“They (vaccine safety trials) all only use benign placebos – we use the
safest most pure vaccines as a placebo."---David Salisbury
(source: The Arnica Network)
"We have not studied vaccinated vs. unvaccinated."--- Coleen A.
Boyle, Ph.D., Director, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental
Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention responds to
Congressman Bill Posey during a November
2012 Congressional hearing.
[Classic recent science by design are the endless
Government
studies proving that MMR 'doesn't cause
autism' (see 1,
2,
3, 4 to dispel that myth). With
their backs to the wall they wheel out The Cochrane Collaboration
& Institute of Medicine (IOM)
to put out a more credible smokescreen.
Vaccine science uses the unproven Antibody Theory
to prove vaccines are effective while never doing any studies using
100% unvaccinated children.
See
Dan Olmsted to find out why they
don't do that, while using stone age vaccine safety tests (see: Kendrick mouse
test
Mouse toxicity testHist test)
to get unsafe vaccines on the market.
They have created a huge market for
Hepatitis tests even though they haven't even proven a hep C virus
even exists, also hep B virus, (not to mention the
HPV vaccine) while the HIV test (see also
CD4 cell counting)
makes millions for its inventor, even though no evidence exists it causes AIDS (see Mullis),
and some say it doesn't even exist. Meanwhile thousands of studies
proving nutritional medicine is better than pharma medicine just get ignored,
some for 57 years, while the
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is kept off
Medline..
Recently (2007) a judge Lord Justice Sedley
ended up with egg on his face when he used the words junk science to
rubbish an expert independent witness, who they then took before the GMC to
discredit (see). It backfired. Turns out he was the one promoting junks science.
The vaccine industry also rests on the quicksand of the false
monomorphic Pasteurian disease theory.]
[2015 May] A totalitarian society has totalitarian science by Jon Rappoport
As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and
launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically
neutral, without any allegiance to State interests. Unfortunately, medical
science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is
one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:
Totalitarian control.
[2012] Cancer Industry Exposed as Fraud “The
Science is False” Findings published in the journal Nature show that 88% of major studies on cancer that have
been published in reputable journals over the years can not be reproduced to
show their accuracy. This means that the research findings published are
flat out false. Author of the review and former head of
cancer research at Amgen C. Glenn Begley was unable to replicate the results
of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. This suggests that researchers are
fabricating their findings simply to create the illusion of positive
findings instead of publishing their actual results. This ensures the
continuation of their steady stream of funding and grants.
[2012 June] Brains Used to
Study Autism are severely Damaged in Fridge Disaster by Christina England
before researchers and scientists even begin to study the brain tissue of
autistic children they should all read the aforementioned papers and research. I
am sure that they would learn far more reading these valuable studies and papers
then they ever would studying the brain tissue of autistic children who have
passed away. Perhaps they should spend less time in laboratories and more time
working with autistic children who suffer from the condition on a day-to-day
basis and listening to the parents who have to care for them.
[2011 Oct] Misleading Danish Mobile Phones and
Brain Tumour Study in BMJ This misleading study has many flaws and
serious confounders and should not give anyone reassurance that mobile phone use
is not associated with an increase in brain tumours. In our opinion the paper
should not have been published in this form — it should have failed peer-review.
We recommend that it is disregarded as low quality science.
[2011 Aug] Useless Studies, Real Harm Commercially-driven
biomedical research--in particular, research involving prescription drugs,
vaccines, and medical devices---has corrupted the entire field of medicine,
both academic research and clinical practice. Americans' health is being
undermined by expensive, defective, all-too often, treatments that, at best,
are useless. A worst, they kill or cause serious permanent damage.
[2011 April] Brilliant Wakefield Lecture – Shows BMJ Editor’s & Deer’s Fraud
Allegations Were Fraud Themselves This is an excellent recent
lecture by Andrew Wakefield in Austin Texas in which he shows how Deer and
BMJ Editor Dr Fiona Godlee perpetrated their own fraudulent allegations that
Andrew Wakefield committed fraud when that was not true and in fact
impossible. The fraud is entirely by journalist Brian Deer and the British
Medical Journal.
What Andrew Wakefield also shows is how the work at The Royal
Free Hospital with his colleagues not only found a new bowel disease in
autistic children but also how the results of that work have been and are
today helping autistic children recover some normality in their lives.
You can also read in detail how it was impossible for anyone
to have committed fraud. Neither Dr Godlee nor Brian Deer have been able to
answer these points. So who are the fraudsters?
