CoMeD Files Evidence of Miscarriage after Thimerosal-containing Flu Shots

Death, Influenza, Miscarriage, Top Stories

CoMeD Files Evidence of Miscarriage after Thimerosal-containing Flu Shots

No Comments 19 March 2010

.
.
.
.
.

CoMeD’s Website…

PRESS RELEASE CONTACTS:
For Immediate Release CoMeD President [Rev. Lisa K. Sykes (Richmond, VA) 804-364-8426]
March 18, 2010 CoMeD Science Advisor [Dr. Paul G. King (Lake Hiawatha, NJ) 973-997-1321]

Washington, DC – In its pursuit of banning all use of mercury in medicine, unless proven safe by appropriate toxicity studies, today CoMeD, Inc., a non-profit corporation, filed declarations from pregnant women harmed by Thimerosal-containing influenza shots in the US District Court for the District of Columbia (case: 1:2009cv-00015). These declarations report that health care providers seemed to be largely unaware of the continuing presence of mercury in vaccines and that these providers often failed to accurately disclose the known risks to the patient from these Thimerosal-containing vaccines, which are specifically recommended for pregnant women and children.

Thimerosal, used as a preservative in vaccines without the required proofs of safety, is half mercury by weight and a known bioaccumulative human poison, neurotoxin, carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen and immune-system disruptor. In order not to exceed the EPA’s safe daily reference dose (RfD) for mercury ingestion from the mercury contained in one 0.5-mL Thimerosal-preserved flu shot, a pregnant woman or child would have to weigh more than 550 pounds. Worse, the Material Safety Data sheets for Thimerosal list: fetal death, miscarriage, mental retardation and gross motor impairment as possible outcomes of in utero exposure to Thimerosal.

CoMeD, Inc. originally sought injunctive relief regarding the use of Thimerosal-preserved flu shots for pregnant women in August 2009. In oral arguments, CoMeD’s attorneys detailed the danger posed by Thimerosal and the denial of informed consent accompanying its administration in most cases.

CoMeD’s attorneys also argued that federal regulations mandating that “any preservative used shall be sufficiently nontoxic so that the amount … will not be toxic to the recipient” [21 CFR § 610.15(a)] have been illegally ignored in the case of Thimerosal. To establish that Thimerosal used as a preservative is “sufficiently nontoxic…”, toxicity studies must prove its safety. Yet, as the US Food and Drug Administration and the drug manufacturers have repeatedly admitted, they have not conducted the toxicity studies required to prove the Thimerosal in a single vaccine dose is “sufficiently nontoxic …”.

Half a year after CoMeD filed a request for a preliminary injunction, which has not yet been granted, to stop the administration of mercury-preserved flu shots to pregnant women, CoMeD members now seek to establish with this filing, that damage they predicted to unborn children sadly has occurred. Declarations filed today detail fetal deaths, miscarriages, stillbirths and premature births following the administration of Thimerosal-preserved/containing flu shots. In addition to personal declarations, CoMeD has filed copies of records from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, maintained by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, documenting reports of more than one hundred fetal deaths, miscarriages, stillbirths, and premature births attributed to flu shots in the period from September through December of 2009 alone, as well as an additional sixty-plus personal accounts of similar flu-shot-related harm.

With safer alternatives to Thimerosal and the proven ability to make vaccines without any preservative, the use of Thimerosal or any other mercury compound in vaccines without the toxicological proofs of safety required by drug law is both indefensible and illegal, according to CoMeD.

100318_CoMeDPressReleaseOnDCCourtFilings_b

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
Dr. Russell Blaylock on Who Created Orthodox Medicine

Dr. Russell Blaylock, Faked Medical Data, Top Stories, Undue Influence, Vaccine Propaganda

Dr. Russell Blaylock on Who Created Orthodox Medicine

No Comments 16 March 2010

“Who Created Orthodox Medicine?”

Dr. Russell Blaylock:

“Who created orthodox medicine? Where did that come from?”

“Well, it actually came from the Rockefeller Foundation back in 1901.”

“The Rockefellers at the time . . . because of the Standard Oil scandals, no one wanted to be called a Rockefeller.

