Anti-vaccine lobby spreads more lies about Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Just over three weeks ago I came across an email sent to Australia’s premier anti-vaccination organisation, headed India kicks out Gates Foundation. The author offered a YouTube link and the observation “Some good news. Conflict of interest in vaccine policy & Gates ties with big pharma.”

I followed the link and ended up at The Corbett Report channel and an episode of New World Next Week, entitled India kicks out Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This exercise in conspiracy theory and misinformation was presented by James Corbett and James Evan Pilato – the latter of Media Monarchy. The channel blurb tells us that the gig, “covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news”. No, really.

During the introduction James Evan Pilato tells us, “Bill Gates gets the boot, we’ve got that story…”. When he finally gets to “that story” Pilato cherry picks enough material to tell a nodding Corbett that;

A lotta times it’s kinda like whack a mole with eugenics obsessed so-called elites like the Gates Foundation but we’ll take a good whack on ’em. James…?

How utterly charming.

Corbett thinks this is “exactly right” but is not sure this spells “the end of Gates’ immunisation plans”.

Sigh. Perhaps Corbett might have simply stated that he’d read what was being reported by Reuters, a day before Corbett Report was uploaded. Primarily, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have not been “kicked out” of India. Nor is it true, as the masters of feverish antivaccinationism at Vac Truth proclaimed, that “India holds Bill Gates accountable for his vaccine crimes”. And no, the Foundation has not been “found guilty of fraud” as another den of Internet rubbish contended.

This issue is about image, perceived “conflict of interest issues” and the influence of India-centric forces upon government. So who is involved and how does it line up?

India’s peak immunisation advisory body is the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI). This body was being serviced by the Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU). The ITSU is funded by the BMGF. This funding arrangement has been in place for years. The ITSU monitors and strategises New Delhi’s immunisation programme which is estimated to reach 27 million infants per year.

Around 2000, the BMGF initially committed $750 million to the Vaccine Alliance (newly launched GAVI) and presently have donated over $1.5 billion. GAVI is partnered with large vaccine companies. A fact that is integral to GAVI’s funding and co-financing policies.

It is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backing of GAVI that leads to the apparent conflict of interest. But why is this a problem?

The Indian government’s decision comes after influence from senior medical officials and organisations such as Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM). SJM is firmly opposed to multinational corporations and operates under an India-centric philosophy. The argument raised time and again against the present immunisation funding arrangement is that it may shape vaccination policy and strategy.

In December 2015 an independent policy watchdog released a study advising caution against international philanthropy and BMGF for this very reason. Nonetheless India had already implemented a wide raft of restrictions on non-governmental organisations to ensure more effective decision making in major policy areas. In 2016 dozens of foreign-funded health experts working in public welfare were dismissed by order of the Indian government.

According to Reuters a spokeswoman for the ITSU recently said the grant ends this month, and;

We are in advanced stages of discussion with the ministry on the contours of the next phase of technical support.

The perception of a possible conflict of interest leading to vaccine policy influence means that the government, and not BMGF, will now fund a key ITSU unit responsible for assisting the NTAGI. A senior health ministry official Soumya Swaminathan said of the funding change that the government felt there was a need to completely manage it on its own. On February 8th she told Reuters;

There was a perception that an external agency is funding it, so there could be influence.

Reuters continued;

Swaminathan, however, stressed there were no instances of influence found and the decision was only in part prompted by a wider perception about foreign funding of the program.

The ITSU also runs units responsible for tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management. These will continue to be funded by BMGF.

Thus the tale of Gates being kicked out of India for fraud and “vaccine crimes” is slanderous fiction. Even the claim that his ties to pharmaceutical companies reveal a conflict of interest demanding banishment is in error. Merely the perception of a conflict of interest may exist. It has been argued that ties to the pharmaceutical industry may influence India’s vaccination strategy.

The reprehensible contention that Bill Gates or the BMGF are involved in eugenics or seek population control via genocide that’s inexplicably caused by vaccines, is a favourite revulsion spread by antivaccinationists, based upon one intentionally misrepresented statement from Bill Gates.

Other quotes from Gates reveal how far from reality this notion is;

The metric of success is lives saved, kids who aren’t crippled. Which is slightly different than units sold, profits achieved. But it’s all very measurable, and you can set ambitious goals and see how you do.

[…]

I’d be deeply disappointed, [if in the next 25 years he can’t lower the death toll by 80%. Otherwise,] we’re just not doing our job very well.

Melinda Gates has observed;

If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size.

Those against vaccines are of course against Gates. Misrepresenting the relationship between vaccine preventable disease and population growth is something antivaccinationists do purposefully, due to the internalisation of conspiracy theories or through an inability to understand evidence.

Two years before the BMGF was formed Gates and his wife funded a John Hopkins project to use computers to educate women in the developing world about contraception. Family planning has become a key focus of BMGF. Initially there was a basic equation involved.

Health = resources ÷ population.

