A resolution calling for an investigation into the influence that drugmakers
may have had on the World Health Organization, scientists and governments
was signed and supported by more than a dozen members of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe and passed unanimously by the Health
committee. The resolution was introduced by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a member of Germany's Social Democratic Party who chairs Health Subcommittee.
The approved text of the resolution calling for a debate and inquiry states
(among other things):
"In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu,
pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies,
responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide.
They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient
vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the
risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The birds
flu campaign (2005-06) combined with the swine flu campaign seem to have
caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to
public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of
important international health agencies. The definition of an alarming
pandemic must not be under the influence of drugsellers. "
In June 2009, the WHO declared the swine flu a class 6 pandemic--despite
evidence that it did not fulfill the required conditions of a pandemic:
"a new influenza virus subtype emerges; it infects humans, causing serious
illness; and it spreads easily and sustainably among humans."
Most of the cases attributed to the swine flu proved to be mild, and far
fewer than anticipated cases emerged. Indeed, both the WHO and the US
Centers for Disease Control had stopped counting swine flu cases.
But the WHO classification has had major financial ramifications for the
global procurement of drugs and vaccines worth many billions of dollars.
http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/health/ 8094655.stm Dr. Wodarg called the "false pandemic" "one of the greatest medical scandals
of the last century" and said that pharmaceutical companies influenced the
whole process and needed to be held accountable. They were willing to
"inflict bodily harm in their pursuit of profits," he said. Articles in the
European press, starting in Denmark and spreading, have repeatedly called
into question the myriad ties between vaccine manufacturers and decision
makers in the United Nations' global health body.
Further investigation, a report and a vote on the resolution by the
Parliamentary Assembly are anticipated.
A slate of reports confirm that "expert" medical advisory panels in the U.S.
were overrun by panelists with conflicts of interest.
For example, The New York Times reports (below) that a report issued last
month by the Inspector General of the Health and Human Services Department
found that the majority of "expert" advisors to the Centers for Disease
Control--the agency that has been most actively promoting vaccination
against the swine flu "pandemic"-- had serious conflicts of interest:
"64 percent of the advisers had potential conflicts of interest that were
never identified or were left unresolved by the centers. Thirteen percent
failed to have an appropriate conflicts form on file at the agency at all,
which should have barred their participation in the meetings entirely, Mr.
Levinson found. And 3 percent voted on matters that ethics officers had
already barred them from considering. "
"Most of the advisers identified [in the report] had either a job or a grant
from a company or other entity whose interests were affected by the
committees' discussions, and a considerable number also owned stock in such
companies."
Public trust and the integrity of healthcare policymaking have been
sacrificed when defective medical products were recommended for marketing by
financially compromised "expert" advisory panels.
As Gardiner Harris points out: "As numerous medicines have been pulled from
the market in recent years, worries have grown that experts may be
recommending medical products - even ones they know to be unsafe - in part
because manufacturers are paying them."
CDC's former chief, Dr. Julie Gerberding (2002-2008), a long-time advocate
of vaccines, encapsulates the betrayal of trust by a high ranking federal
official.
Following her departure from the CDC, Jan. 2008, Dr. Gerberding went to work
immediately for the global public relations firm, Edelman, that describes
itself as "adviser on global health strategy." Edelman's Big Pharma
clients, include: the industry's lobbying group, PHARMA, AstraZeneca,
Novartis, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck--thereby
violating federal statutes (18 U.S.C. 207) restricting high government
officials from serving as lobbyists before a year's "cooling off" period:
See:
http://www.law. cornell.edu/ uscode/18/ 207.html The Alliance for Human Research Protection calls for an investigation of
conflicts of interest at Federal Agencies which spearheaded the excessive,
expensive, and unjustifiable federal expenditure in response to false Swine
Flu "pandemic" in the U.S. Indeed, federal agencies even stage-managed "off
the record" media coverage of the epidemic. See:
http://www.cidrap. umn.edu/cidrap/ content/influenz a/swineflu/ news/sep0309exercise.html
Issues requiring investigation:
1. Why was BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority) a new
agency in charge of procuring countermeasures for weapons of mass
destruction, with no expertise procuring drugs in common use, made the lead
agency for procuring vaccines and drugs for nonexistent Bird Flu and Swine
Flu?
BARDA bought large quantities of new drug and vaccine products which had not
been tested in the field: it is unknown if any of it will work as desired.