“Everybody hated all the Rockefellers. And so his friend, Reverend Gates, went to John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and told him, he said, “Well, here’s a way we can repair your reputation.” And he gave him a good example. He said, “There was this man who everybody hated . . . and he started giving money out for all sorts of philanthropic enterprises, and soon people forgot all of the bad things.” . . .

“So the first thing, because Gates’ father was a physician, and John D. Rockefeller’s father was a quack snake-oil salesmen, he said, “Let’s form the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research.” And so they created this in 1901. . . .”

“Rockefeller owned what was called the drug trust: that’s the major drug manufacturing firms all over the world: Merck Pharmaceuticals, Lederle, all of these . . . pharmaceutical companies . . .”

“And of course, the aim was to remove all nutrition, references to nutritional type treatments, from the medical schools. They closed down half the medical schools in the United States. There were 165 medical schools at the time. . . . Then he had his anointed medical schools, which he poured his money into, appointed the professors from his own stock of professors. And so they created an educational system that taught the things that he wanted taught. And therefore every professor that came out of those programs taught the same thing.”

  1. http://russellblaylockmd.com
  2. The Regimentation in Medicine and the Death of Creativity
  3. Flexner Report (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/elibrary/Carnegie_Flexner_Report.pdf)
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
Ex-Pfizer Worker Cites Genetically Engineered Virus In Lawsuit Over Firing

General, Vaccine Development

Ex-Pfizer Worker Cites Genetically Engineered Virus In Lawsuit Over Firing

No Comments 16 March 2010

By EDMUND H. MAHONY

The Hartford Courant

March 14, 2010

Medical experts will be watching closely Monday when a scientist who says she has been intermittently paralyzed by a virus designed at the Pfizer laboratory where she worked in Groton opens a much anticipated trial that could raise questions about safety practices in the dynamic field of genetic engineering.

Organizations involved in workplace safety and responsible genetic research already have seized on the federal lawsuit by molecular biologist Becky McClain as an example of what they claim is evidence that risks caused by cutting-edge genetic manipulation have outstripped more slowly evolving government regulation of laboratories.

McClain, of Deep River, suspects she was inadvertently exposed, through work by a former Pfizer colleague in 2002 or 2003, to an engineered form of the lentivirus, a virus similar to the one that can lead to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS. Medical experts working for McClain believe the virus has affected the way her body channels potassium, leading to a condition that causes complete paralysis as many as 12 times a month.

“If a worker in a plant as sophisticated as Pfizer is becoming infected with a genetically engineered virus, then I think the potential is everywhere,” said Jeremy Gruber, president of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a public interest group created to explore the implications of genetic technologies.

“Genetically engineered viruses are commonly worked on at your average university,” Gruber said. “The public has a right to know what regulations are in place and what regulations are required to fix an industrywide issue. We need to have a conversation about this. Ms. McClain’s attempt to do that has been hampered at every turn, by the courts and by regulators.”

Pfizer disputes all of McClain’s claims and says it fired her in 2005 because she refused to come to work. The global pharmaceuticals manufacturer, with research labs in southeastern Connecticut, defends its safety practices and denies that McClain’s physical disability is related to exposure at its Groton lab. The company says she did not link her disability to workplace exposure until after she was fired.

As a molecular biologist, McClain studied cells on a molecular level, manipulating genetic codes in an effort to develop vaccines. During the period at issue in the suit, McClain worked in Pfizer’s Human Health Embryonic Stem Cells Technologies, Genomic and Proteomic Sciences and Exploratory Medicinal Sciences Group.

Hostile Exchanges

The sharp disagreement between McClain and her former employer mirrors a half-dozen or so years of hostile litigation leading to Monday’s jury trial in Hartford before U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. McClain will argue that she was wrongfully dismissed and is entitled to unspecified damages. In the run-up, Pfizer attacked McClain’s legal claims, and she questioned the company’s corporate integrity.

On the advice of her lawyers, McClain would not discuss her suit last week. Neither would her lawyers, nor those representing Pfizer.

But McClain has claimed in her suit and in earlier public statements that she was fired after experiencing symptoms of illness and after complaining to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration about safety in her Pfizer lab.