A similar formula underscored his multibillion-dollar funding of education reform. With smaller class sizes teachers could devote more time to students, resulting in better educated and smarter children.

Success = teachers ÷ students.

Where vaccine preventable diseases ravage communities in developing countries parents face the probability their children will die or be disabled. If not, long periods of illness severely compromise the chances of completing a comprehensive education which may be followed with further study or employment. Faced with this harsh reality families will consequently be large, increasing the chances of children surviving to adulthood and being able to contribute to family and community life.

The availability of vaccines removes these hardships. Children have the opportunity to survive, remain healthy and grow to adulthood. More so they can do this with a basic education, a university education and far greater chances in the employment market. In this way families do not have to be as large and children can advance to a socioeconomic status greater than their parents. As Melinda Gates so succinctly put it, when parents know their children will live a healthy life, a reduction in population size is natural.

Other unjustified claims levelled by the anti-vaccine lobby against the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation relate to accusations of reckless HPV vaccine administration in India by the trial’s managers resulting in fatalities and illness. In short serious vaccine injury. BMGF had funded the $3.6 million HPV vaccine trial, which was halted following the deaths of seven girls involved. The trial’s managers were absolved by state investigations. The managers were the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in New Delhi.

As reported in Science;

Five were evidently unrelated to the vaccine: One girl drowned in a quarry; another died from a snake bite; two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides; and one died from complications of malaria. The causes of death for the other two girls were less certain: one possibly from pyrexia, or high fever, and a second from a suspected cerebral hemorrhage.

Government investigators concluded that the link between vaccination and pyrexia was “very unlikely” and between stroke and vaccine “unlikely”. However in 2010 a health ministry appointed panel concluded there were shortcomings and ethical lapses in the trial. In August 2013 an all-party parliamentary panel came down very harshly on PATH, and levelled an “astonishing allegation” accusing PATH of ignoring women’s health in the hope of convincing India to add HPV vaccination to it’s roster.

PATH released a statement which included;

…we strongly disagree with the findings, conclusions, and tone of the released report and its disregard of the evidence and facts.

Although the BMGF was not targetted by the panel for it’s role in funding, it said in a statement;

[That] the World Health Organization, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India all have recommended vaccination “as a proven and highly effective preventive measure for cervical cancer.”

Read the Science article for a better understanding of this controversy.

One should not be surprised at this latest attempt to smear the name of BMGF given the history of antivaccinationists misrepresenting evidence. This piece from Skeptical Raptor covers “anti-vaccine hatred” levelled at Gates’ vaccination programmes in Africa. I’m not surprised to see Mike Adams of Natural News feature with a splendid pack of lies.

What we can be absolutely sure of at present is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has not been “kicked out of India”, for the imagined vaccine crimes and fraud that antivaccinationists would have unsuspecting readers believe. They still fund tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management at India’s ITSU. The ITSU will be partially funded by India’s health ministry. The changes are part of India’s larger clampdown on non-governmental organisations to allow control over policy decisions.

Whilst India ordered the dismissal of foreign-funded health experts last year the BMGF was not one. The so-called “Gates ties with Big Pharma” relate to vaccine policy design and are perceived only, due to the BMGF backing of GAVI. A senior health ministry official stressed there were no instances of policy design influence found.

And no. Bill Gates has not, does not and will not use vaccines for eugenics or as an instrument of global depopulation.

He has never proposed anything of the sort.

Fake News serves conspiracy theorists well

A recent article posted by Orac examined the fallacious story of FBI raids on the USA Centre for Disease Control.

What’s concerning here is that such stories aren’t just bogus claims or cherry picking from evidence or misrepresenting of reports and announcements from authoritative sources. Nope, these stories are utter nonsense with no basis at all in verifiable events.

They aim to advance malignant and anti-social agendas. In the case of the above lie that the FBI raided CDC offices, it’s clear purpose was to exploit the drooling anticipation of the anti-vaccination lobby. Mainly that with “vaccine/autism/tweeting” Trump having been inaugurated the evil masters behind mass poisoning-by-vaccine would get theirs.

A second very useful purpose is that very few people check the source of the material. Within 24 hours the fake news story may have been read by tens to hundreds of thousands. Even if the piece is refuted with evidence and thoroughly debunked, it is unlikely readers drawn to the key message will invest the time and intellectual discipline to ascertain a. the facts and b. how readers were deceived.

There’s an interesting article here examining Trump’s grab bag of lies. If you can possibly (again) bear Michael Shermer’s “rustle in the grass” reason as to why he reckons our species is prone to believe, it’s lurking there to scrape your eyes across. I find this too simplistic. It side steps the notion of risk and reward – a trait of strong human beings throughout history.

Perhaps it’s more of a factor of individual cognition. I mean if we evolved to distrust the “rustle in the grass” why did only one nutter “investigate” the bogus story of a Clinton run child sex ring. By firing his gun. Into a pizza shop? No. We haven’t evolved to believe. We evolved to think. Believers tend to be fodder. Thinkers not so.

