Vaccines: FOLLOW THE MONEY: PART ONE

[Guest guest]

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/oct13_Butler.html

 

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY: PART ONE

 

By Hilary Butler

 

On 31 January 2001, New Zealand Doctor ran an article on page 9 by Penny St

John, called Mandatory Jabs Short Cut To Increasing Rates. This was a

" briefing " , sponsored by the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, Merck and Co, for

journalists in the Asia/Pacific regions.

 

Why just journalists?

 

Because, as a 1997 World Health Organization publication clearly spells out,

(14) an " on-side " media is vital to them. WHO was planning the first of many

regular summits on vaccination at the time of publication, and they see the role

of WHO and the vaccine manufacturers to undertake:

 

Pg 90: " the recruitment of those people who are able to back scientific

declarations with political commitment for action: heads of state, or other

high-level government officials such as prime ministers, governors or senators;

national policy-makers from both the health and finance sectors; directors of

international organizations; and directors of agencies from the donor assistance

community. A third group of participants in the meeting would be media

representatives from as broad a spectrum as possible. It is essential that the

public be informed, and continually reminded, that vaccines and immunization are

one of the most cost-effective health interventions to day, and that they save

the lives of millions of children 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 prevention and

the role of vaccination as a cost-effective health intervention. "

 

Pg 43: " The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integrated into the

" health consciousness " of people and thus, to their daily lives. Media, local

leaders and other partners need to be used to reach this objective. " (emphasis

in this article is usually mine))

 

So, they need to:

 

" 4.2.5 develop active information campaigns for the public on immunization

programmes, vaccines and the risks of infectious diseases. " (Page 46)

 

Pg 75 summarises earlier information on pg 20 under a heading " Fostering a

culture of prevention through advocacy for vaccines " which discusses action to

maintain local and political commitment to vaccines:

 

" This can be done only through active efforts which inform the public of the

benefits and risks of vaccination, the real risks of infectious diseases in

their community and the impact of these problems on society as well as the

individual. Similar efforts must also be directed at opinion leaders and those

who provide resources so that support to immunization efforts 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 and access

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 and behaviour, ..and

the media is where it is at….

 

(Sure enough, about four years ago, the CDC in America starting doing a study,

and were appealing to parents who didn’t vaccinate to contact them and tell them

why. I have a copy of the fax sent out. The interesting thing, as far as I know,

is that some parents smelled a rat.)

 

WHO also needs to " Help countries identify where to acquire vaccines; how to

acquire them; how to assure their quality; and how to finance vaccines as costs

rise and resources diminish " (Pg 59)

 

Note the above: " AS COSTS RISE AND RESOURCES DIMINISH " How do they know that

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 by making

vaccine companies a big money extractor from their health budget.

 

WHO could succeed,- if they get enough media on side, to spew out free

fear-mongering information often enough to make people scared enough, so that

they want everything WHO has to offer. And WHO has identified just the way to do

this:

 

" Promote the use of mass media sources, such as internet, to address the

value of immunization and vaccines

 

Identify community leaders to act as advocates for immunization programmes

and vaccines "

 

And these four aims, scattered in different places of the book:

 

" establish a clear agenda of action for decision makers including

ascertaining that vaccine supplies, immunization infrastructure finance and

support 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 for

vaccines; "

 

" inform decision makers on the benefits of immunization and vaccines to their

communities. "

 

But never mind the risks. After all, there aren’t any, are there.

 

Bear in mind, while considering these objectives, that there must be another

reason. Can the following bit of humour floating around offer a clue?

" Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. But what is

concealed is crucial "

 

As so it is with the Vaccine Agenda. It isn’t actually about disease prevention.

That’s just the make-up on the face, to make it look altruistic, 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 billion dollars

(pg 48). In the context of what it might be today, let us not forget that

SmithKlineBeecham’s Engerix B vaccine sales alone, exceeded $1 billion dollars

in 1995(15). The figures now are staggering with sums you can’t even imagine. As

Dr Hilleman is quoted as saying (21): " this is the golden Era of vaccine

research. " In the very next breath Duke University’s Dr Samuel Katz enthuses:

 

" Spell it " b-o-o-m " . Protection from frivolous lawsuits has given large

companies increased freedom to stay in the vaccine business, which biotech

companies are turning out wonderful new scientific advances. "

 

The key issue is how to get the most dollars with the least risk to

shareholders.

 

Unfortunately, that is not by developing the older type vaccines. As Signals

Magazine put it:

 

" A killed virus yields little hope for broad patent protection, but identifying

a critical subunit protein to use in a vaccine offers prophylaxis, 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 was made

from pooled human blood from American homosexuals, because this contained huge

amounts of antigen. But it ran into both professional and consumer resistance.

In 1986, the first recombinant viral subunit vaccine by Merck came out, and like

Smith Kline’s version, is, according to Signals Magazine, " a

billion-dollar-a-year item " .

 

The other way to do it is proprietary vaccine combinations, which Merck has

right up its sleeve….

 

A conclusion in the WHO book on pg 42 puts this in a larger context as they see

it:

 

" There have been significant new developments at the early stages of the vaccine

continuum. Much of this has, however, only been applied in industrialized

countries, and even there incompletely. The pace of innovation is increasing.

This highlights the need for concerted action so that the potential for public

health benefits in all areas of the world is accelerated 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 widespread

inclusion of the media in the summit, preparations for the Summit, and follow-up

activities.