OSHA dismissed McClain’s complaint. In a decision published after McClain’s termination, the agency criticized her for refusing to return to work in spite of “Pfizer’s substantial efforts” to address her concerns. In a speech last year to a labor safety group in California, McClain said she was told by an OSHA investigator that the federal agency’s legal authority has not kept pace with developments in sophisticated medical research.

A series of angry, pretrial exchanges developed over McClain’s efforts to compel Pfizer to give her precise information about the DNA sequencing of the engineered lentivirus she suspects infected her. Pfizer says it responded to all of McClain’s requests, in accordance with the law. Her advocates called Pfizer’s assertion preposterous and claimed the company has not produced — perhaps because it is subject to trademark — the sequencing data that could enable scientists to engineer a genetic cure.

Over the course of pretrial argument, the number and breadth of McClain’s legal claims against Pfizer have been reduced from eight to two. Last month, Bryant dismissed the most significant of the eight claims: that willful and wanton misconduct by Pfizer resulted in lax laboratory procedures. McClain claimed laxity contributed to her exposure.

McClain’s advocates point to language in Bryant’s ruling that suggests the misconduct allegation was dismissed, at least in part, because state law requires such claims to be resolved by state workers’ compensation rules. But Pfizer says Bryant’s ruling is another vindication of its assertion that no evidence exists to support McClain’s contention that she was infected by a viral exposure at Pfizer.

“We have thoroughly investigated Ms. McClain’s claims and our investigation concluded that her workplace was safe and that she was not infected by any virologic materials while she was employed by Pfizer,” company spokeswoman Elizabeth Power said.

Bryant’s ruling means the trial will move forward under McClain’s two remaining claims, both of which involve free speech protection. She says Pfizer fired her in violation of Connecticut’s whistle-blower law after she raised questions about Pfizer lab safety to OSHA. And she claims her dismissal also was in retaliation for questions she raised in discussion with Pfizer colleagues about safety practices. In addition to performing her research duties, McClain served on a lab safety committee for at least part of the nine years she was employed by Pfizer.

Medical Evidence

Pfizer has taken the position that Bryant’s ruling in March means no evidence will be admitted at the trial concerning McClain’s health or her claim that it was destroyed by bad lab procedures. McClain’s advocates, again, disagree. Because McClain is suing under a whistle-blower claim, they believe she will be allowed to present evidence about why she figuratively blew the whistle. If her health and safety are the reasons, they say, the judge could allow jurors to hear evidence in those areas.

In her suit, McClain says that Pfizer hired her in 1995 and that, in 2000, she became involved in human cellular research associated with vaccine development. She later learned, the suit says, that colleagues in her lab were working with infectious, genetically engineered viruses, including the lentivirus she suspects causes what her physician calls “acute intermittent paralysis.”

The suit describes lab events that McClain suggests could have infected her.

The first involved the possible malfunction of a “laminar hood,” a system designed to contain materials being subjected to scientific manipulation and to purify the air circulating around the materials. She said the hood began emitting a noxious odor at the same time she and several colleagues developed symptoms of illness, including nausea.

McClain said in the suit that, as a member of the lab safety committee, she reported the apparent hood malfunction. Judge Bryant said in a preliminary ruling that Pfizer took “various steps” to fix the hood and ultimately replaced it, twice.

Pfizer contends that the hood problem was resolved eight months after McClain reported it. But a long e-mail message by one of McClain’s supervisors and the OSHA review corroborate McClain’s contention that the problem persisted for a year. Before it was corrected, several people suffered from headaches, vomiting and nausea, including at least one member of the crew that cleaned the lab after work.

About two months after the hood problem was resolved, McClain says in the suit, she learned from a colleague that he was working “next to” her on “dangerous lentivirus material and embryonic stem cells.” The work was being done on an open lab bench, unprotected by a biological containment system, the suit says, even though lentivirus work should have been done only under a protective “biological hood.”

“I was shocked and appalled to find he had been using lentivirus materials on an open lab bench without biocontainment where I performed my office work (e.g. without gloves) in October 2003,” McClain wrote in a legal filing.

On another occasion, she says, she encountered an unidentified experimental set-up consisting of cell cultures on her laboratory bench, but she cannot recall whether she touched it.