Indeed, as reported in the BMJ, December 8, 2009, no reliable evidence
supports the usefulness of Tamiflu in treating the flu.
http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ full/339/ dec08_3/b5351 2. Why were the manufacturers of all five Swine Flu vaccines and the two
antiviral drugs (Tamiflu and Relenza) issued total liability waivers--as
were "government program planners" at BARDA and other agencies who had
approved and exhorted their use?
DHHS Secretaries under GW Bush and Barack Obama approved these liability
waivers under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP):
ftp://ftp.hrsa. gov/countermeasu rescom/Public_ Readiness_ and_Emergency_ Preparedness_Act.pdf.
However, neither the Bush nor Obama administration made any attempt to
inform Americans that in the event that they suffered a drug or
vaccine-caused injury, they were prohibited from accessing the US legal
system to seek damages. Discussion of the PREP law which enabled this can
be found here:
http://www.hrsa. gov/countermeasu rescomp/prep_ act.htm3. AHRP would like to know why the US treasury, and worldwide health
budgets, have come to resemble Big Pharma's cookie jar?
With at least 36,000 U.S. deaths annually from seasonal flu, and (at most)
10,000 deaths from swine flu, we believe that President Obama's recent
declaration (in October 2009) that swine flu presents a national emergency
was ill-advised as it is preposterous.
For continuing updated information about unsustainable vaccine policies,
see:
http://anthraxvacci ne.blogspot. com/ (the blog is maintained by AHRP
board member, Meryl Nass, M.D)
Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp. org212-595-8974
http://www.wodarg. de/english/ 2948146.html Council of Europe will investigate and debate on "Faked Pandemics"
In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu,
pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies,
responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and
make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies
and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown
amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.
The "birds-flu"- campaign (2005/06) combined with the
"swine-flu"- campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to
some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the
credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.
The Council of Europe and its member-states should ask for immediate
investigations and consequences on their national levels as well as on the
international level.
The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the
influence of drug-sellers.
When in April 2009 some hundred normal influenza cases in Mexico
City were rashly announced to be the beginning of a threatening new
pandemic, there was little scientific evidence for this judgement.
Nevertheless a large and immediate word-wide agenda setting process started
and was eagerly spread by alarmist media and formally legitimized by
pandemic-defining WHO, the agency, which is our global epidemiological
watchdog and task-force.
Besides this, vaccination programs against influenza are already
established in most of the exposed countries as an annual routine. They are
regularly taking into account all expected varieties of flu-viruses to
bundle their antigen fragments in a well-adjusted polyvalent vaccine.
But around the Mexican outbreak, WHO in cooperation with some big
pharmaceutical companies and their scientists re-defined pandemics and
lowered the alarm-threshold. Those new standards forced politicians in most
states to react immediately and sign marketing commitments for additional
and new vaccines against "swine-flu" and spend billions of dollars to catch
up with the alarming scenario that Big Pharma, media and WHO were spreading.
From the beginning in April 2009 it was clear, that a newly combined
flu-virus was on its way - as many flu-virus-variation s have been almost
every year before. From the first cases in Mexico it was also evident, that
this new subtype was doing less harm to infected humans than others in
former years. Nevertheless the "swine-flu-campaign " was increasingly
threatening people, filling television programs, newspapers, health-agendas,
ambulances and hospitals.
Never before the search for traces of a virus was carried out so
broadly and intensively. Besides, many cases of death, that happened to
coincide with seropositive H1N1 lab-findings, were simply attributed to
"swine-flu" and used to foster fear.
Additionally it has been proven, that at least one third of the
population older than 60 had already positive test results because of flu
contacts in the second half of the last century. In contrast to this "agenda
setting process" it has to be stated, that the annual worldwide spreading
("pandemic") of 2009- influenza was a relief for global health, compared
with the suffering, influenza waves used to originate most of the years
before.
The Australian flu-season, which has already passed by with the
Australian winter, has even given evidence, that the infection with
"swine-flu" brings some protection against other, more dangerous
virus-types. Nevertheless we have to observe, that a faked "swine-flu"-
pandemic is still used for marketing risky vaccines.
The victims among millions of needlessly vaccinated people must be
protected by their states and independent scientific clarification should
provide evidence and transparency for national and -if necessary- European
courts.
See: Pharma Times
http://www.pharmati mes.com/WorldNews/ article. aspx?id=17147and
Ed Silverman's Pharmalot (
http://www.pharmalo t.com )
0 comments:
Post a Comment