Gøtzsche helped found the organization in 1993 and started the Nordic Cochrane Center that same year. Today, Cochrane has a network of many thousands of volunteer reviewers as well as independent Cochrane Groups in 43 countries; it does not accept industry money, but it is supported primarily by government agencies, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research.  https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-funders-and-partners

“If they can’t tolerate a few disagreements or a few headaches, that is a problem.”
David Hammerstein Mintz, former Cochrane Governing Board member

Both within and outside of Cochrane, Gøtzsche is widely known for his fierce attacks on the pharmaceutical industry and his criticism of medical interventions he deems useless or harmful. He wrote a controversial book about what he says is the overuse of mammography in breast cancer screening,   https://www.amazon.com/Mammography-Screening-Truth-Lies-Controversy/dp/1846195853  and, in another book, likened the pharmaceutical industry to “organized crime.”  http://www.deadlymedicines.dk/books/

He has often been critical of Cochrane as well. In a statement written for his 2017 election to the board, Gøtzsche listed a litany of “pretty widespread concerns” he wanted to address, including the concentration of power at the Central Executive Team in London and the fact that “collaboration” had been dropped from the group’s name.  https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Gotzche%20Peter%20-Application_1.pdf

“The Cochrane Collaboration is now run much more as a business with a brand than it was just a few years ago,” he wrote.

Gøtzsche says the co-chairs convinced a majority of Cochrane’s board of the “disrepute” charge during a 6-hour meeting on Thursday that Gøtzsche was asked not to attend. All other 12 board members attended; of those, six supported a decision to remove Gøtzsche, five opposed it, and one abstained, according to the statement by the four departing members. One source with knowledge of the proceedings wrote in an email to Science that co-chairs justified his expulsion “in a very generic, general manner by his ‘behaviour’ that hurt the image of Cochrane.”

Gøtzsche says the decision is likely related to a frontal attack on a Cochrane review about vaccines against HPV, a cancer-causing virus, that he and two co-authors published in July.

The review, published in May in the Cochrane Library by researchers from Belgium and the United Kingdom, supported the mainstream view that such vaccines can prevent precancerous lesions in adolescent girls and young women. In their criticism, published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, Gøtzsche, together with Lars Jørgensen of the Nordic Cochrane Centre and Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, argued that the review

missed nearly half of the eligible trials,” “ignored evidence of bias,” and did an incomplete assessment of the vaccine’s side effects. The review didn’t constitute the “trusted evidence” promised in Cochrane’s official motto, they said.  https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/07/27/bmjebm-2018-111012.long

After an investigation, Cochrane Library editors acknowledged in a 30-page response that the review had missed some trials, but said this made little or no difference to the main outcome and that the criticism was wrong on many other points.  https://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/public/uploads/cochrane_hpv_response_3sep18.pdf

“There is already a formidable and growing anti-vaccination lobby. If the result of this controversy is reduced uptake of the vaccine among young women, this has the potential to lead to women suffering and dying unnecessarily from cervical cancer,” they wrote.

In a response published on Friday, the editors of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine defended publishing the trio’s broadside, saying it “provokes healthy debate.”

“Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded,” they argued.  https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/09/12/bmjebm-2018-111108

Within a scientific organization such as Cochrane, discussion and dissent should be possible, says David Hammerstein Mintz, a consumer advocate, former member of the European Parliament from Spain, and one of the four departing board members. “If they can’t tolerate a few disagreements or a few headaches, that is a problem,” he says.

Posted in: Scientific Community
doi:10.1126/science.aav4490

_________________

**Comment**

The plot thickens.

 

 

Sneak Peak – Truth About Vaccines Docu-Series – No safety studies on Combined Doses of Vaccines

https://www.facebook.com/ttavdocuseries/videos/1955704004492186/  Approx. 5 Min

Watch Dr. Larry Palevsky and Barbara Loe Fisher discuss the CDC schedule of vaccines… and the studies that have been done on vaccines with multiple viruses, like the MMR vaccine.  They’re talking about the blatant lack of safety studies on the combined doses of vaccines we’re giving to children right now, like the MMR, which is three vaccines in one.

Much, much more in The Truth About Vaccines starting on September 12 when you sign up right here to watch for FREE! –> http://bit.ly/PalevskyFisherTTAV

_____________

**Comment**

I must correct Dr. Palevsky’s statement that people don’t get multiple diseases at the same time in nature.  Lyme/MSIDS patients are often infected with multiple things at once which is why we are so sick and why the CDC’s mono therapy of doxycycline rarely works.

If Lyme/MSIDS patients are an example of the combined effect of being infected with multiple pathogens and the resulting cytokine cascade and inflammation, we should all stop and reflect upon the potential damage combined vaccines can pose – even to a healthy population.

For the record, here you can see the ACIP vote “yes” for a new vaccine despite the lack of safety studies on the cumulative effects:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/09/08/acip-vote-yes-for-new-vaccine-despite-no-safety-studies-on-cumulative-effect-with-other-vaccines/  It’s all right here in bright purple crayon.

ACIP Vote “Yes” for New Vaccine Despite No Safety Studies on Cumulative Effect With Other Vaccines

 Approx. 2:15,  Sept. 2018

ACIP voting on a new vaccine

This is how brand new vaccines are approved to the pediatric immunization schedule. Basic dialogue before they voted:

Q: Is it dangerous to use this vaccine with other vaccines?

A: We have no data on that. Once approved, it will be given along with other vaccines but we have no clue whether that’s safe or not.

Somehow approving a new vaccine with no data on the accumulated cocktail effect is OK to them IF you put them in different limbs……scientifically, this is quite a head scratcher.  By nature, vaccines are systemic.

