Tag: flu vaccine

Vaccines & Infertility

,

In 2012, the British Medical Journal published a case report of a 16-year-old girl who received a cervical cancer vaccine towards the end of 2008. Following that, her menstrual periods became irregular and scant, and by 2011, her menstrual cycle had ceased altogether.

Upon further inspection, it was discovered that all of her remaining eggs were dead – she was totally and irreversibly infertile, at just 16 years of age [1].

Other cases of premature ovarian failure in young women following vaccination for cervical cancer have since come before the courts [2].

A recent study (2018) analysed information representing 8 million 25-to-29-year-old US women between 2007 and 2014.

Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% of women who were exposed to the vaccine had conceived [3].

It is not just the HPV vaccine raising questions about possibly fertility effects. Research also shows increased risk of miscarriage after influenza vaccination during pregnancy [4]. [

Note that multi-dose vials of influenza vaccine still contain mercury in the form of thimerosal – the Chinese were using mercury as an abortifacient up to 5000 years ago [5].

Globally, the fertility rate has more than halved since 1960.

Fifty-nine countries, representing 46% of the global population, now have fertility rates below replacement level [6].

Of course, much of that has been by choice, through women’s rights movements, access to contraceptives, changing religious beliefs, along with increased living standards and higher education (not to mention a very aggressive ‘family planning’ push through WHO, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others – more on that in a later post), but clearly not all of the plummeting fertility rate has been by choice…

An international team of scientists analysed data from nearly 43,000 men in dozens of industrialized countries and found that sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades [7].

Peter Schlegal, professor and chairman of urology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and vice president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, says “Since this is the best study that’s ever been done, it is concerning that it suggests such a progressive and dramatic decrease in sperm counts over time.”

“Since we don’t know what could be causing it, it’s worrisome” [8].

Numerous studies also reveal that testosterone levels in men have declined substantially over the past decades [9-11]

Over the past decades, girls in Western countries have also been reaching puberty at younger and younger ages… [12]

There is evidence to suggest that earlier puberty, coupled with no children, doubles a woman’s risk of early menopause [13].

Is there a possibility that vaccines could somehow contribute to lower sperm counts, earlier puberty and menopause, not to mention the growing numbers of women suffering hormonal issues such as polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), estrogen dominance etc?

Given that no vaccine on the market has been tested long-term for ability to damage or impair fertility, we are left to theorize about potentials and correlations. Certainly, there are a number of ingredients used in vaccines that are possible ‘red flags’.

Aluminium: Used as an adjuvant in numerous vaccines, such as Hepatitis B (first dose administered within hours of birth), and HPV vaccines (given to 11-13yo boys and girls), is a metalloestrogen. It belongs to a class of metals that are capable of binding to oestrogen receptors and mimicking the action of physiological oestrogen [14]. Mercury is also a metalloestrogen.

Glutaraldehyde: Classified as a reproductive toxin in females, and suspected reproductive toxin in males, capable of inducing DNA damage in mammals [15], is found in DTaP vaccines given to infants as young as 6 weeks.

Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide: A surfactant used in some influenza and typhoid vaccines.

No data available on its ability to cause cancer, birth defects or DNA damage, however, animal test data suggests it may cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects. May also be toxic to the liver, cardiovascular and nervous systems [16].

2-Phenoxyethanol: According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2-phenoxyethanol is the same as ethylene glycol, which has been shown to cause “wasting of the testicles, reproductive changes, infertility and changes to kidney function” [17].

Sodium borate, or Borax: Used in the Hepatitis A and HPV vaccines, and is added as a buffer, to “resist changes in pH, adjust tonicity and maintain osmolarity” [18].

Animal studies “show that the primary targets for borate toxicity are the developing fetus and the male reproductive system”. (Note that adolescent boys are now being targeted for HPV vaccination.)

Reproductive effects included atrophy of the testes and infertility [19].