Pfizer has responded that any lentivirus studied in lab areas where McClain was present was not derived from a human infectious virus and was not infectious because it lacked genes for replication.

McClain says in the suit that she repeatedly raised laboratory safety issues following the hood malfunction, despite a warning from a supervisor that doing so could jeopardize her employment. She said she began suffering from “fatigue, suspicion of multiple sclerosis, joint pain, and numbness in her face as well as sleep difficulties” and took a medical leave in February 2004. She was fired about 11 months later.

The suit contends the dismissal was retaliation for her complaints about safety. In a speech a year ago, McClain asserted that some of the safety deficiencies she has criticized are the product of poor lab design — design that is nonetheless acceptable under OSHA rules.

Pfizer contends that McClain’s dismissal was not related to her concern about safety. Rather, the company says, she was terminated for refusing to report back to work after the company made her repeated offers, including alternative employment opportunities, some in laboratories other than the one about which she had complained. Pfizer claims McClain was told in advance of her termination that she would be fired if she didn’t return to work.

Even though jurors are unlikely to hear arguments that McClain’s potassium disorder and related transient paralysis are attributable to exposure to an engineered virus, a network of laboratory safety advocates already is using the case as a rallying point. A group from San Francisco has planned a press conference outside the Hartford courthouse on Main Street at 12:15 p.m. Monday.

They say OSHA’s inability to stay abreast of developments in sophisticated, molecular research techniques — as well as law protecting the confidentiality of proprietary discoveries — has neutralized the agency’s ability to act as an effective regulator.

“This case shows a major flaw for workers in the biotech industry who have to prove where they got injured in order to receive workers’ compensation,” said Steve Zeltzer, one of the organizers.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
Is the FDA About To Eat Their Words on the Safety of Vaccines?

Cervarix, Christina England, Death, Gardasil, Medical Cartel, Top Stories, Vaccine Propaganda

Is the FDA About To Eat Their Words on the Safety of Vaccines?

9 Comments 15 March 2010

.
.
.
.

Christina England
Vactruth.com
3/15/2010

March 12th 2010 saw six very special women from around the world, present documents and research about the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix to the FDA by request. Never before have the FDA turned to members of the public regarding vaccine safety but in an extraordinary move this is exactly what happened. Dubbed the ‘Little Women’ by the FDA the group presented evidence that will shock the world and could have the FDA eating their words.

The six women who had become increasingly concerned about the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix presented a power point presentation accompanied with documents showing the dangers of the HPV vaccines to the FDA. Their hope was to prove to the FDA that these two vaccines are so dangerous that they should be removed from the vaccine schedule as soon as possible.

Megan Hild passed away after an adverse reaction to a cervical cancer vaccine.

The women who were involved in this unusual move are Karen Maynor; mother of the late Megan Hild, New Mexico; Rosemary Mathis: mother of Lauren, adversely injured; co-founder of WWW.TRUTHABOUTGARDASIL.ORG, North Carolina; Freda Birrell; political activist,Scotland/UK; Leslie Carol Botha; women’s health educator and broadcast journalist, and founder of Holy Hormones Honey , Colorado; Cynthia Janak: research analyst, journalist writing for Renew America and founder of Only the Truth Illinois; and Janny Stokvis: research analyst, Netherlands.

The reports that were presented, detailed worldwide data, proving that women and young girls have suffered severe adverse reactions, including death, after being vaccinated with the HPV vaccines.

Detailed charts were shown to the FDA clearly outlining evidence of girls from around the world showing very similar adverse reactions after having these vaccines. Only a few of these adverse reactions have ever been listed by either manufacturer on their leaflets. It is my belief that Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline should to study the findings very carefully indeed.