Do read Orac’s piece. It focuses on the FBI/CDC issue nicely. Not only was this fake news story published but was followed up with further fake news boasting articles with headlines proclaiming “Confirmed”.

Fake news isn’t new to those dealing with anti-vaccination lies. The anti-vaccine lobby has been publishing deceitful articles and “announcements” for years.

It seems in the present climate it is likely we will see more fake news from a range of anti-science, far right wing, bigoted groups that are finding a damaging voice to Western democracy.

SIDS: Not caused by vaccination or ‘mattress toxin’

From a typical anti-vaccine site pushing vaccine injuries:

SIDS_and_pertussis

These figures do not confirm causality. See explanation below ♣

One claim the anti-vaccine lobby use in their attack against the efficacy of the pertussis vaccine is the high uptake rate. The logic being that with high uptake and proper vaccine efficacy, pertussis should be better controlled than it is. In fact completely controlled. Thus the pertussis vaccine is a failure.

Whilst the vaccine may not provide impervious protection, infection of those vaccinated is much less common and markedly less severe.

And those not vaccinated against pertussis? According to Immunise Australia:

In a household where someone has whooping cough, an estimated 80-90% of the unimmunised contacts of that person will acquire the disease.

These realities won’t shift committed antivaccinationists. They will be convinced by the terribly misleading claim above, using unrelated figures on SIDS and pertussis vaccination. I find it astonishing anyone could be swayed by it. Yet for readers unskilled in finding reputable information or not prone to checking alarming claims it has an intuitive ring of causality.

♣ Infants receive vaccine doses at two, four and six months of age. 90% of SIDS cases occur in the first six months of life, and most of these in the first three months. The risk decreases consistently. After twelve months babies are by definition not infants and the risk of Sudden Unexplained Death is significantly reduced.

So the claim above merely sounds plausible because infants are most at risk of SIDS up to six months. Over this time they have three pertussis vaccines. The vast majority of children in developed nations will follow the pertussis vaccination schedule.

SIDS and Kids is an Australian organisation that supports educating the public about the “significantly” reduced risk of SIDS that accompanies immunisation. They have also noted that when the age of first immunisation was lowered by four weeks there was no lowering of the average age of SIDS.

SIDS and kids

SIDS_ImmunisationsDownload the full SIDS and Kids PDF Information Statement – Immunisation

German research published in Vaccine in 2007 indicates that immunisation notably reduces the risk of SIDS. Vennemann et al concluded in Do immunisations reduce the risk of SIDS? A meta-analysis (bold mine):

Immunisations are associated with a halving of the risk of SIDS. There are biological reasons why this association may be causal, but other factors, such as the healthy vaccine effect, may be important. Immunisations should be part of the SIDS prevention campaigns.

A constant assertion from the anti-vaccine lobby is that of “too many, too soon”, contending that modern vaccine schedules overwhelm infants and children in a manner yet to be uncovered. An earlier study by Vennemann et al, Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunisation found no evidence for this but rather the opposite.

  • Results:

SIDS cases were immunised less frequently and later than controls. Furthermore there was no increased risk of SIDS in the 14 days following immunisation. There was no evidence to suggest the recently introduced hexavalent vaccines were associated with an increased risk of SIDS.

  • Conclusion:

This study provides further support that immunisations may reduce the risk of SIDS.

A number of studies have been conducted in Australasia, North America and Europe. All confirm that immunisation is not causally linked to SIDS. Thus early immunisation is coincidental to the age at which SIDS is most likely. In fact the reverse is true with respect to causality. SIDS cases are less likely to be immunised or fully immunised. Unlike most “vaccine injuries” this favourite fear tactic of antivaccinationists does have an origin in a published report.

The CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1979; 28: 131-132 noted in DTP vaccination and sudden infant deaths – Tennessee that four babies had died within 24 hours of being immunised. The following Weekly Report clarifies (pp. 134-135) under Follow-up on DTP vaccination and sudden infant deaths – Tennessee:

Further examination of the vaccination histories of infants who died suddenly has revealed no additional instances of vaccination within 24 hours before death.
Thus, 4 deaths have been found that occurred within 24 hours after receipt of vaccine from Lot No. 64201, compared with no deaths within 24 hours after DTP vaccination in the earlier 8-month period in Tennessee.
In 1991 The Institute of Medicine published a thorough examination of this matter. Item 5 of Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines, is Evidence Concerning Pertussis Vaccines and Deaths Classified as SIDS. The article reviews the initial CDC Weekly Report along with 38 other reports and research papers spanning the 12 year interval. The summary includes:
All controlled studies that have compared immunized versus nonimmunized children (Table 5-1) have found either no association (Bouvier-Colle et al., 1989; Pollock et al., 1984; Taylor and Emery, 1982) or a decreased risk (Hoffman et al., 1987; Walker et al., 1987) of SIDS among immunized children.
[…]
One small controlled study of infants with unexplained apnea, who may be at increased risk for SIDS, demonstrated improvement in ventilatory patterns following DPT immunization (Keens et al., 1985).
  • Conclusion

The evidence does not indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine and SIDS. Studies showing a temporal relation between these events are consistent with the expected occurrence of SIDS over the age range in which DPT immunization typically occurs.

