Why Govt's, Celebrities, NGOs, Media, Doctors & Politicians peddle vaccines.

[Guest guest]

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/oct13_Butler.php(viewable with subscription only)FOLLOW THE MONEY: PART ONEBy Hilary ButlerOn 31 January 2001, New Zealand Doctor ran an article on page 9 by Penny StJohn, called Mandatory Jabs Short Cut To Increasing Rates. This was a"briefing", sponsored by the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, Merck andCo, for journalists in the Asia/Pacific regions.Why just journalists?Because, as a 1997 World Health Organization publication clearly spellsout, (14) an "on-side" media is vital to them. WHO was planning the firstof many regular summits on vaccination at the time of publication, and theysee the role of WHO and the vaccine manufacturers

to undertake:Pg 90: "the recruitment of those people who are able to back scientificdeclarations with political commitment for action: heads of state, or otherhigh-level government officials such as prime ministers, governors orsenators; national policy-makers from both the health and finance sectors;directors of international organizations; and directors of agencies fromthe donor assistance community. A third group of participants in themeeting would be media representatives from as broad a spectrum as possible. It is essential that the public be informed, and continuallyreminded, that vaccines and immunization are one of the most cost-effectivehealth interventions to day, and that they save the lives of millions ofchildren

every year."Why is it essential that the public be informed and continually reminded….?Pg 16: "2.3 To create and expand demand for vaccines:inform the public and decision makers on the value of disease preventionand the role of vaccination as a cost-effective health intervention."Pg 43: "The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integratedinto the "health consciousness" of people and thus, to their daily lives.Media, local leaders and other partners need to be used to reach thisobjective." (emphasis in this article is usually mine))So, they need to:"4.2.5 develop active information campaigns for the public on immunizationprogrammes, vaccines and the risks of infectious diseases." (Page 46)Pg 75 summarises earlier information on pg 20 under a heading "Fostering aculture of prevention through advocacy for vaccines" which discusses actionto maintain local and political commitment to

vaccines:"This can be done only through active efforts which inform the public ofthe benefits and risks of vaccination, the real risks of infectiousdiseases in their community and the impact of these problems on society aswell as the individual. Similar efforts must also be directed at opinionleaders and those who provide resources so that support to immunizationefforts can be dramatically expanded to provide better protection."And how does WHO propose to do this?Firstly, they want to do: "Social and behaviour research on attitudes andaccess to immunization… to guide the process of expanding protection.")In other words, it is all about how we change perceptions, so that people will willingly allow us to inject whatever we like into them. To do that,we

have to study those who don’t vaccinate and change their attitudes andbehaviour, ..and the media is where it is at….(Sure enough, about four years ago, the CDC in America starting doing astudy, and were appealing to parents who didn’t vaccinate to contact themand tell them why. I have a copy of the fax sent out. The interestingthing, as far as I know, is that some parents smelled a rat.)WHO also needs to "Help countries identify where to acquire vaccines; howto acquire them; how to assure their quality; and how to finance vaccinesas costs rise and resources diminish" (Pg 59)Note the above: "AS COSTS RISE AND RESOURCES DIMINISH" How do they knowthat costs will rise and resources diminish? What "resources" might they be?Is there something else they aren’t telling us?Costs can only rise if countries choose to diminish their resources bymaking vaccine companies a big money extractor from their health

budget.WHO could succeed,- if they get enough media on side, to spew out freefear-mongering information often enough to make people scared enough, sothat they want everything WHO has to offer. And WHO has identified just theway to do this:"Promote the use of mass media sources, such as internet, to address thevalue of immunization and vaccinesIdentify community leaders to act as advocates for immunization programmesand vaccines"And these four aims, scattered in different places of the book:"establish a clear agenda of action for decision makers includingascertaining that vaccine supplies, immunization infrastructure finance andsupport systems (such as training; education and communication materials;and monitoring systems) are adequate …""develop recommendations that encourage all countries to implement the widest practical range of vaccination activities….""create , or strengthen National Control Authorities responsible forvaccines;""inform decision makers on the benefits of immunization and vaccines totheir communities."But never mind the risks. After all, there aren’t any, are there.Bear in mind, while considering these objectives, that there must beanother reason. Can the following bit of humour floating around offer aclue? "Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. Butwhat is concealed is crucial"As so it is with the Vaccine Agenda. It isn’t actually about diseaseprevention. That’s just the make-up on the face, to make it lookaltruistic, and caring.It’s about a "delicate fabric of cooperation".It’s about money. Now, and in the future.Consider this,… WHO stated that Global expenditure on vaccines in

