Christmas! (By Peter. Also in OUT OF THE MOULD)
That so-called festive season. Weeks of clamouring voices persuading all and sundry that this, that and the other thing is essential to celebrate Christmas in the approved way; to eat, drink, and be merry, and when it’s all over and the hang-ups have dissipated sufficiently, to finally count the cost and the consequences and make the appropriate New Year’s resolutions!
What lies behind the lead up to the 25th December? Is there a documented story which can be followed?
Yes there is!
But you’ll have to go to the Bible to check it out!
At the beginning of Matthew’s gospel there are 1 ½ chapters and at the beginning of Luke’s gospel there are another 1 ½ chapters, - brief and clear. There is also a verse in Galatians chapter four, which says in part: “But when the right time came, the time God decided on, He sent His Son, born of a woman… to buy freedom for us.”
Contained in those few chapters there are some key elements:
Christmas! (By Peter. Also in OUT OF THE MOULD)
On the 27th of November, the Malaghan Institute put out a press release, which reads in part:
Professor Graham Le Gros, Director of the Malaghan Institute, says immunology is a field in which there is still much to uncover.
“Your immune system does so much more than simply fighting infection. It scrutinises all cells in the body for signs of imperfection, and eliminates those not working properly. Our immune system also detoxifies and harmonises our body with the environment, the bugs that grow on us, and the toxins in the food that we eat. And it does so with minimal interruption to our daily lives.”
However, Professor Le Gros says it is becoming clear that the human immune system needs to be educated from the early months of life to know what it should, or shouldn’t, be attacking.
“Our team of scientists at the Institute are working on applying this knowledge to the development of natural therapies that educate the immune system to stimulate the right type of immune responses for the treatment of cancer, asthma, allergy and other inflammatory diseases,” he says.
The assumption is that the immune system isn't being educated in the early months of life.
Really???????!!!!!!!!!!! Continue Reading
Medical articles on neonatal immunity, habitually refer to a baby’s immune system as "defective"; "impaired"; "slow"; "inadequate"; "compromised" or "deficient". Usually they end with the suggestion to add exogenous compounds to “correct X defect”. Even better, to manipulate and correct them all, making a baby’s immune system “perfect” in their human understanding.
Arstechnica editorialised on a letter in Nature, in which doctors had figured out that, “ Keeping the immune system in check helps the development of healthy gut bacteria.”
The authors were surprised to find that….
“For their part, the infants seem to be tamping down their immune response to allow the beneficial bacteria to establish themselves. Obviously, this also makes them more susceptible to infection from dangerous bacteria as well, so developing a healthy microbiome is a bit of a tradeoff. The authors of the Cincinnati hospital study call it "unfortunate by-product of the greater benefits of active suppression during this crucial developmental period, when tolerance to commensal microbes is more uniformly advantageous."
Having realised there is a good reason for this immune system tamping down, they swept on to a new grand fallacy that hyporesponsiveness to infection is itself, still a defect!
A quote from an article in a Canadian magazine, "Alive".
"A carefully controlled media has established "science" in our minds as fact... Science is merely an investigation, logically arranged and systematized. Science changes it's mind regularly and no-one seems to care. We believe the new hypothesis just as devoutly as we followed the first."
Pertussis (whooping cough) is a good example. In 1981, the brochure said, three jabs would make you immune for life. Then as time went on, they dropped to two. Then suddenly went back to three jabs. Then the next brochure decreed four, .... then five, .... then six, ....and in some countries, seven.
Now the “truth” adds on to that, "every pregnancy" and everyone around the new baby, "every pregnancy".
Next it will be your dog as well. Continue Reading
Merck’s next problem - Japan. A culture that is very much into compliance and obedience in many ways... is the first country whose parents have had the guts to ..... say......
Cervical cancer vaccine victims urge permanent halt to vaccination
TOKYO, August 24, 2013. KYODO.
Eight teenage sufferers of severe side effects of cervical cancer vaccines and their parents called on Health Minister Norihisa Tamura on Friday, to permanently end the Government’s subsidy program for the vaccines.
These are important thinking points which come out of this case, which readers with an indepth knowledge of Merck's litany of lies in the past will appreciate.