It’s important to note that at this stage no research demonstrating a reduction in SIDS due to immunisation had been published. Consequently the authors do not mention this effect.

In 1995 E.A. Mitchell et al examined the association between immunisation and SIDS. They observed there is no increased risk of SIDS following the Hepatitis B immunisation or the 6 week DTP immunisation. They also noted early studies suggesting an increased risk of SIDS with immunisation had no control data. Two studies with controls that suggested such a temporal link demonstrated methodological bias.

Mitchell et al concluded:

Immunisation does not increase the risk of SIDS and may even lower the risk.

Jacqueline Muller-Nordhorn et el published Association between SIDS and DTP immunisation: an ecological study [10.1186/s12887-015-0318-7]. The aim was to analyse this association over time. The body of the paper’s Discussion included;

  • SIDS mortality rates have been inversely associated with DTP immunisation coverage in the United States over recent decades
  • The most notable decreases in SIDS rates occurred from 1991 onwards, coinciding with increases in DTP immunisation
  • In 2011, the Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome included immunisation as one of the recommendations to reduce the risk of SIDS [Citation]
  • However, recommendations to the public and the ‘grey literaure’ often do not include immunisation in the prevention of SIDS. Prevailing safety concerns with regard to immunisation may have played a role in this hesistance for many years
  • DTP immunisation may protect against SIDS by preventing infection with Bordetella (B.) pertussis. SIDS might thus be undiagnosed pertussis
  • In approximately 50–80% of SIDS cases, signs of upper and lower respiratory tract infection, characterised by a mild cellular infiltrate, have been found
  • Furthermore, similar to DTP immunisation, OPV immunisation was associated with a reduced risk of SIDS. Case–control studies have associated a similar reduction in SIDS risk with DTP and OPV immunisation, whereas less evidence is available regarding Hib immunisation
  • In addition to the pertussis component, DTP includes diphtheria and tetanus components. Certain countries, such as England and Sweden, previously experienced major decreases in pertussis immunisation but administered diphtheria and tetanus vaccines separately, thus maintaining high coverage
  • The SIDS trends in these countries were similar to the trends in the United States. Thus, diphtheria and tetanus immunisation seem less likely to be associated with SIDS

They concluded:

DTP immunisation is inversely associated with SIDS mortality on the population level. The current findings may strengthen parents’ confidence in the benefit of DTP immunisation, especially as they are supported by the results of two meta-analyses*.

*See Vennemann et al, above.

October 2010 saw the Scientific consensus forum to review the evidence underpinning the recommendations of the Australian SIDS and Kids Safe Sleeping Health Promotion Programme [PDF]. This Position Paper is published in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health [doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02215.x]

SIDSandKids_key points

The document is an excellent publication covering the evidence and recommendations that apply to reducing SIDS. On page three the topic of Immunisation is addressed:

Parents are advised to immunise their babies according to the national vaccination schedule. The possibility of the DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) vaccination being linked to SIDS has been discussed periodically over the last 20 years, however a series of studies have consistently refuted the association. A recent meta-analysis published provides strong evidence that immunisation is associated with a decreased risk of SIDS (OR 0.54; 95% CI = 0.39–0.76).

We should note that the delightfully immoral antivactionist and author of Melanie’s Marvellous Measles, Stephanie Messenger was involved in peddling a long debunked “prevention” for SIDS. In fact SIDS and Kids have their own evidence based and comprehensive publication outlining why mattress wrapping offers no protection. A March 2003 article in Pediatric and Developmental Pathology, SIDS: Overview and Update offers evidence to debunk both the “mattress toxin” myth and proposed links to immunisation (p. 121).

In 1989 in the UK Barry Richardson contended that the fungus Scopularis brevicaulis broke down fire retardant chemicals in mattresses or their PVC covers. This produced arsine, phosphine and stibine gases from antimony, phosphorous and arsenic. A UK study failed to replicate Richardson’s findings. A follow up study with Richardson’s collaboration also failed to duplicate the proposed findings.

I highly recommend reading the SIDS and Kids information sheet on this pseudoscientific mess and the conspiracy hovering over it. In May 1998 an Expert Group to Investigate Cot Death Theories: Toxic Gas Hypothesis, UK examined all available evidence and found:

…there is no evidence to suggest that antimony or phosphorus containing compound used as fire retardant in PVC and other cot mattress materials are a cause of sudden infant death syndrome.