Those are the ingredients we know about. What about vaccine contaminants, which scientists admit there is no possible way to screen for all potential contaminants [20-22], and even if there were, the FDA and other regulatory agencies only offer ‘guidance’ on how vaccine manufacturers ‘should’ screen vaccine lots [23]?

In 2003, three states in Northern Nigeria boycotted the oral polio vaccine, due to the alleged discovery of contaminants, including trace amounts of estrogen. The boycott lasted for 15 months [24].

In 2015, Catholic Bishops in Kenya announced that they had tested vials of the tetanus vaccine, then being used to vaccinate women of child-bearing age, and found them laced with beta-HCG, a pregnancy hormone [25]

The Catholic Church operates about 30% of health clinics in Kenya, and is not opposed to vaccination per se [26], but suspicions began to arise over the secrecy surrounding the WHO/UNICEF vaccination campaign (vials were delivered to health clinics under police guard, and empty vials returned to Nairobi, also under police guard), and the unusual policy of 5 doses of tetanus toxoid vaccine, administered every 6 months [27].

One of the laboratories used to test the vaccines for contaminants, Agriq-Quest, later had their license suspended by the Kenyan government. Agriq-Quest, however, claimed it was because they refused to doctor the samples to show the vaccines were clean [28].

As Oller et al (2017) noted: “…WHO biomedical researchers have been working to engineer such an “anti-fertility” vaccine for “birth-control” at least since 1972. Research published in 1976 confirmed that recipients of a vaccine containing βhCG chemically conjugated with TT (tetanus toxoid) develop antibodies not only against TT but also against βhCG. The result, first reported by WHO researchers at a meeting of the US National Academy of Sciences, is a “birth-control” vaccine that diminishes the βhCG essential to a successful pregnancy and causes at least temporary “infertility”. Subsequent research showed that repeated doses can extend infertility indefinitely” [29]

During the 1990’s, numerous reports surfaced that millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and Phillipines had been targeted by WHO ‘anti-fertility’ vaccination campaigns, under the guise of ‘eliminating neonatal tetanus’ [30].

More recently, In December, 2018, Italian research group, Corvelva, announced that they had received a donation from the Italian National Order of Biologists, and intended to test the contents of every vaccine currently on the market.

Their results so far have been disturbing. For instance, their testing of Hexyon 6-in-1 infant vaccine (recently approved for use in the US, beginning in 2020, under a different trade name) not only revealed a conspicuous absence of some antigens meant to be in there, they also noted the presence of many contaminants not meant to be in there [31]!

These included:

Diethylatrazine: Pesticide, second most widely used pesticide in the US (after glyphosate), but banned in Europe due to persistent groundwater contamination. It is suspected to be an endocrine disrupter and reproductive toxin. Studies found that the chemical caused male frogs to develop female characteristics, possibly because testosterone levels decreased by 10 times, when exposed to atrazine at just 25 ppb (parts per billion) [32]

Sulfluramid: Insecticide (which contains fluoride), not approved for use in EU. Was due to be phased out in US by 2016. Used in a variety of termite, ant and cockroach baits. Animal studies suggest that sulfluramid may adversely affect the reproductive system, especially in males, and/or cause infertility in males [33]

References:

[1] Little DT, Ward HR. premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination, BMJ Case Reports, 2012, doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879.

[2] Wetzstein C. HPV Vaccine Cited in Infertility Case, The Washington Times, November 11, 2013.

[3] DeLong G, A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 2018, 81(14): 661-674]

[4] Donahue JG, Kieke BA, King JP et al, Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2010-11 and 2011-12, Vaccine, 2017, 35(40):5314-5322.

[5] Tietze C and Lewit S, Abortion, Scientific American, 1969, 220:21.

[6] Cheadle C, Dropping Fertility Rates are a Threat to the Global Economy, Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/dropping-fertility-rates-will-affect-the-economy-2016-11?IR=T. Accessed March, 2019.

[7] Levine H, Jørgensen N, Martino-Andrade A, et al, Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis, Human Reproduction Update, 2017, 23(6): 646–659.