There are the main issues:
1) The more you investigate the legal history of Merck, you wonder how anyone can have any faith in medical articles, data sheets or information presented by Merck to the public. As far as I’m concerned Merck has never had any ethics, and the way their top staff is ‘selected’ is proof of that. Jobs for the boys who ring the tills. Or girls, as it is in the case of Dr Julie Gerberding, responsible for fast-tracking Gardasil, and now head of Merck’s vaccines division. You scratch my back, I’ll pay you handsomely.
Question: When is a legal case really newsworthy?
Answer: When it’s never covered by the mainstream media. Yet the on-going Merck MMR case - which no-one is being told about - is even more important than VIOXX was.
I wonder how Merck has managed to so skillfully keep it out of mainstream media....
So let’s update the news, …. that isn’t being told.
An article planted recently in the pro-corporate website Law360 says pretty much what Merck’s lawyers wanted it to say. Naturally, it was ignored by mainstream media. It said:
‘Eric Sitarchuk of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP emphasized that the suit brought by two former employees of the company does not hold up because they failed to demonstrate that the label of its mumps vaccine was false and that the FDA was misled about the efficacy of the vaccine….. “They’re asking the court to muscle the FDA out of the way and decide on the science,” Sitarchuk said. “It’s precisely that problem that’s why an Fair Claims Act case can’t be based on the alleged falsity of the label.”….. Sitarchuk argued that for the pair to succeed in their case they would have to allege that the government was the victim of active misrepresentations by Merck and show that the efficacy of the vaccine was less than what the company claimed.’
In two previous blogs about this case, I outlined the primary issues, and uploaded the original complaint:
Part 1: June 23, 2012. Former Merck Scientists File Suit Against Merck Under The False Claims Act
Part 2: June 24, 2012. Merck's Money Racket
What’s happened since then?
SRKW LAW is the co-lead counsel for the class action lawsuit which runs parallel to the core case.
It took a while to find all subsequent relevant documents, which I will not upload here, for obvious reasons - but here are my summaries from the three documents which provide the Judge with core arguments from relevant parties:
On 31st August 2012, Merck filled a 50 page “Motion to dismiss.” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 45) which simply attempted to rewrite the original complaint with willful inaccuracies, disregarding all allegations, while inventing new circuitous ones. Here are key omissions, and highlights:
1) Merck does NOT deny that they crossed out the numbers and wrote in new ones.
2) Merck does NOT deny that they committed the alleged multiple acts of fraud, but instead try to pretend that the allegations merely involved a misbranded label.
3) Merck attempts to argue that the case is only alleged to be a fraudulent label. Were the issue a fraudulent label, that would remove the case from the False Claims Act to another act laying blame on the FDA, not Merck.
4) Merck then takes another tack, bizarrely arguing for an illegal application of the False Claims Act, limiting or barring cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, and legally requiring whistle-blowers to FIRST exhaust all administrative remedies stating in exhaustive detail, who, what, where, when and how - ignoring the fact that in cases of corporate fraud it’s impossible for plaintiffs to have full personal knowledge of malfeasance occurring further up the hierarchy, where sophisticated means of concealment are used. This judicial demand, would rip the heart out of the statute’s application, and make the False Claims Act pointless.
5) Merck then argues that the case should be dismissed because the False Claims Act doesn’t allow private citizens to challenge the FDA’s determination.
6) Merck indulges in pure make-believe by asserting that allowing the case would unduly interfere, usurp and intrude on the FDA’s expertise, judgment and discretion to enforce its own rules and regulations.
7) Merck tries to claim that the relators are first required to file a citizen’s petition with the Fda and exhaust all administrative remedies that might have been available even though there is no requirement for any such legal pre-requisite.
8) Merck asserts that the case should be dismissed because the relators waited nine years to lodge a case, and in that time, never utilized any processes with the USA FDA. So Merck is insinuating that because the two scientists should have complained harder, and they didn’t, there can’t possibly be a case.
9) Merck also infers that because the FDA let Merck get away with it, they couldn’t have done anything wrong.
10) Merck says is that the case has no merit because the DOJ decision not to intervene proves Merck’s innocence. (I said at the end of this blog in June 2012, that Merck couldn’t be silly enough to claim this but obviously Merck’s lawyers are sillier than I thought.)
Merck’s lawyers wasted 74 pages filled with incredibly weirdly wending waffle, constant obfuscation, with a shot gun approach for various differing reasons, and in the process, repeatedly used dismissive phrases like, “minor shortcomings” “relator’s speculate” or “sleight of hand”.