[2011 book] Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced
Encephalitis? by Harold Buttram, MD,
FAACP and Christina England In 1971 Norma
Guthkelch, retired neurosurgeon, published the first description of the Shaken
Baby Syndrome (SBS). Within the next several years John Caffey, pediatric
radiologist, wrote several articles supporting the SBS theory. Very soon after,
when infants were brought into hospital emergency rooms in the U.S.A. with
findings of brain hemorrhages without known accidental explanations, these were
commonly attributed to SBS, and parents or caretakers were often criminally
convicted. Since that time conclusive evidence has emerged proving that
these prosecutions have been founded upon tainted medical opinions and
fundamentally flawed scientific methodology (i.e. junk science).
[2011
April] Who exactly is mad, Dr Holt? The Gospel of Dr Holt decrees that
homeopathy is madness! It's just a placebo, is "harmless" but... it's
unscientific, and doctors shouldn't use it. The fact that in 2002, more than
half of what conventional doctors used was also scientifically unproven
"Vaccines and
Autism - The Wrong Argument - rev. 1 (24 February 2011; 9 pages)"King, PhD, Paul G.
The keys to maintaining any unsafe commercial activity are
misdirection, disinformation, big lies, and pervasive propaganda. To be
effective, the commercial interests use persons whom the public trusts.
These spokespersons then promote the activity. They lie about its risks.
They portray an activity that is less than safe as not only safe but also
desirable. In the place of proof of safety, these propagandists invariably
tout the "lack of evidence of harm". In addition, the promoters of an unsafe
activity do all they can to bury studies that question the activity’s safety
under an avalanche of "recognized" studies that are peddled as showing "no
evidence of harm". Those who benefit from the commercial activity also do
all they can to discredit those persons who dare to publish studies that
question the safety of the activity. Further, they use their wealth to buy
other "experts" to refute any link between the activity and the harm that it
inflicts on the "general public".
[2011 Jan] Big
Pharma Vilified Researcher for Threatening Vaccine Program By Russell L.
Blaylock, M.D. The entire vaccine program is based on massive
fraud. The so-called H1N1 “pandemic” is a case in point. ......Yet the CDC,
the media, medical academia, and the pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturers
all participated in this deception....The H1N1 vaccine alone generated $1.5
billion in addition to the $1 billion generated by the seasonal flu vaccine,
neither of which has been shown to be either effective or safe. You have
been told this safety and efficacy has been scientifically shown, when this
is a shocking, provable lie.
[2010 March]
First Fraud: Dr. Poul Thorsen and the original “Danish Study” By J.B.
Handley It’s hard to put into words how dishonest and outrageous a
study this is, and I knew after reading it that we were in for a long fight:
if scientists will lie this explicitly and call it a study and if Pediatrics
will publish something this dishonest, they are playing to win at all costs.
[2009 June] Publisher consulted drug firm
on journal content THE world's largest medical publisher
(Elsevier, which produces The Lancet) asked the manufacturers of
anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx which articles they wanted to include in a
so-called medical journal on bone health.....The plaintiff in the class
action has alleged the journal was fake and it was simply a marketing
exercise designed to promote Vioxx. The court has also heard Merck put
the names of high-profile arthritis experts on the editorial board of
the phoney journal without telling them they had done so.
[2009 April]
Merck published
fake journalMerck paid
an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication that
had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or
summarized articles--most of which presented data favorable to Merck
products--that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of
company sponsorship.
Our
health officials continue to pump out junk science, for example the recent,
seriously flawed NIAID study on H1N1 vaccine safety in pregnant women
reported over the major media, to deceive Americans and enroll them in their
national vaccination campaigns. The protocol in that study listed any pregnant
woman who had a history of alcohol or drug abuse during a 6 year period,
diabetes, compromised immune systems, asthmatic and allergic conditions, history
of cancer-treatment drugs for 3 years, prescription to psychiatric drugs, and
many other conditions as unqualified for the study. These conditions alone would
disqualify the large majority of the nation’s pregnant women. Furthermore, any
pregnant woman who enrolled in the trial, who spiked a temperature of 100
degrees or greater during the first 72 hours following vaccination, were
excluded from the trial. Nevertheless, the CDC and its cronies in the media,
particularly the pharmaceutical shills at TheNew York Times,
touted this deranged trial as conclusive evidence that the swine flu vaccine was
safe for all pregnant women. These are the kinds of medical distortions we have
come to expect from the Federal health agencies. [2009 Nov] Federal Health Agencies Continue to
Deceive Americans: Congressional Report on a Vaccine Mercury-Autism Link Ignored
for Six Years by Richard Gale and Gary Null, Ph.D
Whether a drug makes it to market simply only means that someone has
had enough money to put it through, and pay the right politicians.