USA – Reports show girls have suffered from

  • Chronic Fatigue

  • Digestive Problems

  • Dizziness and Nausea

  • Encephalitis

  • Facial Paralysis

  • Hair Loss

  • Headaches

  • Joint and Muscle Pain

  • Loss of vision

  • Menstrual Problems

  • Paralysis

  • Rashes/allergies

  • Respiratory and Heart Problems

  • Seizures

  • Syncope

  • Miscellaneous

Spain – Reports show girls have suffered from

  • Chronic Fatigue

  • Dizziness/Nausea

  • Encephalitis/MS/ADEM

  • Facial Paralysis

  • Hair Loss

  • Headaches

  • Joint/Muscle Pains

  • Loss of Vision

  • Menstrual Changes

  • Paralysis

  • Rashes/Allergies

  • Respiratory Heart

  • Seizures

  • Syncope

  • Miscellaneous

Australia – Reports show girls have suffered from

  • Chronic Fatigue

  • Digestive/pancreatitis

  • Dizziness/Nausea

  • Encephalitis/MS/ADEM

  • Hair Loss

  • Headaches

  • Joint/Muscle Pains

  • Loss of Vision

  • Menstrual Changes

  • Paralysis

  • Rashes/Allergies

  • Respiratory Heart

  • Seizures

  • Syncope

  • Miscellaneous

United Kingdom – Reports show girls have suffered from

  • Chronic Fatigue

  • Dizziness and Nausea

  • Encephalitis

  • Headaches

  • Joint and Muscle Pain

  • Paralysis

  • Respiratory and Heart Problems

  • Seizures

  • Syncope

  • Miscellaneous

New Zealand – Reports show that girls have suffered from

  • Chronic Fatigue

  • Digestive Problems

  • Facial Paralysis

  • Headaches

  • Joint and Muscle Pain

  • Paralysis

  • Rashes/allergies

  • Respiratory and Heart Problems

  • Miscellaneous

There is a clear pattern from many countries, of girls suffering from the same side effects and yet up to now this fact has not been picked up, by either the committees who regulate our vaccines, or the Governments who sanction them. More worryingly the six women found that there were a huge number of deaths recorded on VAERS after HPV vaccines.

VAERS is the reporting system used in the USA for adverse events that happen after vaccination.

Strangely however, the system does not appear to be examined in great detail by the either Big Pharma or the Government and many adverse events are not even recorded at all, as it has now been discovered that some doctors are completely unaware of it’s existence.

The six women involved in the presentation to the FDA have been able to show research papers from top scientists and researchers showing that blindness can occur after the HPV vaccine . Papers on Menstrual evaluation were also seen for the first time as were papers on Vaccine and Autoimmune problems.

Janny Stokvis one of the women who researched the side effects of these vaccines after watching a YouTube clip said that she was horrified that so little has been done to protect women. She said she became involved completely by chance.

In September 2008 I was looking for music on Youtube and I ended up watching a video the father of Brooke Petkevicius made. Brooke died 14 days after her first dose of Gardasil from a pulmonary embolism or blood clot on March 26th, 2007. I was shocked by her story. In our family we have a rare blood clotting disease. I have had a pulmonary embolism twice myself. Few weeks later I saw a Dutch documentary about the marketing tactics of Merck. that alarmed me even more. My daughter was in the age group to get the HPV vaccine so I started to do my own research.”

She has since studied the VAERS reporting system and now firmly believes that the reporting system is only the tip of the iceberg because it only has a small number of the actual side effects from these vaccines on. She was shocked to learn that many of the doctors she spoke to had not heard of the reporting system and said :-

Adverse reactions do not always start within a minute after inoculation like some people think. A lot of physicians have never heard of VAERS or know how to file a report. I was surprised when I heard this the first time. Physicians do not agree with parents when they tell that they think theirs daughter got sick because of the HPV vaccine and do not want to file a report.Mothers who find their way to the Gardasil groups did not always succeed in getting a report filed at VAERS.

HPV-vaccine victims can be very ill, but tests can show-up to be normal. Girls who have seizures several times a day or who are paralysed get diagnosed as “Psychogenic”.

Parents are often told the illness of their daughter is not vaccine related This has to change, because too many girls are not getting the proper treatment yet.”

She said up until she looked into the HPV vaccines she had always believed in the Governments vaccine programmes but her confidence has now been badly shaken.