This conclusion is based upon the following:

  1. Cot mattress contamination with the fungus S. brevicalis is rare, and no more common in SIDS mattresses than in other used mattresses.
  2. There is no evidence for the generation of gases from phosphorus, arsenic and antimony from cot mattresses, by S. brevecaulis, when tested using conditions relevant to a baby’s cot. (the group did, however, identify laboratory conditions, wholly unlike those that could occur in a baby’s cot, in which added antimony is biovolatilised, but to the much less toxic trimethylantimony and not to stibine).
  3. There is no evidence of poisoning by phosphine, arsine, or stibine (or bethylated derivatives) in babies who have died of SIDS.
  4. Low amounts of antimony can be detected in samples from the majority of live babies, and even newborn babies: the concentrations in the tissues of SIDS babies were not different from those dying from known causes. there are a number of sources of antimony in the domestic environment other than the fire retardant in cot mattress materials.
  5. We have found no evidence that the changing rates of sudden infant death correspond to the introduction and removal of antimony – and phosphorus – containing fire retardant in cot mattresses.

SIDS and Kids also mention the conspiracy book Cot Death Cover-up? by N.Z. forensic chemist Jim Sprott. Stephanie Messenger also mentioned this book at her secret seminars wherein she peddled her “mattress covers” to protect against SIDS. There is a fascinating February 2012 account of a conspiracy laden seminar on the Skeptimite blog. In April of this year it was reported that Messenger had the charity status of her “SIDS charity” Get Rid Of SIDS revoked.

Just as well one feels. Not only because the scam had done no charity work and employed nobody. Messenger had gone from blaming vaccination for SIDS to pushing the phoney toxic gas theory as the cause – 20 years after it was first debunked and progressively relegated to conspiracy theory. When Messenger’s plan to bring the very harmful anti-vaccine heroine Sherri Tenpenny to Australia, she then advocated readers purchase her pro-measles book to help her out of debt.

Ultimately nothing has changed with respect to the anti-vaccine claim that SIDS is caused by vaccines. In fact evidence supporting the opposite remains firm.

We may also rest assured that mattress wrapping is an evidence free, conspiracy based waste of time.

The madness of the anti-medicine movement

Long term anti-vaccine lobbyist, Judy Wilyman recently had one of her standard attacks on HPV vaccination republished on the site of the ambitiously named The New Zealand Journal of Natural Medicine.

The same page on which Wilyman’s piece appears has a link to the New Zealand 3D Investigative TV3 report on the types of injuries and even deaths Wilyman contends are firmly associated with the HPV vaccine Gardasil. The programme, entitled Cause or Coincidence? aired on November 9th 2015.

The Immunisation Advisory Centre based at The University of Auckland have responded directly to claims raised in the programme. Three NZ girls have become ill and two girls have died after receiving the HPV immunisation. The IAC provided a comprehensive response, which included:

There is absolutely no evidence that the Gardasil® vaccine has caused death, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), or any other related fatigue syndromes.

Just because these conditions occurred after vaccination it does not mean that they were caused by the vaccine.

It was also stated in the programme that fatalities of this nature and illnesses of this type are occurring at rates that they would had their been no HPV immunisation programme.

In no way can The New Zealand Journal of Natural Medicine be called a “journal”. It constantly hits the peak of the very worst deceptions peddled by paranoid pushers of alternatives to medicine. Certainly there are advertisements for a cornucopia of unproven concoctions promising to improve or cure a host of mild to moderate ailments. Yet articles seem to follow a pseudo-binary opposite theme. A browse through some available samples is most revealing.

If something is in the realm of science based medicine it is not just useless, but harmful. Not only is this publication in the style of Natural News, but it heavily republishes articles from Adams’ anti-science hysteria website. A typical example is, Why won’t Big Pharma ever cure cancer? Because “the cancer industry is probably the most prosperous industry in the United States”. Exactly why “Big Pharma” should bear this manufactured blame when cancer research continues apace in various research institutions isn’t made clear. Readers are supposed to swallow the tired line that profit from treating cancer is what ensures the “cure” never surfaces.

Readers are of course not alerted to the advances cancer research has delivered, leading to full remission in cases where this was once unheard of. Or treatments that have improved both the quality and duration of life for patients across a range of cancers. Gerson cancer treatment gets a plug. Vitamins C,D,E, Chinese herbs, Ayurvedic herbs, selenium, turmeric and high protein diets which increase the immune system’s ability to kill cancer cells also feature. Homeopathy improves quality of life for cancer patients, and is in fact “extremely helpful” at doing so.

This is just a snippet of cancer treatments. Of course, you must be wondering why we have never heard of this. Simple.

You see “the early Rockefellers” thought up the “business plan of our current medical system”, and “gained control” of most medical schools in the early 20th century.

The plan was to create all sorts of diseases, say with vaccines (e.g. autism, cancer, etc), fluoride, pesticides, junk “food” and the like, and then invent drugs to manage said diseases for the life of the patient, all the while getting gobs of taxpayers’ hard earned dollars to pay for said drugs and management.

Never, ever, ever actually CURE any disease, as that would not be profitable, but get ever increasing increments of cash to “manage the disease” and continually “LOOK FOR” the cure.

Then get nice little old ladies and school kids with freshly baked cookies to raise money for “charity” societies, like cancer, diabetes, heart stuff of all kinds, birth defects, autism, ad infinitum.

