Posted by Vera Sharav | Friday, May 26, 2017 |
I believe this book may be of interest to those who are concerned about conflicts of interest in medicine and public health policy. Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profit (2014)
“The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices… The greatest threat of all is the purposeful corruption of the scientific enterprise by the institutions themselves. The science they create is often only an illusion, designed to deceive; and the scientists they destroy to protect that illusion are often our best.” (Dr. David Lewis)Institutional deception encompasses:
Cases demonstrating suppression of vaccine safety data:
- dictating the research agenda;
- suppressing unwanted avenues of research;
- and even predetermining research outcomes;
- in order to preserve public policies that favor powerful industries.
An article by Peter Doshi in the current issue of The Scientist reveals that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is blocking internet access on its website to the vaccine adverse effect reports (VAERS). In 2015, CDC suppressed information from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program about the latest adjudicated cases. (Read Government Wipes Recent Vaccine Injury Data from Website by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson)
Ed; Here's a whole page of Ms Attkisson's investigations of Vaccines
Sharyl Attkisson, Search Results, Vaccine
These examples demonstrate the extreme measures of information suppression that government agencies resort to in order to delegitimize concerns about vaccine safety and the CDC vaccine policy.
Vaccine safety research is singularly biased
An example of institutional deception is the rigged “pharmacovigilance” HPV safety review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA, in collusion with the HPV vaccine manufacturers, disregarded numerous clustered reports of emergent serious medical syndromes (CRPS and POTS) following HPV vaccination. A critical review of the internal documents pertaining to the EMA evaluation process, by Dr. Tom Jefferson and Dr. Lars Jørgensen suggests that “the outcome of the EMA’s review process was decided prior to its initiation.” (Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2017).
The Cochrane Collaboration review (2012) of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine safety literature acknowledged that the studies were corrupted by bias. The reviewers acknowledged that “none” of the studies upon which the safety of the MMR vaccine rests met the Cochrane’s criteria – all are biased. What the Cochrane reviewers didn’t address is why a vaccine that has been marketed since 1971 lacks proper methodological safety studies – especially in view of the intense acrimonious controversy surrounding the vaccine, and increasing public distrust.
An analysis of the cumulative incidence of autistic disorder
An analysis during a 10-year period (1987 – 1996) published in Environmental Science & Technology (2010) identified a sharp “changepoint” year (1988) when the incidence of autism sharply increased. That “changepoint” year is the year that childhood vaccination schedules were greatly expanded. Shouldn’t that disturbing correlation be worthy of serious investigation to determine IF there is a causal link? After all, there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic!
The fact is, that legitimate research that seeks to determine the safety (and to identify the hazards) of the MMR (or any vaccine), is impeded by powerful interest groups who claim to have a monopoly on vaccine science. But lacking answers as to the triggers/causes behind the spiraling rise of developmental disorders – including autism spectrum – the response given by reigning medical “authorities” is to close ranks and declare that the science is “settled.” The vaccine-autism debate is “over;” and we should “close the door for good.”
A repressive institutional effort has effectively marginalized and delegitimized – though not quite extinguished – relevant avenues of vaccine safety research.
The agents in this repressive effort belong to a web of collaborating partnerships between vaccine manufacturers, government regulators, academic and professional medical associations, and especially, the high impact, major medical information gatekeepers – the financially dependent journals and media. They deny the existence of a sizable body of research that has identified neurotoxic ingredients in vaccines that are believed to trigger inflammation and autoimmunity. And deny research that suggests an increased cumulative toxic effect from the CDC- recommended Childhood Vaccination Schedule.
Studies that lend validity to safety concerns about the vaccination schedule are regarded as posing an intolerable threat. They are a threat because any reassessment of the vaccination schedule would likely reduce the number of recommended vaccines and, hence, would reduce the profit margins for vaccine manufacturers; and would threaten the financial support that academic “partnerships” have come to rely on. So, whenever a study challenges vaccine orthodoxy – i.e., “vaccines are safe and effective” – that study is ignored, dismissed, or derided; its authors are disparaged, or attacked as “anti-vax hacks.”
The recent article, “Evidence-Based Medicine Was Bound to Fail” by Dr. Giovanni Fava, in which he states: “One route was to perform comparisons by meta-analytic methods that are liable to manipulation instead of head-to head comparisons.“ This is precisely what those who are concerned about vaccine safety have been arguing to no avail for decades. The most recent examples are two peer reviewed reports about a pilot comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year old U.S. children by a team of Mississippi researchers led by Anthony Mawson. The reports were published online in the Journal of Translational Science (2017) and abruptly removed – without explanation. [Both papers are posted here, and also here]
A result of such suppression of legitimate vaccine safety research is that there is no credible, “evidence-based” reasoned risk/benefit analysis validating the safety of government-recommended /mandated childhood vaccination schedules. Neither the selection, the bundled multiple vaccines administered simultaneously, nor the timing in which they are given have been validated as safe. (Is the Timing of Recommended Childhood Vaccines Evidence-Based? Dr. Tom Jefferson and Dr. Vittorio Demicheli, BMJ, 2016)
Read also, AHRP post: Independent GMO research is trashed: scientists hounded & silenced
Categorized Current Controversies, Vaccines
Thank You Ms Sharav and AHRP.
And to those who'll happily dismiss us as a member of the Tin Foil Hat Anti Vax set for posting this;