 

A fourth group of participants in such forums are:

 

" 4) consumers of vaccines, including doctors and national immunization program

managers. "

 

And when you read this book, you cannot help but notice, that NOWHERE does this

book mentions the concerns of the real consumers who are the lay people to whom

vaccines are given. Because " we " , the uninvited, are their means 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 fulfillment of

the stated goals:

 

Pg 91 " Participants critical to the success of the meeting will be selected by

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 Fabric of Public and

Private Collaboration. " On pages 1015 — 1016 the article read:

 

" To achieve the full promise of modern science and technology …America’s

cooperative and collaborative relationships in vaccine research and development

are interwoven into a fabric of innovation. This must be maintained and

strengthened. It is important to understand the nature of these relationships to

prevent inadvertent damage to this delicate fabric. "

 

More about this " delicate fabric " a little later… but on page 1018 the article

continues:

 

" This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmental

changes, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze on

funding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery and development

across the board…. Reductions in federal funding for vaccine research and

development will have a secondary effect in academia and thereby on the United

States capacity to engage in vaccine research. "

 

" If the regulatory climate becomes cumbersome, regulation itself can become a

hurdle, making it more difficult for new companies to enter the vaccine research

and development area. "

 

" Price controls are a source of concern… because investors fear the potential

profits will be compromised. "

 

" Collaboration and cooperation of government agencies, such as NIH, CDC, FDA,

USAID, DOD, large vaccine companies, small research companies and academia are

essential to continue success and fulfill the promise of recent advances in

science and technology. "

 

" Threats to any part of the delicate vaccine research and development network

jeopardize the rapid development and supply of new… vaccines for the American

people….These National Vaccine Advisory Committee recommendations will help to

ensure that public policies take into consideration this research and

development network, and foster and sustain it to facilitate the timely

introduction and supply of new vaccines. "

 

In other words: we want to do what we want, when we want, unregulated, with no

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) to the

tune of $1.7 million US dollars. Not only that, Public Citizen, a congress

watchdog group published in November 2000, that in the lead up to the election:

 

" The prescription drug industry is spending approximately $230 million this

election cycle on lobbying, campaign contributions and issue ads as it tries to

shape public policy in the face of increasing public hostility to its

price-gouging and profiteering. "

 

Which included:

 

$170 million for lobbying,

$15 million in direct campaign contributions

at least $35 million in campaign ads

at least $10 million to the US Chamber of Commerce for pro-drug industry

campaign 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 by a

1998 comment in one of their newsletters in which Dr Jong Wook Lee, Executive

Secretary of the Children’s Vaccine Initiative talks about the fact 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, not to 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 have a

daunting task. And maybe we won’t win in the end. Maybe as vaccine researcher

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 million deaths every year and

could prevent another 9 million if we make new and better vaccines and find ways

of ensuring they are fully used. And there’s no reason why we shouldn’t succeed:

Just 3 years ago, there were " only " about 150 vaccine candidates in development;

today, only 4 years after GPV was 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 continual emergence of

new diseases means our jobs aren’t likely to disappear in the near future. "

 

 

 

The promise of vaccines, however, in the late 80s was under threat, as court

cases swept the USA and UK, threatening to cause all vaccine companies to fold.

So they said. Fortunately for these booming money-makers, with considerable help

from the medical professionals and other misguided individuals, the USA

government passed legislation which shielded vaccine producers from all

liability not related to manufacturing error (20).

 

But the funny thing is, that publicly, people associated with vaccine argue that

vaccines are such a small part of their inventory, that making them really 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 front page headlines.

 

Years later, the publicity machine that has been so carefully orchestrated, that

delicate fabric of partnership between vested interests, is now in full swing.

Just about every other day, you can turn to the New Zealand Herald and see the

next, newest, greatest pharmaceutical magic bullet, uncritically paraded to

continue the subtle sheeple conditioning process so carefully conceived by WHO

and their consorts.

 

So the enthusiastic " reportage " which flowed from St John’s pen was to be

expected. It probably never occurred to her that " investigative journalism " , or

" balanced journalism " was even a possibility. She most likely 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 company no favours.

 

It will come as no surprise to you, that Dr Thomas Vernon, the vice president of

public health and vaccine medical affairs for Merck Vaccine Division’s opening

shot in the article was:

 

" New Zealand should consider mandatory vaccination for children as a way of

quickly raising the country’s low immunization rates. "

 

He goes on to say that vaccine preventable deaths are not justifiable in New

Zealand and that:

 

" New Zealand has laws requiring children to wear seatbelts and questions why

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 financial incentives

for GPs who achieve high rates of vaccination has resulted in high levels of

vaccination without mandate. "

 

Let’s look at what this meant, for GPs in England. In a magazine called

Financial Pulse, dated 8/2/97, there were two articles about this. The first 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 earnings from vaccinations

and immunizations were well below the national average, and " should represent

between 5 — 10% of item-of-service income…It is therefore 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 the lower level plus

11,580 pounds). She considers that improving her income by 17,370 pounds is

worth the effort, and sets out how to do this. Some memorable quotes are:

 

" There is no item-of-service fee for some public policy immunizations, for

example influenza, pneumococcus and hepatitis B. It is still worth generating

income from these through the reimbursement scheme. This practice could generate

up to 3,700 pounds from an effective annual influenza 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 it could be

costly to ignore… the GPs in this practice should consider starting a travel

clinic, run by the practice nurse. They should first direct this at their own

patients, but there might be scope later to expand it 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 bit too

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 of

patients’ 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 his money

making products which go INSIDE a body, and an inert restraint which goes around

part of a body in a car — or like helmets, on the head? Or steel-capped boots on

the feet, which prevent foresters from chain-sawing their toes off?

 

None of these external restraints or barriers require a changing of the vital

inside defence workings of the body.

 

When the New Zealand doctors are offered a gold mine similar to that of their

English counterparts, I am sure that any serious tolerance for the concept of

informed choice will fade, and we will see a huge increase in the 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

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search