Most if not all of which societies are linked to the very same corporations that helped create the diseases in the first place, e.g. cancer societies being funded by pesticide manufacturers.

Call your brand of medicine “scientific” and “evidence-based” while disparaging anything that comes from beyond the pale as “unproven” or worse, “anecdotal”.

When someone comes along with an actual cure, disparage them, ensure their funding gets revoked (if by some miracle it happened in the first place), and in extremis have them imprisoned or murdered.

Hey, nothing personal. It’s just business.

However, millions of people are now waking up, albeit more slowly that one would hope, although it’s sometimes amazing that there are people “out there” who are still thinking for themselves at all.

And, as long as it lasts, the Internet is at your service, where everyone can do their homework.

Oh, my. Murdering those who have an “actual cure”. Ongoing perusal of this esteemed “journal” reveals a Natural News piece informing us that certain medications causally increase our potential to murder up to 200% in the case of anti-inflammatory painkillers. Opioid painkillers “increase the risk by 92%”. Antidepressants – 31%. Tranquilizers – 45%.

The Finnish study, published in June this year in World Psychiatry deals with association between the medications and murder. Yet the study is misrepresented by Natural News/NZ Journal of Natural Medicine under the heading Certain Medications cause people to commit murder…

This has a sub-heading Homicide risk increased by 31% to 200%… 100 million Americans take these drugs. It goes on to claim that the study:

…found that several classes of prescription medications – including antidepressant drugs, tranquilizers and anti-inflammatory painkillers markedly increased the chances of someone murdering another human being.

Which, like the sub-heading, is highly misleading because the study concludes (bold mine):

These results – which may probably be generalized to other developed and stable societies that have a low to medium homicide rate, although not necessarily to countries with higher rates of organized and premeditated crime – imply that the use of antidepressants should not be denied to either adults or adolescents due to a presumed risk of homicidal behavior. The surprisingly high risk associated with opioid and non-opioid analgesics deserves further attention in the treatment of pain among individuals with criminal history.

It can’t be ignored that the study itself notes “non-scientific” organisations blame psychotropic medications, especially antidepressants for large scale shootings in the USA, citing the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Colorado: a front shop for Scientology’s anti-psychiatry propaganda and lobbying. A 2011 issue of the NZ publication asks on its cover, “Is Psychiatry A Hoax?”

The NZ Journal of Natural Medicine targets a number of areas where conspiracy meets evidence based medicine. Fluoride and how to detox from it, is accompanied in various issues with all the pseudoscientific horrors that are caused by this “poison”.

Predictably since the proposed Australian No Jab No Pay legislation gained increasing media coverage over 2015, this was picked up in NZ. The image below is from Issue 17, May – August 2015.

PreviewScreenSnapz008

Heavily laced with USA-centric articles this edition also included a piece entitled The Government Knows It’s A Medical Killing Machine, as its Health Freedom highlight. Although published in late 2013 the piece rattled off many figures we’ve been fed here by Meryl Dorey pushing the line that the medical system kills hundreds of thousands per year. Vioxx, Avandia, Paroxetine is apparenty ample evidence that peer reviewed publication peddles fraud. Also readers enjoyed this well known image:

PreviewScreenSnapz009

The article following this the incredible “Forced Vaccination At Gunpoint”. This is the same article word for word at Natural News, published November 19 2007 by Mike – Health Danger – Adams. Yep. By the time the NZ Natural Medicine “journal” published it it was 7, 1/2 years old. This image was added:

PreviewScreenSnapz010

Broaching the topic of No Jab No Pay in Australia comes The War Against Vaccine Refusers, written by an editor:

Make no mistake, there is a war hotting up against people, who for want of a better name I will call “vaccine-refusers” – people who choose not to be vaccinated (or allow their children to be vaccinated) or people who may agree to one or more vaccinations but don’t want to have every new vaccine that Big Pharma brings to market injected into them or their children.

In Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott recent announcement that the government planned to remove the “conscientious objection” category from vaccination exemptions from January 1, 2016 is especially worrying. Families who do not vaccinate their children (who do not belong to the Church of Christ, Scientist, and/or cannot obtain a medical exemption from vaccination) would lose their eligibility to the “Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part A end of year supplement)”. The loss of these benefits could cost a family approximately $15,000 per child.

[…]

If the pro-vaccine lobby is successful in inculcating in the general public the belief that people do not want to be vaccinated (or parents who choose not to vaccinate their children) are “irresponsible” or “free- loaders”, the social conditions in which a coercive or even compulsory vaccination policy can be instituted will have been created.

If you take into account all the recent news from the USA (including the forced vaccination of children detailed elsewhere in this issue), the many bills before different US State governments, and the announcement by the Australian PM and the recent promotion of compulsory vaccination by Dr. O’Sullivan in NZ, it becomes clear that Big Pharma and its minions are obviously unhappy that there may be anyone refusing to be vaccinated – even if vaccine-refusers are only a small percentage of the population.