[8] Stein R, Sperm counts plummet in western men, study finds, NPR, 31st July 2017, https://www.npr.org/2017/07/31/539517210/sperm-counts-plummet-in-western-men-study-finds. Accessed February, 2019.

[9] [Andersson AM, Jensen TK, Juul A et al, Secular Decline in Male Testosterone and Sex Hormone Binding Globulin Serum Levels in Danish Population Surveys, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2007, 92(12): 4696–4705.

[10] Travison TG, Araujo AB, Amy B. O’Donnell AB, et al, A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2007, Volume 92(1): 196–202.

[11]Perheentupa A, Mäkinen J, Laatikainen T, et al Vierula, M., Skakkebaek, N., Andersson, A., & Toppari, J. A cohort effect on serum testosterone levels in Finnish men, European Journal of Endocrinology, 2013, 168(2): 227-233.

[12] Boaz NT, Essentials of biological anthropology, 1999, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

[13] Thacker HL, Does early menstruation mean earlier menopause? https://speakingofwomenshealth.com/column/does-early-menstruation-mean-early-menopause. Accessed February 2019.

[14] Darbre P, Metalloestrogens: an emerging class of inorganic xenoestrogens with potential to add to the oestrogenic burden of the human breast, J Appl Toxicol, 2006, 26(3): 191-197.

[15] Science Lab. MSDS Glutaraldehyde, http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924161. Accessed October, 2017.

[16] Science Lab. MSDS Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923367. Accessed October, 2017.

[17] Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc. MSDS: 2- phenoxyethanol, http://datasheets.scbt.com/sc-238193.pdf. Accessed October, 2017.

[18] The Immunization Advisory Centre. Vaccine Ingredients Factsheet for Parents and Caregivers, http://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/vaccine-development/vaccine-components. Accessed October, 2017.

[19] U.S. Forest Service. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax Final Report, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ac73/7b23b40f58669398317e30efe51833c361c5.pdf. Accessed October, 2017.

[20] Stang A, Petrasch- Parwez E, Brandt S, et al. Unintended spread of a biosafety level 2 recombinant retrovirus, Retrovirology, 2009, 6:86.

[21] Veerasami M, Chitra M, Mohana Subramanian B, et al. Individual and multiplex pCR assays for the detection of adventitious bovine and porcine viral genome contaminants in the commercial vaccines and animal derived raw materials, J Vet Sci Tech, 2014, 5:3.

[22] Marcus-Sekura C, Richardson JC, Harston RK, Sane N, Sheets RL. Evaluation of the Human Host Range of Bovine and Porcine Viruses that may Contaminate Bovine Serum and Porcine Trypsin Used in the Manufacture of Biological Products. Biologicals : Journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization. 2011;39(6):359-369.

[23] FDA. Guidance for Industry: Content and Format of Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls Information and Establishment Description Information for a Vaccine or Related product, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Vaccines/ucm092272.pdf. Accessed March 2019]

[24] ABC News, Vaccine Boycott Grows in Northern Nigeria, 24th February, 2004.

[25] Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops: Press Statement by the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.kccb.or.ke/home/news-2/press-statement-by-the-kenya-conference-of-catholic-bishops/. Accessed March, 2019.

[26] Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops: Catholic Health Commission of Kenya, http://www.kccb.or.ke/home/commission/12-catholic-health-commission-of-kenya/. Accessed March 2019.

[27] Oller, JW, Shaw CA, Tomljenovic, L., et al, HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World. Open Access Library Journal, 2017, 4: e3937.

[28] Obara V, License of industrial lab Agriq-Quest suspended, Business Daily, 12th January, 2017, https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Licence-of-industrial-lab-Agriq-Quest-suspended/539550-3515280-j78flcz/. Accessed March, 2019.

[29] Oller, JW, Shaw CA, Tomljenovic, L., et al, HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World. Open Access Library Journal, 2017, 4: e3937.

[30] Ibid

[31] Corvelva, Study on the chemical composition of Hexyon, Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12e3O0cT1hSMGULzvFg3DcoM_XyGZMRur/view. Accessed 24th January, 2019.