Rosemary Mathis whose daughter was changed after she had Gardasil vaccine and one of the six women told me she became involved with the group because she wanted answers. She says:-

My 12 year old daughter was disabled by Gardasil.  Her life as she knew it completely changed after her third vaccination.  She could no longer attend school, go to church, or live a normal life.  She was always in pain and we spent thousands of dollars and many hours going to doctors who could not help her. I spent countless hours on the internet researching how to treat my daughter. I quickly learned that I was not alone and many other parents were doing the same thing. Every night was spent researching trying to figure out what do to not only help my daughter, but many others. This led me to Gardasil Mom groups on Yahoo Groups, Twitter, and Facebook. That is where I met Marian Greene, another mother whose girl was affected that lives about 30 minutes from me. Her daughter was disabled also. Both our daughters were disabled by the exact same lot # 0067X.Night after night, we were trying to help the mothers figure out what to do and trying to comment on stories on the internet to warn others. We quickly learned that many of the girls stories are not recorded in VAERS. Either the parents do not know about VAERS and haven’t reported them or the doctors do not. I filed my daughter’s report in VAERS and then asked my doctor to after continuously expressing that the vaccine is what made her sick. The parents were struggling to find a way to express their stories and to find data. Each night, new victims were appearing on the boards with no idea of what to do.

That is when we decided to created WWW.TRUTHABOUTGARDASIL.ORG. The board represents the TRUTH as we the parents of the victims of Gardasil see it. It is a central repository used to house the girls stories for view by others, has the latest news, and has a Guardian Angel page by location to give the parents contacts in their area who may be able to help them. It has videos, other site links, a forum so you can talk to other parents/victims, etc. It has made it easier for parents to quickly identify side effects, treatments that may have helped victims, etc. It takes about one year worth of research off the parents and allows them to quickly identify what occurred and what can be done to help the victims.”

Since her research began Rosemary says she has met thousands of girls who have been adversely affected by the Gardasil and the Cervarix vaccines.

I asked Leslie Botha how the FDA had become aware of the six women and had asked the group to do the presentation.

Leslie said that originally Karen Maynor had contacted the FDA after her daughter had died after she had the Gardasil vaccine. Her letter to Dr Margaret Hamberg MD contained many reports and details of young girls who have either died like her daughter Megan, or had become seriously ill.

The reports contained in her letter do not make comfortable reading. She wrote how one child ‘Samantha Hendrix’ who had once been described as a ‘walking encyclopaedia’ has been left with no concentration and failing her exams.

Also In the case of young Samantha, she had a serious history of illnesses prior to vaccination, have you ever discovered if Merck carried out research on impaired immune responsiveness to establish if young girls with a medical history would be well enough to have this vaccine? In the case of Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline did not carry out this research prior to the commencement of the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom. This young girl had many health problems before being vaccinated but now she is far worse off and what the future holds for her we just do not know. Perhaps, if more care and attention had been given by the pharmaceutical company in all of this, if they had taken more time to carry out the research into all aspects of safety and just had given it a few more years, exactly the same advice that Dr Harper gave to the UK regarding Cervarix, then perhaps these young ladies would not be so ill and I would not be writing to you today to ask for your help. With respect to Cervarix, many of the same “Gardasil” illnesses are occurring in the United Kingdom also so there appears to be a common thread that exists between these two HPV vaccines.”

She wrote.

She has a point, as on the Glaxo Smith Kline original GP advert it does state that ‘there are no data in the use of Cervarix in subjects with impaired immune responsiveness’.

Leslie said that the FDA do not just contact people but that they respond to letters. They contacted Karen and Karen knowing that she could not do what the FDA wanted alone asked the other women if they were prepared to help her.

Leslie says:-

The first meeting conference call was in September/October with Cynthia, Freda, Rosemary and myself – where we expressed our concerns.

There was a second Webinar in November that the FDA presented for us on how their organization operates.

It was at this meeting that a third meeting was initiated – to be held at first before the holidays so that we could present research and data that backed up our concerns.

It was at this point that we asked Janny to join us since she spent so much time going through the VAERS reports.

By agreement, the meeting was pushed back until after the holidays – until the presentation.

We were in discussion many times about how to proceed – and found the people in the Patient Representative Program Office of Special Health Issues - to be open, and supportive as they shared the guidelines for the presentation.

The FDA has just initiated “listening sessions” and our group was one of the first to participate in them.