Q: Do we at least have any data from other countries that used this vaccine in combination with other vaccines?

A: Not to my knowledge.

Sounds good to me. Lets vote yes!

Only after they vote, one guy voices concern over 16 heart attack deaths in the safety trials.

Illogic at it’s best.

Perhaps it has something to do with money & power?  https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/09/global-vaccine-market-expected-to-reach-50-52-billion-by-2023/

The value of the vaccine market will reach $50.42 billion by 2023 from $36.45 billion in 2018, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6.7 percent, according to recently published report by private research firm MarketsandMarkets of India.1

 

 

Editors of Medical Journals Confirm: HPV Vaccines Cause More Harm Than Good….Science Author Facing Death Threats

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-30-editors-of-medical-journals-confirm-hpv-vaccines-cause-more-harm-than-good.html

Editors of medical journals confirm: HPV vaccines cause more harm than good… science author facing death threats

Image: Editors of medical journals confirm: HPV vaccines cause more harm than good… science author facing death threats

(Natural News) In medicine, sometimes preventive measures and treatments have the opposite effect. Whether it’s antidepressants making people suicidal or chemotherapy spreading cancer rather than decimating it, it’s shocking just how bad some of these supposed solutions to health problems really are. Now, a new contender has emerged in the form of the HPV vaccine.

We’ve long known that this vaccine is bad news, but now a study has shown that it can actually raise a woman’s risk of getting cervical cancer instead of preventing it as intended. Unfortunately, many people will never know about this as the study was officially retracted shortly after it was printed by the journal’s editors due to the author’s use of a pseudonym to protect himself from retaliation by those with vested interests in vaccines.

The article was published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, and it noted that there was a significant rise in invasive cervical cancer incidence in 2014 and 2015 among women between the ages of 20 and 49 years old – the age range during which women often get the HPV vaccine – in Sweden.

Not only did the study link the higher HPV vaccination rates to a rise in cervical cancer, but it also highlighted how an FDA analysis of the Gardasil vaccine showed a greater risk of “premalignant cell changes” from the vaccine among groups that were exposed to certain strains of HPV.

A week after this groundbreaking report was published, things got ugly. First, the journal’s editors removed mentions of the Karolinska Institutet from the article after the institution informed them that no one by the name of the study’s author, Lars Anderson, worked for them as claimed. This prompted the author to share his real name with the editors after being promised confidentiality.

The editors confirmed that the author had the right expertise, experience and qualifications to carry out the study, and they also confirmed that he was facing a “credible threat of harm” and needed to keep his name secret. They went on to confirm the article’s conclusion that the HPV vaccine was possibly associated with a high risk of cervical cancer and retained the article.

The story doesn’t end there, however. Certain parties – and it’s easy to imagine who they might be – questioned the decision to let the article stand, and the editors finally gave in and retracted it. Even as they did so, however, they maintained the article’s finding was correct and called for more research into the matter.

Just one more reason not to get the HPV vaccine

Causing the very type of cancer it is meant to prevent is reason enough to steer clear of this vaccine, and this side effect joins a long list of others, such as severe ulcers, chronic pain, infertility, paralysis, and premature menopause.

Some people who have gotten the vaccine have even lost their lives. Gardasil is already responsible for more than 200 deaths and over 57,000 adverse events recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in the U.S., and a court ruling confirmed that it kills people.

It contains aluminum – a neurotoxin – as an adjuvant, along with polysorbate 80, which has been linked to multiple sclerosis, anaphylactic reactions, and encephalitis. Sadly, this type of information is not usually shared with patients who are considering the shot or the parents of the young girls this vaccine targets.

The fact that the latest study showing how dangerous it is was retracted not due to inaccuracy but on a mere technicality over the author’s name should give anyone who is considering this shot serious pause.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalHealth365.com

IJME.in

NaturalNews.com

______________

**Comment**

On top of all this bad news, a physician has found Gardasil to activate latent tick borne infections:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/12/02/scottish-doctor-on-lyme-msids-part-2/

So has another:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/04/24/gardasil-and-bartonella/  There is further damning evidence that Gardasil can produce life-threatening reactions in those who have been close to a cat, fleas, or ticks, since many of these animals are infected with Bartonella, Babesia, or Lyme (borrelia). Also, since many MSIDS patients (multi systemic infectious disease syndrome) also struggle with viruses such as Mono or active EBV, a cytokine storm can result with mucus being over manufactured in lungs and airways and well as wide-spread inflammation.  Asymptomatic girls after receiving Gardasil activated dormant Bartonella which was confirmed by testing.

Tick Bites in Switzerland Hit Record Levels

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/health_ticks-bites-in-switzerland-hit-record-levels/44319454

Tick Bites in Switzerland Hit Record Levels

A record 272 cases of infections with tick-borne encephalitis have been reported in Switzerland over the past 12 months, according to the Federal Office of Public Health.

Compared with the same period in 2016/2017, this is an increase of three cases.

The officeexternal link says the number of serious cases also reached record levels, to 5.39 per 100,000 people from 1.42 per 100,000 people in 2015.

The number of doctor’s appointments because of tick bites and bacterial infections were also up considerably in a long-term comparison.

The health authorities have recommended that people who live in at-risk areas, where the disease is endemic, get vaccinated against the virus.

About 1% of tick-borne encephalitis cases are fatal. Bacterial infections can be treated with anti-biotics, according to experts.

In Switzerland, the tick season starts in March and ends in November, depending on the weather. The health office says ticks are found mainly in deciduous forests with heavy undergrowth and at an altitude of up to 1,500 metres.

Video here:

swissinfo.ch with SDA-ATS; ug

______________

**Comment**