[32] Hayes TB, Collins A, Lee M, Mendoza M, Noriega N, Stuart AA, Vonk A, Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses, Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2002, 99(8): 5476-5480.

[33] US EPA memorandum, “Sulfluramid – Amount of A.I. in Raid Max Roach Bait.” To Mike Mendelsohn, PM Team Reviewer, Registration Division (7505C). From Linda L. Talor, Ph.D., Toxicology Branch II, Health Effects Division (7509C) and Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., Chief, Toxicology Branch II/HED (7509C), August 10, 1994.].

How The Science Gets ‘Settled’

If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: The science is settled! If you disagree, you are branded ‘anti-science’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’.

You, too, might have the impression that the science on vaccines (or other drugs) is ‘settled’, and that’s not by accident. Here’s how the drug industry achieves that impression…

Clinical Trials

Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry [1].

Naturally, the industry has a huge financial stake in the outcome of these clinical trials – a phase III clinical trial may enrol 1000 – 5000 people over many years, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to complete. Average cost per trial participant is around $36,000 [2]. That’s a lot of incentive to make it worth your while!

Analysis shows that trials funded by the industry are 5x more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice, regardless of whether the results justify it, or not [3].

Clinical trials proceed in phases:

Phase I: Usually small numbers of healthy volunteers 20-100, to ascertain safety and dosage.

Phase II: Usually involves up to several hundred people with the disease/condition, or fits the user profile, to ascertain efficacy and side-effects.

Phase III: Involves several hundred to several thousand volunteers with the disease/condition, to monitor efficacy and adverse reactions.

There a number of ways clinical trials can be manipulated to give the results you want – or the appearance of the results you want…

First, you choose the people who are most likely to give the results you want. If you are looking at the safety of a vaccine, you enrol those who are least likely to have adverse reactions, and exclude those with a history of seizures, recent fevers or illness, or any blood clotting disorder [4]. (In the real world, these very people people are often urged to get the vaccine.)

Other methods used to increase the legitimacy of your product include [5]:

i) Seeding trials: Where a drug company induces a doctor to prescribe a certain drug to their patients, in order to gain feedback on the product. These are usually scientifically meaningless, have no clear end-points, but they are large-scale so represent considerable sales for the company. The doctor usually gets paid to enter patients in the trial.

ii) Switching trials: This is a variant of the seeding trial. Doctors are recruited to switch their patients from their usual treatment, to a new treatment. Again, the drug companies know that this will often lead to long-term customers.

iii) post-marketing surveillance: This is yet another variant of the seeding and switching trials, although with more scientific justification, as they are often published, and can provide important data on adverse effects. Again, doctors are paid substantial sums, and the patients may believe they are getting new and ‘better’ treatments.

iv) Dosage: The dose can be manipulated in order to give the desired results. For example, a competitor drug may be given at less-than-optimal dosage, to make the studied drug look more effective. Or the competitor drug may be given at higher-than-optimal dosages, to make the studied drug look safer.

v) Economic evaluations: These can be easy to manipulate, because they are too complex for the average journal editor or reader to fully understand.

Medical Journals

Now, when you get the favourable ‘results’, you have to let the world know all about it! A major randomised trial with favourable results, published in a prestigious journal, is a major win for a drug company, and an essential step in creating a ‘blockbuster’ drug [6-7].

A 2010 review of six major medical journals found that studies funded by industry are cited more often than those funded by other sources – more than twice as often in some journals [8].

So, if the industry-funded studies are more likely to recommend the drug in question (regardless of actual results), and then those same studies are used as a foundation for other research, being cited far more often than independent studies…can you see how the drug industry is able to build up an impression of their products being ‘rigorously tested’ and ‘highly effective’?

 The industry has figured out another way to keep their products in the editorial pages – it’s called ‘ghost-writing’. The drug company pays a writer to create an article containing ‘key marketing messages’, which is then sent to a doctor, who agrees to have his/her name attributed to the work in exchange for payment, before it is submitted to medical publications. Studies suggest that anywhere from 8% to 75% of journal articles may be ghost-written [9].