It has been an honor and a very positive experience from beginning to end.

We started out by gathering data, Rosemary, Freda and Janny did a fabulous job of creating and presenting graphs, and outlines of VAERs deaths.Freda was in contact with women in Spain, New Zealand and Australia as she gathered reports of adverse injuries from the girls in these countries.

Cynthia and I kept coming from different angles on what was causing the problem with this vaccine – mine was on menstrual cycle influence and she was focused on histamine and IgE.  We spent hours on the phone searching for studies.We would then do searches on histamine and IgE and the menstrual cycle and that is when we realized that our differing angles were beginning to blend into one perfect storm. It was the peer reviewed study that came out on the blind girl and HPV that nailed this for us – and we realized that we had discovered the REAL DANGERS with this vaccine.

We were shocked and awed that we had come across something no on had ever considered that founded both of our concerns.”

The conclusion slide 52 in the powerpoint shows exactly what was discovered and one has to agree the implications this has on many girls is quite shocking.

During the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, the production of estrogen releases histamine. During the luteal phase the protective effects of estradiol sharply decline, the production of progesterone increases and the immune system becomes more easily compromised; succumbing to the overdose of histamine from three sources: L-Histidine in the vaccine, increased amounts of estradiol in the body from natural production plus environmental toxins (estrogen mimickers) and the body’s own natural production of histamine. The rise and decline in hormones; the rise and decline in immunity and the overproduction of histamine – may be a factor as to why the health of the girls adversely affected by the HPV vaccines is not improving.

Both HPV vaccines are VLP’s (virus like particles). This can be termed ‘molecular mimicry’ and when an antigen in a vaccine is structurally similar to an antigen in the host antibodies are produced that react with the host’s normal tissue.

Allergy sufferers with moderate to severe asthma have IgE levels greater than 1,000 U/ml.


Normal serum IgE levels in individuals without allergies is less than 70 U/ml. An increase in IgE means more free IgE is available for binding to the activated mast cells. More mast cell activation and degranulation may lead to an increased release of inflammatory histamine. This reaction also leads to TH2 cytokine and leukotriene secretion, resulting in systemic anaphylaxis in the form of allergy.

This proves an increased risk of injury due to an overload of histamine being released from the mast cells causing a more severe inflammatory response throughout the body. Tissue damage due to this process can cause hypertrophy of smooth muscles. Smooth muscles are evident in the heart. With the rechallenge to an already active immune response we could have more smooth muscle damage especially to the heart and damage to the Central Nervous System.

With all our research completed, due to the lack of safety testing in regards to hormone, histamine and IgE level effects due to challenge and rechallenge on the female and male physiology the risks of the HPV vaccines outweigh the benefits.”

To learn exactly how this conclusion was reached read the full powerpoint presentation and documents

Freda Birrell another member of the group became involved in 2009, when her friend wrote to her asking for her help, saying that her daughter Bridget had become injured after the Gardasil vaccine.

Freda said that she asked me to find out if Cervarix was having the same effect on British girls as the Gardasil vaccine. After research I found that both vaccines were having serious adverse reactions.

Freda feels disillusioned with the British and Scottish Governments she said:-

Both of the Health Ministers are too ready to come back with the usual information – any incidents which have occurred are either coincidental or part of population related illnesses.  At no time, to my knowledge or satisfaction, do they investigate any of these illnesses.  There are serious cases of arthralgia after vaccination with Cervarix and this condition has been researched and it is known that it is and can be vaccine related.  Sadly, our Ministers do not wish to recognise that fact.  There are many other serious illnesses which have occurred, eg a rare form of encephalitis, paralysis, blindness, seizures to name but a few. They are hiding their heads in the sand in the hope that it will all go away.  That will never happen where the lives of our young girls are involved.”