Every possible attempt was made to shoot the messenger and not address any actual issues. Perhaps they thought if they were lucky, the Judge would be sleeping on the job.
Merck’s stated on page 35 of their “Motion to Dismiss” that “…relators must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistakes, including the “time, place and substance of the defendant’s alleged conduct. This they failed to do.”
At this point you’d think that Merck’s lawyers would clearly realize the ridiculous paucity of their case – but in reality, what else could Merck lawyers do, if Merck is actually unable to deny any of the original allegations? Their only course of action was to hope that the judge was dumb enough to be easily confused by their illogic.
Which of course played right into the hands of the relators.
On 9th October 2012, the relators handed to the court, a 74 page “Memorandum to oppose Merck’s motion to dismiss” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 47) in which they restated their original complaints, and listed clearly how they had actually fulfilled all Merck’s page 35 criteria, and more besides.
The relators gave a brief history and gave blow by blow evidence showing that the case against Merck centred around provable:
1) Improper efficacy testing.
2) Falsifying efficacy test data.
3) Destroying evidence of the fraud.
4) Lying to the FDA.
5) Putting fraudulent labeling on datasheets and bottles.
6) Making fraudulent Government submissions, fraudulent CDC purchase contracts, false certification of compliance, thereby fraudulently inducing CDC to enter into contracts.
7) Violating Merck’s subsequent multiple ongoing duties of government and public disclosures in order to maintain its marketing monopoly with CDC, while foreclosing the government from access to high quality and less expensive vaccines.
8) Subsequently lying to the European Medical Agency in 2004, stating that mumps component had more than 95% efficacy with the label stating 96.7%.
9) Merck lied to the FDA regarding MMRII, saying that it would actually reduce the amount of virus in the vaccine and maintain it’s 95% efficacy.
10) Merck did not tell its own funded puppet (Immunisation Action Coalition) these facts.
11) Merck did nothing to stop any third party repeating what Merck knows to be lies.
12) Merck continues to tell USA healthcare professionals in its websites that vastly outdated studies put the mumps component at 96% seroconversion rate.
13) Merck’s actions render false all certification by Merck since at least 1999.
On 25th May, 2013, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 54 page document, (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 54) delivering a swift winkle-picker up the backsides of Merck’s lawyers, by incisively demolishing Merck’s arguments. The highlights of this document are:
1) The DOJ continues to remain a real party in interest with a strong interest in the outcome.
2) Merck's argument that suits by private citizens are not allowed, “is not supported by statutory text or case law and is inconsistent with the purposed of the False Claims Act”.
3) That the relators stand in the “government’s shoes”
4) That Merck’s illegal application interpretation of the of the False Claims Act, seeking to limit or bar cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
5) That “it is no surprise that Merck cites to no decisions that only the Government and not a relator can litigate this type of False Claims Act suit” and that” the government is aware of no such holding in a False Claims Act”.
6) DOJ successively trashes the use of the cases argued by the Merck lawyers, making the Merck legal team look like a bunch on bunnies caught in headlights.
7) DOJ then took apart the other spurious arguments of Merck, in such a way that pretty much backs up the relators, stating “allowing relators to prosecute such False Claims Act suits (as long as sufficiently pleaded) serves the primary purposes of the qui tam provisions”.
8) And finally, the DOJ, opposed all Merck’s reasoning to dismiss the case.
For those with eyes to see, what this case is about is blindingly obvious.
The DOJ is practically telling the judge that Merck is guilty. Continue Reading
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
And here is where the Ministry of Medical Truth's reformulating the meaning of the world nocebo, is the new scientific paradigm. Their aim is to rescue an industry annually teetering on the edge of the next scandal.
On the one hand, they need definable effects, and credible proof which is difficult, because as Manfred Schedlowski says, "… we know the nocebo effect can be really really large… this hinders development of new drugs.” And “the nocebo effect may also have a really worrisome effect on vaccine use". Oh yes, you can create fear, to make people use vaccines, but when parents say that vaccines cause reactions, you can’t study that, because It's all "nocebo" caused by parents reading the facts from the vaccine datasheets. And as Dr Bernadine Healy stated:
“Healy said: "There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. "First of all," Healy said, "I think the public's smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."