Clearly, this might appeal to some doctors who want the prestige of being a published author, quite apart from the financial incentive. The pharmaceutical company has final control over the paper, and if a doctor is not compliant enough, they simply get no further projects [10-11].

In many cases, if not all, the ghost-writer and the honorary author have not even viewed the raw data, they have merely been supplied with a summary from the sponsor company [12]. The honorary author is usually chosen because of their credentials, and their ability to influence other prescribers [13].

Of course, the desired effect of all this published data is threefold: a) it gives the appearance that the drug is thoroughly researched and widely accepted, b) which boosts doctor and patient confidence, c) while simultaneously providing an edge over rival products.

But…peer review!

At the heart of the scientific process is the concept known as peer review – where an author’s work is subjected to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field, before being published. The public perception is that the peer review process acts like a stop-gap that upholds the integrity of the scientific process, and filters out errors or fraud, but does it really?

The British Medical Journal decided to test for themselves how reliable the peer-review process is, by inserting major errors into papers before sending to reviewers. Some reviewers didn’t pick up any of the errors, while most picked up only about a quarter. Nobody picked up all the errors [14 -15].

So far, the evidence suggests that the peer review process is ‘slow, expensive, ineffective, something of a lottery, prone to bias and abuse, and hopeless at spotting errors and fraud [16] – but of course, the average internet troll doesn’t know that, yet!

The New England Journal of Medicine has long been ‘the journal to beat’ [17], yet two former editors-in-chief left their role in the top job, and went on to publish books exposing the excessive influence of the drug industry [18-19].

Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis looks at data from multiple studies, and is used as part of systematic review. Naturally, these are useful and important in the interpretation of data.

A systematic review of vaccine meta-analyses, found that the methodological quality of all 121 meta-analyses included in the review (100%), were unsatisfactory. “The most frequent limitations include non-comprehensive bibliographic research; bias in the selection of the studies; lack of quality assessment of individual studies; absence of evaluation of heterogeneity among studies and publication bias” [20].

So, 100% of the vaccine meta-analysis cherry-picked the studies they wanted to include, in order for the ‘systematic review’ to show the results they wanted…These are the same meta-analyses that are used to guide government policies and legislation, WHO guidelines, doctors opinion…

The Role of Media

In order to further spread the good news of your product, you also need to make some news headlines, via press releases. The media are usually fairly compliant – they want a catchy headline, and…after all, drug companies do help to fund their jobs, via billions of dollars in advertising revenue [21].

A review of health news and current affair items on free-to-air TV in Sydney, Australia, estimated that up to 42% may have ‘been triggered by press releases and other forms of publicity [22].

Advertising and press releases are not the only way the pharmaceutical industry can influence the media. Another avenue is through a situation known as an interlocking directorate. This occurs when the director of one company sits on the board of directors of another company.

Many of the major news corporations have directors who also sit on director boards for pharmaceutical companies – and these cosy relationships have been shown to effect how health news is portrayed [23].

According to research, ‘the media can play an important role in influencing both the demand and supply of medical treatments, regardless of evidence of effectiveness [24].

Media coverage can increase uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine, especially if reported in a headline, that includes words such as ‘vaccine shortage’ [25]. (Creates a sense of urgency.)

The so-called ‘swine flu pandemic’, which turned out to be more panic than pandemic, featured experts and academics making media appearances, promoting the use of retroviral drugs. It was later found that those who promoted retroviral drugs, were 8 times more likely to have links to industry – via research grants, honorarium payments, advisory roles, employment, board membership, speaker’s fees, etc – than those who did not comment on their use [26].

Getting Your Product Approved

Of course, all your journal articles and press releases are kind of pointless if you can’t get your drug through the regulatory process. In the US, UK, Australia and Canada, the regulatory agencies are all funded by industry (user-pays system), rather than by government [27-30].

Congressional investigations and reports have made damning conclusions on both the CDC and FDA: The Committee’s investigation has determined that conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to the pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee meetings” [31].