That's all. It doesn't mean it works or it doesn't work....... we're
very familiar with the people who developed the double-blind,
placebo-controlled study. And we know what they know about medicine and
science, and they all admit that they don't know anything about it.
......The problem with the placebo controlled, doubled-blind study is
that you are using two human beings as controls against one another.
There is no more out-bred species on Earth than two human beings. A
person from the North Pole can procreate with a person from the South
Pole, and can have an infant. There is no animal on Earth that is as
out-bred as human beings, including two identical twins, they are not
the same. Because, as soon as the zygote divides there are different
positions, there's different antigens to which they are exposed. The
bottom line is that these double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are
run by people who don't know much about science.
[1993 Interview with Dr. Alan Levin.] Modern Medicine and its Military
Links
'The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to
believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the
top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the
Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results
would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published
in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology,
they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials. “The answer I
got,” says Jackson, “was not the right answer.”[2009 Oct] Does the Vaccine Matter? by
Shannon Brownlee and
Jeanne Lenzer '
Organized medicine quickly adopted the stance that his alleged "cures" fell
into three categories: those who never had cancer in the first place; those who
were cured by prior radiation and surgery; and those who died.When Healing Becomes a Crime --Kenny
Ausubel
Francis M. Pottenger, MD and "The Hazards of a
Health Fetish" By Ron Schmid, NDWe've seen that the "Health Fetish" authors used technically (logically) true
statements to completely distort Dr. Pottenger's findings. Only careful study of
Pottenger's article would allow the choice of precisely the right words to
accomplish this while avoiding making false statements. We may hope that the
authors gained considerable understanding of Pottenger's work and its
implications for the health of people everywhere. Perhaps they may someday use
that knowledge in the way Dr. Pottenger intended.
Allowing other than sterile saline to be used as the placeboin short-term vaccine adverse-reaction studies to suppressthe relative incidence rates to the point that these relativeadverse-event rates show “no statistically significant” increaseover the “placebo” (that, in some cases, has been allowedto be an experimental vaccine or the vaccine formulationwithout the biological antigens). Permitting vaccine safety studies to be restricted to a fewdays or, at most, a few of months even though some severeadverse outcomes do not begin to emerge until severalyears after vaccination (e.g., childhood MS 4 years aftervaccination). Consenting to reductions in the size and number of personsin the phase-III clinical trials that not only reduce the vaccinemakers costs but also reduce the risk that the studywill find the rare but deadly adverse effects that a vaccinemay have. Allowing surrogate endpoints (e.g., the reactivity of the patient’sblood to animal anti-sera) for specific antibodies tobe used to assess vaccine efficacy instead of requiringcomprehensive testing to establish both general and specificimmunity in those vaccinated that is comparable tothe immunity found in those who have had the disease. Recommending widespread use of new vaccines long beforethe long-term (at least 10-year) outcomes can be assessedin the trial population, and Licensing vaccines and recommending their “universal”use in populations that have near-zero risk of contracting adisease (e.g., the hepatitis B vaccine in young children orthe HPV vaccine in non-sexually-active children) or wherethe clinical cases of the disease occur at low rate and arevirtually absent in most demographic segments of U.S.population (e.g., the rotavirus vaccine).Key realities about autism, vaccines,
vaccine-injury compensation, Thimerosal, and autism-related research----Gary
S. Goldman, Ph.D & P.G. King PhD
"A
story was told to me about an
article written which detailed
serious side effects to the
whole-cell whooping cough vaccine in
a large group of children. The
medical journal refused to publish
it, saying that before it would
publish the article, the author must
state categorically in the
conclusion, that "the vaccine was
safe and effective". Thinking this
was a joke, the author added the
required sentence, and the article
was published. When told this story,
I didn't believe it. I was handed a
copy, and was flabbergasted. I was told that in order to
have ANYTHING published, the only
way that authors could voice
reservations was to couch them in as
bland a language as possible, and
hide these reservations in the body
of the article unless the "problem"
was blatantly
obvious to a blind man."--Hilary Butler p. 203
When intellectual dishonesty becomes
a crime: Nature and its cynical
promotion of bad science
http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/219/2/I think it is now high time
for me to make a frank public
statement about Nature and
its nefarious role in this debate.