In fact as we know members of the Church of Christ, Scientist were not required to abuse their children by denying them the protection of vaccine induced immunity. Only medical exemptions are valid reasons to not lose access to benefits.

I can’t possibly comprehend why Judy Wilyman would want her name associated with a magazine populated with such varied deception and conspiracy. There is one small piece in this same issue some of you may have read before. There is very little original – or up to date – material in this so-called “journal”. As such they have chosen to publish the utterly insane, amusing as it is offensive piece from the Journal of Public health and Epidemiology, 2014; 6: 271-86.

This has been republished across the Internet, even starring in What Doctors Don’t Tell You. So I’ll publish it in full below:

 

Autism ‘Caused By MMR Using Human Fetal Cell Lines’ October 16, 2014

The explosion in autism has been caused by the introduction of human fetal cell lines in the manufacture of MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccines, a major new study has concluded.

Before 1987, when the vaccines were produced with animal cell lines, autism cases were relatively low. Today, it’s been estimated that 1 in 50 children has autism.

Stem cell researcher Theresa Deisher and others say that the correlation between the sudden explosion in autism cases and the introduction of the new MMR vaccines is too strong to ignore – although, as the old maxim goes, correlation doesn’t prove causation.

The ‘change point’ – when the numbers of autism cases rose sharply – happened in the UK in 1987, just when the new MMR vaccine, using human fetal cells, was introduced. A similar correlation was seen around the same time in Denmark, while the autism change point in the US was 1980 to 1981 after the introduction of the new MeruvaxII and MMRII vaccines in 1979. Both vaccines used human fetal cells [as a culture medium for the rubella viruses in the vaccine – Ed] for the first time.

WI-38 and MRC-5 human diploid cell lines are used in the production of hepatitis A, rabies, rubella, varicella and Pentacell DTaP-IPV/Hib as well as MMR.

The article Vaccines Contain No Aborted Fetal Cells looks at the bogus claims of fetal cells in vaccines.

Dangerous Food Fads

~ Superfood is a marketing term used to describe foods with supposed health benefits ~

superfoods1The growing uptake of truly ridiculous (and frankly quite dangerous) super food trends continues apace with much thanks to the internet and increasingly, social media.

Far from a byproduct of the “information super-highway”, the pseudoscience, deception and planned scamming that can be seen today is better considered a byproduct of a wild roller coaster ride through The Twilight Zone.

The humble blueberry is a so-called “superfood”. Nutritional information may be found here. The Wikipedia entry on superfoods notes that Blueberries [are] a so-called “superfood” that actually does not have an unusually dense nutrient content. These berries contain anthocyanin which is a flavinoid with antioxidant capability. Along with the semantics of “wellness” there are many similar miracles supposed to control toxins. It is best to ignore this marketing niche at all costs. Sometimes expensive costs.

Consider this con from a heartless long term offender who has made a fortune from misleading the public with his often very dangerous nonsense.

Imagine a plant that can nourish your body by providing most of the protein you need to live, help prevent the annoying sniffling and sneezing of allergies, reinforce your immune system, help you control high blood pressure and cholesterol, and help protect you from cancer. Does such a “super food” exist?

Yes. It’s called spirulina.

Unlike plants you may grow in your garden, this “miracle” plant is a form of blue-green algae that springs from warm, fresh water bodies.

The “wellness” push for foods that are supposed to be “super” and as such capable of proactive, reactive (or both) types of veritable nutritional magic is consonant with similar and supporting health beliefs and movements. The anti-vaccine movement spends a great deal of time in the superfood/antioxidant driving gear. Uncertain parents are led to believe that vaccines contain untested “poisons… toxins… chemicals” and thus can certainly harm.

The answer – albeit monumentally wrong – is to avoid vaccines and instead pursue all things natural. So too it is with illness and alarmingly, cancer. The author of The View From The Hills, Rosalie Hillman stepped up to the plate and asked some vital questions of a young lady, Jessica Ainscough. It is astonishing Jessica’s claims were going unchallenged. Rather than being challenged for promoting the impossible, she was virtually worshipped as the head of her own “tribe”. Ainscough was being presented as having (and who was basically claiming to have) cured cancer through diet, the well known alternative pseudoscientific and thoroughly discredited Gerson Therapy and positive thinking.

The Gerson Institute claims:

With its whole-body approach to healing, the Gerson Therapy naturally reactivates your body’s magnificent ability to heal itself – with no damaging side effects. This a powerful, natural treatment boosts the body’s own immune system to heal cancer, arthritis, heart disease, allergies, and many other degenerative diseases. Dr. Max Gerson developed the Gerson Therapy in the 1930s, initially as a treatment for his own debilitating migraines, and eventually as a treatment for degenerative diseases such as skin tuberculosis, diabetes and, most famously, cancer.