If that’s not enough, you also have the ‘revolving door’ between government and industry – former employees now hired by drug companies to liaise with their former work-mates in the regulatory system. Studies suggest that more than half of former assessors at the FDA move on to positions within the pharmaceutical industry [32] – obviously their ‘inside knowledge’ is extremely valuable to the drug companies.

Occasionally, the door swings in the opposite direction – pharma employees moving into government jobs. The current secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Alex Azar was formerly a pharmaceutical lobbyist, and president of the US division of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co [33]. In case you are not American, like myself, the HHS department guides the nation’s healthcare programs and policies, so…fairly influential.

Regulatory agents are not only funded by industry, as we have already noted, but they also rely on industry to conduct the trials, provide the safety data, and notify them of any issues that may arise post-licensure. The agencies themselves do not conduct clinical trials [34-37].

The Fate of Failed Clinical Trials

Now, what happens if, despite your best efforts, the clinical trials still didn’t give the results you wanted? You can still salvage your reputation by:

a) Just cut the trial short – to save money [38-40], or

b) Simply decide not to publish unfavourable trial results, even though doing so is considered to be scientific malpractice [41-42].

Research shows that less than half of government-funded clinical trial results are published in peer-reviewed medical journals within 30 months of trial completion [43].

One pharmaceutical company managed to suppress trial results for seven years, when they revealed that the drug in question was no more effective than cheaper generic formulations [44].

That, my friends, is a tiny glimpse into how science gets ‘settled’.

Any questions?

References

[1] Bodenheimer, T. 2000. Uneasy alliance: Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New England Journal of Medicine 342:1539-1544.

[2] pHRma: Biopharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials: impact on state economies, http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/biopharmaceutical-industry-sponsored-clinical-trials-impact-on-state-economies.pdf. Accessed September, 2017.

[3] Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?. JAMA. 2003;290(7):921–928.

[4] US National Library of Medicine: ClinicalTrials.gov. Hepatitis A vaccine, Inactivated and Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella Virus Vaccine Live Safety Study, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00326183?term=vaccine&recrs=e&cond=varicella&age=0&phase=3&fund=2&rank=4. Accessed October, 2017.

[5] Smith R. Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: uneasy bedfellows. BMJ : British Medical Journal. 2003;326(7400):1202-1205.

[6] Guyatt GH, Naylor D, Richardson WS, et al. What is the best evidence for making clinical decisions? JAMA. 2000 Dec 27; 284(24):3127-8.

[7] Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med. 2005 May; 2(5):e138.

[8] Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hrobjartsson A, Gotzche pC. Conflicts of interest at medical journals: The influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue-cohort study, pLOS One, 2010, 7(10): e1000354.

[9] Hill M. Ghosts in the Medical Machine, Philadelphia Inquirer, 20th September 2009.

[10] Petersen M. Madison Ave. Plays Growing Role in Drug Research. New York Times. 2002 November 22. Available at: www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/business/22DRUG.html?pagewanted=5, Accessed January, 2019.] [Ngai S, Gold J. L, Gill

[11] Rochon P.A. Haunted Manuscripts: Ghost Authorship in the Medical Literature. Accountability in Research. 2005;12:p103–114.

[12] McHenry L. Of Sophists and Spin-Doctors: Industry-Sponsored Ghostwriting and the Crisis of Academic Medicine. Mens Sana Monographs. 2010;8(1):129-145.]

[13] Ibid.

[14] Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15; 280(3):237-40.

[15] Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al.Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.BMJ. 2004 Mar 20; 328(7441):673.

[16] Smith R. The trouble with medical journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006;99(3):115-119.

[17] Smith R. Lapses at the New England Journal of Medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006;99(8):380-382.

[18] Angell M. The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. New York: Random House, 2005.

[19] Kassirer JP. On The Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

[20] De Vito C, Manzoli L, Marzuillo C, et al. A systematic review evaluating the potential for bias and the methodological quality of meta-analyses in vaccinology, Vaccine, 2007, 25(52):8794-806.