1994,with only the more basic vaccines was a "mere" estimate of $ USA 10 billiondollars (pg 48). In the context of what it might be today, let us notforget that SmithKlineBeecham’s Engerix B vaccine sales alone, exceeded $1billion dollars in 1995(15). The figures now are staggering with sums youcan’t even imagine. As Dr Hilleman is quoted as saying (21): "this is thegolden Era of vaccine research." In the very next breath Duke University’sDr Samuel Katz enthuses:"Spell it "b-o-o-m". Protection from frivolous lawsuits has given largecompanies increased freedom to stay in the vaccine business, which biotechcompanies are turning out wonderful new scientific advances."The key issue is how to get the most dollars with the least risk toshareholders.Unfortunately, that is not by developing the older type vaccines. AsSignals Magazine put it:"A killed virus yields little hope for broad patent protection,

but identifying a critical subunit protein to use in a vaccine offersprophylaxis, patentability and the promise of fatter profits.""Some of these new products with be plenty pricey."A good example was the Hepatitis B vaccine, which when first introduced wasmade from pooled human blood from American homosexuals, because thiscontained huge amounts of antigen. But it ran into both professional andconsumer resistance. In 1986, the first recombinant viral subunit vaccineby Merck came out, and like Smith Kline’s version, is, according to SignalsMagazine, "a billion-dollar-a-year item".The other way to do it is proprietary vaccine combinations, which Merck hasright up its sleeve….A conclusion in the WHO book on pg 42 puts this in a larger

context as theysee it:"There have been significant new developments at the early stages of thevaccine continuum. Much of this has, however, only been applied inindustrialized countries, and even there incompletely. The pace ofinnovation is increasing. This highlights the need for concerted action sothat the potential for public health benefits in all areas of the world isaccelerated and maximized."But to continue with WHO’s adoption of the media as the key to success:Pg 91 To increase advocacy for vaccines and immunization through widespreadinclusion of the media in the summit, preparations for the Summit, andfollow-up activities.A fourth group of participants in such forums are:" 4) consumers of vaccines, including doctors and national immunizationprogram managers."And when you read this book, you cannot help but notice, that NOWHERE doesthis book mentions the concerns of the real

consumers who are the laypeople to whom vaccines are given. Because "we", the uninvited, are theirmeans to their end. Therefore, this whole strategy is aimed at us. We must not know that this is all so masterfully manipulated.And in their eyes, what would we know, and so why should we be consulted?They only want to involve those critical to the success of the fulfillmentof the stated goals:Pg 91 "Participants critical to the success of the meeting will be selectedby the Summit Steering Committee and will be financially supported."This document was written around the time that a medical journal (16)described what they call "United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate Fabricof Public and Private Collaboration." On pages 1015

— 1016 the article read:"To achieve the full promise of modern science and technology …America’scooperative and collaborative relationships in vaccine research anddevelopment are interwoven into a fabric of innovation. This must bemaintained and strengthened. It is important to understand the nature ofthese relationships to prevent inadvertent damage to this delicate fabric."More about this "delicate fabric" a little later… but on page 1018 thearticle continues:"This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmentalchanges, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze onfunding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery anddevelopment across the board…. Reductions in federal funding for vaccineresearch and development will have a secondary effect in academia andthereby on the United States capacity to engage in vaccine research.""If the regulatory climate

becomes cumbersome, regulation itself can becomea hurdle, making it more difficult for new companies to enter the vaccineresearch and development area.""Price controls are a source of concern… because investors fear thepotential profits will be compromised.""Collaboration and cooperation of government agencies, such as NIH, CDC, FDA, USAID, DOD, large vaccine companies, small research companies andacademia are essential to continue success and fulfill the promise ofrecent advances in science and technology.""Threats to any part of the delicate vaccine research and developmentnetwork jeopardize the rapid development and supply of new… vaccines forthe American people….These National Vaccine Advisory

Committeerecommendations will help to ensure that public policies take intoconsideration this research and development network, and foster and sustainit to facilitate the timely introduction and supply of new vaccines."In other words: we want to do what we want, when we want, unregulated, withno price cap, and with the NIH, CDC, FDA, USAID and DOD in our back pocket.So, how do we best get what we want?One way, was for vaccine manufacturers to fund Bush’s inauguration (17) tothe tune of $1.7 million US dollars. Not only that, Public Citizen, acongress watchdog group published in November 2000, that in the lead up tothe election:"The prescription drug industry is spending approximately $230 million thiselection cycle on lobbying, campaign contributions and issue ads as ittries to shape public policy in the face of increasing public hostility toits price-gouging and profiteering."Which

included:$170 million for lobbying,$15 million in direct campaign contributionsat least $35 million in campaign adsat least $10 million to the US Chamber of Commerce for pro-drug industrycampaign ads.A delicate fabric indeed.What goes around, is expected to come around.And clearly a plan which the WHO is delighted to participate in, judging bya 1998 comment in one of their newsletters in which Dr Jong Wook Lee,Executive Secretary of the Children’s Vaccine Initiative talks about thefact that:"…to people outside the international vaccine community… new syndromes…. like prion diseases, viral haemorrhagic fevers like Ebola, Marburg,hantavirus, Lassa, dengue or tick-borne diseases, or a new kind of flu, notto speak of Aids … are bad