Yet that’s exactly what they have done. The medical system has turned their backs on FACTS because they are afraid of the truth that those facts might confirm that it's not nocebo at all, but that being biologicals, meaning that they do affect the biology of the person, vaccines do indeed have the potential to wreck lives. THEREFORE they invoke the placatory placebo principles and make sure that all research only asks questions and uses methods designed to dismiss what parents see, return to business as normal, and not to get to the bottom of any of the issues.
"Worried Sick" tells us that nocebo increases the “incidence of asthma and allergies… we know an allergic reaction can be conditioned.”
I couldn’t help laughing at the last quote, because for a very long time, I have believed that vaccines in babies result in a fundamental changing of the immune system, resulting, amongst other things, in an increase in allergy and asthma:
1. Vaccines and neonatal immune development 23-May-2011
2. How a baby fights infection and develops the immune system 24-May-2011
3. Can vaccines become cranial and immunological cluster bombs? 25-May-2011
Please note in the three blogs above, that EVERYTHING I say comes from medical articles for which links are provided. Ask yourself this. Did all the immunologists who wrote the things I discussed suffer from a nocebo delusion that what they saw was real? Yes, an allergic reaction can be conditioned: … by deviant immune responses to allergens and vaccines, but that isn’t what this article is meaning. It's all in your imaginations, mammas!!!
And here’s the interesting thing. Just about every second child you meet these days, appears to have some dairy sensitivity or a gluten intolerance – the list is legion.
The article infers that these allergies and asthma are a new form of nocebo, and that, the children are the victims of a psychologically deranged parental child abuse.
Why parents would want to make their lives into that sort of hell beats me, but it seems that this is where the medical profession is heading with this argument. Everything will soon be your fault!
I wonder what would happen in the unfortunate scenario that I landed up in hospital from a car crash? Here's the imaginary discussion:
Dr: "I see your medic alert says you're allergic to all antibiotics. Can you describe the symptoms please?"
Me: Well, my neck and face swell up like a balloon, and I start choking and can't breathe. And usually don't remember much after that."
Dr: "Well, never mind. We know that's all caused by nocebo effects, and was all in your mind. That won't happen again now that you know your hypochondria caused it, so we'll just go ahead and use what we like...."
You know why that wouldn't happen. Because the medical system would be sued to Mars and back again.
Don't you think it's bizarre, that you can legitimately be allergic to drugs, anaesthetics and a whole raft of things, but suddenly they are framing allergies and asthma as being a psychosocially induced disease?
And you can see WHY this shift in language...., because the sheer numbers of drugs and vaccine reactions being brought up by parents and people to their doctors is staggering. Reactions of any sort financially threaten an industry which wants to look benevolent and convince us all that they are not capable of doing any harm at all.
THEREFORE the focus must come away from drugs and onto people….. No doubt, the end aim of that, will be the new vaccine, Pluracydafex which will abolish patient nocebo forever!!! (see Pages 82, 118, 132-133, and 147 in our 2008 book, "From One Prick to Another". PDF can be got here.)
They want to research nocebo to nail the issues down and come up with their version of scientific data....., but they have a huge problem. Paul Enck a psychologist at the University of Tubingen Germany, puts it in a nutshell when he says that "he can’t study nocebo ‘ “..unless I tell the subjects that I’m deceiving them” a requirement that obviously defeats the purpose of the deception."
But wait. They have come up with a nifty solution……
To be continued. Continue Reading
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
Part Six: Reforming Nocebo.
The solution for the medical system? It’s pretty simple really. If you aren't allowed to "deceive" people, to research what happens when they are deceived, only one possible action remains. Only ever tell patients the GOOD THINGS a drug or vaccine can do. Say, "Just trust us. WE know what we are doing...."
- March 2017 (1)
- January 2017 (2)
- November 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (1)
- February 2016 (1)
- April 2015 (6)
- October 2014 (2)
- May 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (2)
- November 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (3)
- July 2013 (10)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (6)
- February 2013 (3)
- January 2013 (1)
- October 2012 (6)
- August 2012 (3)
- July 2012 (3)
- June 2012 (14)
- May 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2012 (2)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (6)
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (6)
- May 2011 (15)
- April 2011 (8)
- March 2011 (3)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (5)
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (8)
- September 2010 (21)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (3)
- June 2010 (9)
- May 2010 (15)
- April 2010 (17)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (19)
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (10)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (2)
- April 2009 (13)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (2)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (10)
- August 2008 (17)
- July 2008 (11)