[21] CBS News, Drug Ads: $5.2 billion annually – and rising, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drug-ads-5-2-billion-annually-and-rising/. Accessed September, 2017.

[22] Chapman S, Holding SJ, Ellerm J, et al. The content and structure of Australian television reportage on health and medicine, 2005–2009: Parameters to guide health workers. Med J Aust, 2009, 191(11) 620–624.].

[23] Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: Single-payer and interlocking directorates, The corporate ties between insurers and media companies, http://fair.org/extra/single-payer-and-interlocking-directorates/. Accessed February, 2017.

[24] Benelli E (2003) The role of media in steering public opinion on healthcare issues. Health Policy 63: 179–186.

[25] Yoo B-K, Holland ML, Bhattacharya J, Phelps CE, Szilagyi PG. Effects of Mass Media Coverage on Timing and Annual Receipt of Influenza Vaccination among Medicare Elderly. Health Services Research. 2010;45(5 Pt 1):1287-1309.

[26] Wise Jacqui. Academics who spoke out on swine flu risks were more likely to have industry links, study finds BMJ, 2013; 347 :f6758.

[27] Frontline. How independent is the FDA? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html. Accessed October, 2017.

[28] House of Commons Health Committee. The Influence of the pharmaceutical industry: Fourth Report of Session 2004-2005.Published on 5 April 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited.

[29] Government of Canada. Funding and Fees, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/funding-fees.html. Accessed October, 2017.

[30] Productivity Commission. Submission To The Productivity Commission, re: Federal Government Cost Recovery, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/cost-recovery/submissions/medical_industry_association_of_australia_/sub012.pdf. Accessed October, 2017.

[31] FACA: Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development: Preserving the Integrity of the Process, Before the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives, 106th Congress, June 15, 2000.

[32] Bien, J., & Prasad, V. (2016). Future jobs of FDA’s haematology-oncology reviewers. BMJ (Online), 354, i5055.

[33] Brennan Z. Revolving Door Between Industry and FDA Continues to Spin, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society, 6th September, 2018.

[34] US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Trials: What patients need to know, https://www.fda.gov/forpatients/clinicaltrials/. Accessed October, 2017.

[35] Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation: What you need to know, http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/comms-ic/documents/websiteresources/con2031677.pdf. Accessed October, 2017.

[36] Government of Canada. Clinical trials and drug safety, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/your-health/medical-information/clinical-trials-drug-safety.html. Accessed October, 2017.

[37] Therapeutic Goods Administration. TGA regulatory framework, https://www.tga.gov.au/tga-regulatory-framework. Accessed October, 2017.

[38] Psaty BM, Rennie D. Stopping medical research to save money. A broken pact with researchers and patients.  JAMA2003;289:2128-2131.

[39] Canadian Association of University Teachers: The Olivieri Report, https://www.caut.ca/docs/af-reports-indepedent-committees-of-inquiry/the-olivieri-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed September, 2017.

[40] Lievre M, Menard J, Bruckert E.  et al.  Premature discontinuation of clinical trial for reasons not related to efficacy, safety, or feasibility.  BMJ.2001;322:603-605.

[41] Bodenheimer, T. 2000. Uneasy alliance: Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New England Journal of Medicine 342:1539-1544.

[42] Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct.  JAMA.1990;263:1405-1408.

[43] Ross Joseph S, Tse Tony, Zarin Deborah A, Xu Hui, Zhou Lei, Krumholz Harlan M et al. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis BMJ 2012; 344 :d7292.