The fact that Nature
regularly publishes alleged
"refutations" of the OPV theory and
that it does so to enormous fanfare,
the fact that it has competed
vigorously with its rival
Science in order to publish
such "refutations", and the fact
that it has never published an
exposition of the OPV theory, or
allowed a single paragraph of space
to any proponent of the OPV theory,
reveal that the rejection slips from
Nature have nothing
whatsoever to do with the volume of
correspondence that that journal
receives. Instead, they are
reflections ofNature's determination
to promote an explanation for how
AIDS began that is supported only by
certain powerful governments, and by
a perversion of sound scientific
method. ....In
short, on this particular topic,
Nature has abandoned the most
basic principles of scientific
enquiry. Instead the journal has
consistently acted as if it is a
stooge of certain powerful
governments and interst groups.
[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that
doctors rely on is flawed......he worries that the field of medical research is
so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might
be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a
problem...80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type)
turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized
trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized
trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently
manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good
science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask
researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views.
......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions.
Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent,
had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between
a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving
untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable.
[2010 March] First
Fraud: Dr. Poul Thorsen and the original “Danish Study” By J.B. Handley
It’s hard to put into words how dishonest and outrageous a study this is, and I
knew after reading it that we were in for a long fight: if scientists will lie
this explicitly and call it a study and if Pediatrics will publish something
this dishonest, they are playing to win at all costs.
Is The Schizophrenia Mortality Study In The Lancet CREDIBLE?
A study purporting to analyze mortality rates of 66, 881 schizophrenia
patients in Finland (1973 to 2005) was published in the prestigious
journal, The Lancet. A critical analysis by psychiatrist, Grace Jackson,
MD, identifies fatal flaws in the study design and numerous
methodological artefacts that introduced bias which minimized the
detection of drug-related mortality. The authors’ conclusions favoring
the long-term use of second-generation antipsychotics, and Clozaril in
particular, as Dr. Jackson demonstrates, are not supported by their
study design: indeed, their "favorable" conclusions about patients'
mortality were based upon numerous confounders (methodological tricks
and problems) which mitigated the detection of actual drug-associated
mortality. Vera Hassner Sharav, AHRP/The Lancet
Patient Advocacy Group Calls For Suspension Of JAMA Editors,
Investigation
"We are deeply concerned about the unbecoming and unethical conduct of
the Editor-in-chief and Executive Deputy Editor of the Journal of the
American Medical Association, who were reported to have used
unprofessional and intimidating tactics against a conscientious
academic, Dr. Jonathan Leo. Their behavior undermines the integrity of
the JAMA peer review process, first, by failing to properly vet a
manuscript for the accuracy of scientific reporting and for author
conflict of interest and bias and, second, by launching an ad hominem
attack on the scientist who was attempting to correct the record...."
Griffin
MR, et al. Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. N Engl J Med. 1988 Sep 8;319(10):618-23. PMID:
3261837; UI: 88318811. Griffin
MR, et al. Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with the
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. JAMA. 1990 Mar 23-30;263(12):1641-5. PMID: 2308203;
UI: 90172513.
"Two studies by teams of epidemiologists headed by Marie R. Griffin represent perhaps
the absolute worst I have encountered in many years of reading this literature.......It is
amazing that such a study (1988 NEJM) could be accepted by a reputable scientific journal.
The reason was doubtless that the study was funded by the CDC and the FDA, and that two of
the coauthors (Griffin and Ray) were at the time "Burroughs Wellcome Scholars in
pharmacoepidemiology" (whatever that is). Burroughs-Wellcome is, of course, a major
producer of the pertussis vaccine. Have these people never heard of conflict of
interest?........These kinds of articles bring the Public Health Service, the CDC, the
FDA, the "peer-reviewed" journals, and the rest of the
medical-industrial-government complex into disrepute. Physicians can swallow this garbage
if they want, since they make their living from it, but parents who expect at least
elementary honesty from those who call themselves "scientists," and whose
children are being maimed and crippled by the very vaccines which are proclaimed innocuous
by authors such as Griffin et al. are already taking steps to put this invalid out of its
misery. The relations between the public and the vaccine establishment are surely going to
get a lot worse before they start getting any better."---Harris Coulter http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/coulter/vacc-deb.html
[Classic recent science by design are the endless
Government
studies proving that MMR 'doesn't cause
autism' (see 1,
2,
3, 4 to dispel that myth). With
their backs to the wall they wheel out
The Cochrane Collaboration
& Institute of Medicine (IOM)
to put out a more credible smokescreen. 
Turns out he was the one promoting junks science.