news."He goes on to say B-U-T:"To people like me and my GPV colleagues, its good news. All right, we havea daunting task. And maybe we won’t win in the end. Maybe as vaccineresearcher and developer Stanley Plotkin said, prevention by vaccination is"the El Dorado of research in infectious diseases."."Maybe. But for me it’s good news mainly because, unlike El Dorado,vaccines are for real….they are already preventing more than 3 milliondeaths every year and could prevent another 9 million if we make new andbetter vaccines and find ways of ensuring they are fully used. And there’sno reason why we shouldn’t succeed: Just 3 years ago, there were "only"about 150 vaccine candidates in development; today, only 4 years after GPVwas created, there are about 240.""Yes, indeed, the news for us in the vaccine business is good.""And yes, we’re human beings and have got to eat, and the continualemergence of

new diseases means our jobs aren’t likely to disappear in thenear future."The promise of vaccines, however, in the late 80s was under threat, ascourt cases swept the USA and UK, threatening to cause all vaccinecompanies to fold. So they said. Fortunately for these boomingmoney-makers, with considerable help from the medical professionals andother misguided individuals, the USA government passed legislation whichshielded vaccine producers from all liability not related to manufacturingerror (20).But the funny thing is, that publicly, people associated with vaccine arguethat vaccines are such a small part of their inventory, that making themreally isn’t worth their while. Unless, that is, there are no impediments. Funny how that wasn’t the story when the USA DPT supply fiasco was frontpage headlines.Years later, the publicity machine that has been so carefully orchestrated,that delicate fabric of partnership between vested interests, is now infull swing. Just about every other day, you can turn to the New ZealandHerald and see the next, newest, greatest pharmaceutical magic bullet,uncritically paraded to continue the subtle sheeple conditioning process socarefully conceived by WHO and their consorts.So the enthusiastic "reportage" which flowed from St John’s pen was to beexpected. It probably never occurred to her that "investigativejournalism", or "balanced journalism" was even a possibility. She mostlikely saw her job simply to "report", uncritically, what happened there.And I’m glad she did, because to those who know, it does the drug companyno favours.It will come as no surprise to you, that Dr

Thomas Vernon, the vicepresident of public health and vaccine medical affairs for Merck VaccineDivision’s opening shot in the article was:"New Zealand should consider mandatory vaccination for children as a way ofquickly raising the country’s low immunization rates."He goes on to say that vaccine preventable deaths are not justifiable inNew Zealand and that:"New Zealand has laws requiring children to wear seatbelts and questionswhy this form of protection is not extended to include vaccination."He also said:"the UK system of assigning each child to a GP and giving financialincentives for GPs who achieve high rates of vaccination has resulted inhigh levels of vaccination without mandate."Let’s look at what this meant, for GPs in England. In a magazine calledFinancial Pulse, dated 8/2/97, there were two articles about this. Thefirst was by a GP in Radlett, Herts, called "The Problem" In this,

Dr Jan Gold tells us that they analysed their accounts, and found their earningsfrom vaccinations and immunizations were well below the national average,and "should represent between 5 — 10% of item-of-service income…It istherefore an important source of earnings."She goes on to detail the two levels of target payments — one at 70%vaccination rates (5,790 pounds), and a higher one at 90% coverage (at thelower level plus 11,580 pounds). She considers that improving her income by17,370 pounds is worth the effort, and sets out how to do this. Somememorable quotes are:"There is no item-of-service fee for some public policy immunizations, forexample influenza, pneumococcus and hepatitis B. It is still

worthgenerating income from these through the reimbursement scheme. Thispractice could generate up to 3,700 pounds from an effective annualinfluenza vaccination campaign if it immunized 10% of the practice""and immunizing 5% of "targeted" patients would bring in 3,000 pounds.""Many practices are finding this (foreign travel) a growth area, so itcould be costly to ignore… the GPs in this practice should considerstarting a travel clinic, run by the practice nurse. They should firstdirect this at their own patients, but there might be scope later to expandit to a private service for patients registered with other practices.""Good marketing is the secret of increasing uptake in this area…."Why only 10%, or 5%? I mean, if it matter so much about people protection,why not everyone?Or, when you look at those projected figures, would that just look a bittoo greedy?The other article is by Dr Mike

Townsend, and is entitled "Travel vaccines— broaden your earnings," where he explains how GPs can take advantage ofpatients’ trips to exotic destinations….As you can see, the interweaving web of who can make more money, and how, just gets bigger and bigger.Back to the New Zealand Doctor article.Does Dr Vernon have a limited appreciation of the difference between hismoney making products which go INSIDE a body, and an inert restraint whichgoes around part of a body in a car — or like helmets, on the head? Orsteel-capped boots on the feet, which prevent foresters from chain-sawingtheir toes off?None of these external restraints or barriers require a changing of thevital inside defence workings of the body.When the New Zealand doctors are offered a gold mine similar to that

oftheir English counterparts, I am sure that any serious tolerance for theconcept of informed choice will fade, and we will see a huge increase inthe stridency of call for Mandatory Medical Regulation. For our own good,of course.(All references will be published at the end of Part Two)TO BE CONTINUED (hasn't come out yet)(I'll check with her on this!) "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Small Business.