[44] Vogel G. Long-suppressed study finally sees light of day.  Science.1997;276:525-526. p

10 Reasons Why The Flu Shot is Worse Than Useless

,
  1. The number of “flu deaths” each year, used to scare people into getting vaccinated, is grossly inaccurate. There are several reasons for this, the main one being that so-called “flu deaths” are lumped in with deaths from pneumonia and ‘influenza-like illnesses’, and ‘respiratory and circulatory causes’ [1]. Out of all those deaths, the CDC ‘estimates’ how many were caused by influenza. Given that a) states are not even required to report flu cases or deaths in adults, and b) the ‘CDC feels it is important to convey the full burden of seasonal flu to the public’ (their words, not mine), one can just imagine how inflated their ‘guesstimates’ are!
  2. Seasonal flu vaccine makes you more susceptible to other respiratory infections [2].
  3. Influenza-related deaths have actually increased, as vaccination rates have increased [3].
  4. Numerous reviews have found that there is evidence of widespread manipulation of data in flu vaccine studies, and what’s more, no measurable benefits in vaccinating healthcare workers, young children, healthy adults, pregnant women or the elderly [4-8]. Actually, let’s just say that there are no measurable benefits for anybody [9].
  5. Flu vaccine induces auto-antibodies against gangliosides in the brain [10]. Gangliosides are found throughout the body, especially the central nervous system and play an important role in many cell functions.
  6. Flu vaccine makes people more susceptible to pandemic influenza strains [11].
  7. After three consecutive years, people who receive the annual flu vaccine, are more likely to get influenza [12].
  8. The prestigious Cochrane Review found that 71 people would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of influenza…while at the same time concluding that only 10% of the studies included in their review had good methodological quality. Therefore, even this unimpressive finding is likely to be vastly over-inflated [4].
  9. Vaccines only target A and B strains of influenza, which account for approximately 10% of known circulating strains. Remembering that “efficacy” is based on ability to produce antibodies, which does not equal immunity anyway [4].
  10. Multidose flu vaccines (such as trivalent and quadrivalent vaccines) contain thimerosal, which is 50% ethylmercury by weight. Ethylmercury is highly toxic, converts to inorganic mercury, persists in the brain for many years. Oh, and it also suppresses the immune system… [13].

References:

[1] CDC. Influenza (Flu): Estimating seasonal influenza-associated deaths in the United States, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm. Accessed December, 2018.

[2] Cowling BJ, Fang VJ, Nishiura H, et al. Increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine, Clin Infect Dis, 2012, 54(12):1778-1783.

[3] Simonson L, Reichert TA, Blackwelder WC, Miller MA, Benefits of influenza vaccination on influenza-related mortality among elderly in the US: an unexpected finding, Intern Cong Series, 2004, 1263: 163-167.

[4] Jefferson T, Di Pietrantoni C, Rivetti A, et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, 7(7): CD001269.

[5] Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, 17(2): CD005187.

[6] Szilagyi PG, Faibrother G, Griffin MR, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness among children 6-59 months of age during 2 influenza seasons: a case-cohort study, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2008, 162(10): 943-951.

[7] France EK, Smith-Ray R, McClure D, et al. Impact of maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy on the incidence of acute respiratory illness visits among infants, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2006, 160(12): 1277-1283.

[8] Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Lancet Infect Dis, 2012, 12(1)36-44.

[9] Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, et al. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population, Arch Intern Med, 2005, 165(3): 265-272.

[10] Nachamkin I, Shadomy SV, Moran AP, et al. Anti-ganglioside antibody induction by swine and other influenza vaccines: insights into vaccine-associated Guillain-Barre syndrome, J Infect Dis, 2008, 198(2): 226-233.

[11] Bodewes R, Kreigtz JH, Baas C, et al. Vaccination against human influenza A/H3N2 virus prevents the induction of heterosubtypic immunity against lethal infection with avian influenza A/H5N1 virus, PLoS One, 2009, 4(5): e5538.

[12] Skowronski D, Chambers C, Sabaiduc S, et al. A perfect storm: impact of genomic variation and serial vaccination on low influenza vaccination effectiveness during 2014-2015 season, Clin Infect Dis, 2016, 63(1): 21-32.

[13] Loison E, Poirier-Beaudouin B, Seffer V, et al. Suppression by thimerosal of ex-vivo CD4+ T-cell response to influenza vaccine and induction of apoptosis in primary memory T cells, PLoS One, 2014, 9(4): e92705