Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Pregnant women in BANGLADESH used as guineapigs once again!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

This is outrageous! Please lodge your complaints with Nancy Zimpher the president of UC or Author of the study at childrens hospital. In particular, ask them to provide the wording of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM they are required by law to obtain from the participants in such trials! Nancy.zimpher mark.steinhoff The article below appeared in the CINCINNATI ENQUIRER on October 6, 2008.Note that here it is reported that 340 pregnant women were given either an inactive flu vaccine or a pneumonia vaccine, which clearly does not constitute a "randomized, double-blind, controlled trial" whereas in a similar article http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/09/17/pregnant-moms-flu-shot-protects-baby.htmlit is claimed that "some of the women received a flu shot during pregnancy, while others did not" , followed by the typical scientifically nonsensical hogwash: "The researchers noted that, despite the current CDC recommendations, few expectant mothers in the United States currently receive the flu shot -- even though "the general safety of this strategy has been shown." This trial -- the first randomized, prospective study on the topic yet conducted -- offers what they call "unique evidence supporting the strategy of maternal immunization to prevent influenza infection in young infants and their mothers."Since all those minions of the pharma cartel keep touting "science-based evidence", let's call them bluff and demand to show us peer-reviewed science-based evidence for the reckless statement that "the general safety of this strategy has been shown" .In particular, given the fact that most flu vaccines contain THIMEROSAL, that the following documented evidence does not apply to pregnant women and their fetuses, especially women in third-world countries:In 1950, the New York Academy of Scienc sent Eli Lilly a study claiming that " Thimerosal is toxic when injected subcutaneously and therefore cannot be used in chemotherapy" ((Palta 2004)In 1972, Eli Lilly received information regarding six deaths caused by thimerosal in vaccines "The symptoms and clinical course of the six patients suggest sub-acute mercury poisoning" (Palta 2004).A study conducted by the FDA in 1982 showed that "thimerosal was found to be 35.5 times more toxic for embryonic chick heart tissues than for staphyloccocus areus, proving that thimerosal possessed great potential for cell damage.In 1983, Eli Lilly added a warning to some of its product labels containing thimerosal: " If you are PREGNANT or nursing a baby, seek the advice of a health professional before using this product"In 1989, Eli Lilly changed the packaging insert in their vaccines, warning that thimerosal was toxic and that exposure to it may cause " FETAL CHANGES, DECREASED OFFSPRING SURVIVAL AND LUNG TISSUE CHANGES"In 1991, an internal memo written to the president of Merck's vaccine division by Dr. Maurice Hillemann stated: " It is reasonable to conclude that the use of Thimerosal should be eliminated where possible, especially where use in infants and young children is anticipated" (Levin 2005).In 1999, a Material Safety Data Sheet was released claiming the following in respect of Thimerosal:Primary Physical & Reproduction effects: Nervous System and Reproduction Effects.Effects of exposure include fetal changes, mercury poisoning my occur, exposure in children may cause mild to severe retardation, hazardous substance - toxic waste disposal ((Zietzke 2004). In 1999, according to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the correlation between mercury poisoning and autism "three month old babies injected with only 63 micrograms of mercury were two and a half times more likely to develop autism. Needless to say that the results of this study were never released, instead it was labeled "confidential" and "do not copy or release". The reason given by Dr. Jane Siegel, member of the government vaccination committee, were "preliminary information like this could not be distributed due to the possible harm it could cause". Likewise, the CDC refuses to release the data of this study for independent interpretaion. In light of all the above, it is imperative to find out whether INFORMED CONSENT was obtained from the participating human guinea pigs in Bangladesh, failing which the "researchers" conducting these trials once again violated the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration. Please also note that pregnancy, the flu and in particular the FLU SHOT would also cause a FALSE POSITIVE HIV reading, constituting a major scoop for the multi-billion HIV industry, because all these guinea pigs would no doubt be put on allegedly "life-saving" antiretroviral drugs, such as AZT which kills every living cell in their bodies and that of the developing fetus. Ingrid Blank/South Africa Flu shot for pregnant mom protects newbornUC researcher finds effect can last up to six monthsBy Peggy O'Farrell • pofarrell • October 6, 2008Babies of pregnant women vaccinated against the flu are protected against the virus and other respiratory illnesses until they are 5 to 6 months old, new research has found.The women and their babies studied were in Bangladesh, but the researcher who headed up the study hopes the findings will encourage expectant mothers in this country to get flu shots.Public health officials have recommended since 1997 that pregnant women get flu shots, said Mark C. Steinhoff, now director of the global health center at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and lead author of the study."But it turns out not many women get the vaccine. It was only 14 percent on the last survey," he said.The center was recently established to help build on the hospital's research and outreach efforts overseas, Steinhoff said."The world is becoming a smaller place," he said. "Things that work in one place, with some modifications, will work in another place."For the flu shot study, which will appear in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, 340 pregnant women were given either an inactive, or "killed," flu vaccine or a pneumonia vaccine.The flu shots protected 63 percent of babies whose mothers were vaccinated against influenza; it also protected 29 percent of babies whose mothers were vaccinated against respiratory infections accompanied by fever.One surprise for doctors collecting the data was how common influenza is among infants, Steinhoff said."They kept telling us, 'We had no idea we had so much flu,' " he said.Influenza is a serious problem in infants, Steinhoff said.He cited a recent study by Mary Staat, also a pediatrician at Cincinnati Children's, which found that as many as 1 percent of infants 6 months or younger in Hamilton County are hospitalized for flu."There's no vaccine licensed for children under 6 months old yet," Steinhoff said. "The only way to prevent that high rate of hospitalization in the very young infants is by vaccinating pregnant women."The study's results were released as another flu shot season kicks off. This year, health officials are pushing parents to get children 6 months to 18 years old vaccinated.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~To to this group, send email to: MedicalConspiracies- (AT) googl (DOT) com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...