Basically Gerson approach concludes we are bombarded with toxins and carcinogens over our lifetime. Gerson plays the magic Ace card in claiming to “restore the body’s ability to heal itself”. This message is pushed hard. The body can heal itself. It is this amazing ability we have lost and which apparently demands kilograms of fresh fruit and vegetables daily in conjunction with the thrice daily enemas. The infamous coffee enemas ensure toxins will be eliminated from the liver.

Jessica Ainscough passed away from epithelioid sarcoma on February 26th 2015. Her cancer progressed as evidence based medicine would suggest for a woman of her age diagnosed when she was in 2008. Tragically Jessica’s mother, Sharyn, chose to follow Gerson Therapy in an attempt to defeat breast cancer. This meant abandoning radiotherapy.

Addressing both cases the ABC wrote:

Despite Cancer Council advice that Gerson Therapy was not proven to work, Ms Ainscough persisted, embarking on an alcohol-free vegan diet, drinking raw juices, taking vitamin supplements and undergoing coffee enemas daily.

She made videos explaining how to administer enemas and posted them on YouTube, although that video is now marked private.

When Ms Ainscough’s mother, Sharyn, was diagnosed with breast cancer, she followed her daughter’s lead and put her faith in Gerson Therapy.

Sharyn died in October 2014.

Whilst there are many heartless scam artists, such as Hellfried Sartori, aka “Dr. Death” and those genuinely deluded by their beliefs, one person deserves special mention. It appears that Belle Gibson managed to sink as far as one Meryl Dorey in that pleas for money donations from the public accompanied promises donations would be passed to charity. Gibson had named charitable organisations. As with Dorey this was not the case, although now under the glare of media scrutiny she has indicated the promised donations will be paid.

Gibsons The Whole Pantry app made the grade as a permanent app for the Apple Watch. It now seems Apple have pulled the app from Australian and USA app stores, but it is unclear if it will be and it has also been removed from promotional material as a permanent app from the much anticipated Apple Watch and iPad Air 2.

Sarah Berry wrote in SMH:

Gibson has a top-rating health app that was one of the promoted apps on Apple’s new watch.

Its success and the empire she has built comes from her incredible story of triumph over adversity, of sickness into self-empowered health.

It is a story that we now know was at best embellished and at worst was an outright lie.

Penguin have already dropped her recipe book by the same name. One hopes arrangements can be made so the scam app never sees the light of day as a permanent app on Apple’s watch.

Dangerous Food Fads


As Jenny McCartney recently noted the urge to believe in the magic of change turns consumer gullibility into fertile ground for the absurd claims made by every type of entrepreneur from well meaning fools to cunning scam artists. Gibson is reportedly back in Australia, but seriously who cares?

The damage has been done. Research indicates that even with brutally thorough exposure and follow up high quality debunking of anti-medicine and anti-science lies, the misinformation sticks. In this case it is not the lie of vaccines causing autism. Yet sadly it is a louder echo of a trumpet the antivaccinationists love to blow. Primarily that surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy do little for successful treatment of cancer.

The scale of Gibson’s rort is truly frightening. How many will follow her manufactured rubbish is unknown. But the fact remains that her army of followers and supporters will continue to support her pantry nonsense. Certainly many will realise the scam, but others – particularly the hard core anti-medicine crew – will dig in and find comfort in the usual conspiracies.

Consumers must develop skills in recognising reputable sources. As with the misinformation relating to vaccination and vaccines. Doing “research” just doesn’t cut it. Far better to have the means by which we can identify good, trustworthy material and spot the signs that give away trickery that is simply too good to be true. With cancer time is vital and whilst eating well is in itself not harmful, time spent thinking it is “treatment” is time lost from actual proven treatments.

This handbook from The Cancer Council provides excellent advice and tips on identifying dodgy sources and outright scams. As mentioned in the last post consider, “How will I know if claims of a cure are false?”. On page 39 of this booklet they note that the dishonest and unethical may;

  • Try to convince you your cancer has been caused by a poor diet or stress: they will claim they can treat you or cure your cancer with a special diet
  • Promise a cure – or to detoxify, purify or revitalise your body. There will be quick dramatic and wonderful results – a miracle cure
  • Use untrustworthy claims to back up their results rather than scientific-based evidence from clinical trials. They may even list references. But if you look deeper these references may be false, nonexistent, irrelevant, based on poorly designed research and out of date
  • Warn you that medical professionals are hiding “the real cure for cancer” and not to trust your doctor
  • Display credentials not recognised by reputable scientists and health professionals

Always speak to your doctor and be aware that even the best intentions of friends can unwittingly disarm you through peer pressure. There is no cure for cancer, but there are excellent treatments.

Avoid food fads as a means to health and beware of the wellness trend.

UPDATE – April 2nd, 2015. Belle Gibson will not be facing police action over fraud. Consumer Affairs Victoria has noted that dishonest and misleading actions of the business, The Whole Pantry, “may constitute a breach of the Fundraising Act 1998 or Australian Consumer Law (Victoria)”. Presently CAV are “ascertaining the facts around Gibson and her companies collection of funds and promises of donations.