I asked Freda as she had studied both vaccines in detail if she felt that Cervarix was as dangerous as Gardasil. She said:-

For the most part Cervarix elicits a much higher percentage of adverse events in the initial days after inoculation over Gardasil.  The comparison suggests that Cervarix is much less safe than Gardasil.  High percentages of fatigue, headache and myalgia may also be initially construed as the flu and not Cervarix related and therefore would not be reported as an adverse event related to the vaccination until the symtpoms persist past the one week time frame for the flu,  Gardasil has incurred many deaths.  Only one girl to our knowledge has died following a Cervarix vaccination and her case was attributed to her underlying illness, cancer.  She was undergoing tests apparently at the time.  Whilst we cannot say that Cervarix caused her death, the authorities likewise cannot say with 100% proof that it didnt.  What we can say with 200% certainty is she should not have been vaccinated whilst undergoing medical testing”

Also discovered by the group was the fact that neither vaccine worked if the girls already had an HPV infection.

Slide 15 states:-

Conclusions: Evidence detailed here regarding the poor efficacy of both Gardasil and Cervarix on already infected women has to be investigated further. If this is occurring in established infected groups of women then what will be occurring in the bodies of adolescent girl’s who in many cases may already be sexually active and be infected at the time of vaccination? In the United States and United Kingdom, HPV SCREENING DOES NOT TAKE PLACE TO DETERMINE IF HPV INFECTION IS ALREADY PRESENT.”

The group had discovered that contrary to belief HPV is not only a STD but can be transmitted through other means. This was discussed on slide 9.

The next series of slides will address whether HPV is transmitted solely via sexual contact”.

Slide 9

In the first research paper there is growing evidence that HPV infection is acquired through non-sexual routes and that one potential route is mother-to-child transmission in the perinatal period; referenced as vertical transmission.

In the second paper, it was noted that HPVs have been detected in virgins, infants/children, and juvenile Laryngeal papillomatosis was shown to be caused by these viruses. It has been acknowledged that HPVs may be transmitted by other non-sexual routes as well.”

Another very important point raised was the fact that over 250 girls who have had the vaccine have since had abnormal PAP Smear tests. This was thought to be because this group already had the HPV virus when they had the vaccine.

We now await the FDA’s verdict on the impressive array of documents and factual information that this group of so called ‘little women’ put before them. Will the FDA acknowledge that far from the wonder vaccines that Gardasil and Cervarix were supposed to be, these vaccines were more like poison darts thrown at girls in a crucial stages of their sexual development? These vaccines were given to young girls in many different stages of puberty and at many different stages of their menstrual cycles. We are now left wondering if the manufacturers Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline ever even considered this when developing these vaccines.

I will finish with a dedication to Megan from the very special mother Karen Maynor who wrote to the FDA and started this whole series of amazing events.

She writes:-

Megan

As I stand here and watch as your brother receives his award for Academic Excellence I cannot help but think of you now and how proud I know you would have been. It was hard for him Megan as he hurts so much because you are not here. When we come together as a family for these occasions it never feels right. We miss you so…………………

We are working hard for you babe to get this information out there so others will know what can happen with this vaccine. Help others to become informed. To keep other moms and dads from having to feel this pain.

There are so many now that are fighting for ones just like you and for the many that are injured. You should see them, facing the GIANTS of the FDA and Big Pharma with no fear. They are strong because they have the truth. They never got to know you but they are fighting for you.

We love you and miss you……………………………………..”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
The Roast of a Science Based Vaccine Skeptic

Jennifer Craig, Smallpox, Top Stories, Vaccine Propaganda

The Roast of a Science Based Vaccine Skeptic

No Comments 13 March 2010

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

—–Original Message—–
From: Jennifer Craig
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:58 AM
To: Harriet Hall
Subject: smallpox

Would you please provide the mortality stats for smallpox in the UK in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and explain how smallpox vaccination affected those.

The smallpox vaccine, made from the secretions from a diseased cow and containing orthopox vaccinia is supposed to create immunity to orthopox variola. Please explain why this is the case when great care is taken to ensure that flu vaccines contain the current pathogenic virus.

Jennifer Craig

.

.

At 12:35 PM 12/03/2010, you wrote:
(Response from Harriet Hall)

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are referring to statistics
commonly cited by anti-vaccine activists purporting to discredit smallpox vaccination.

In the first place, accurate statistics were hard to come by in those days,
and the primitive techniques of variolation were nowhere near as safe or
effective as more modern smallpox vaccines, so those numbers don’t mean much. In the second place, there are many, many more and better statistics showing a clear benefit of vaccines, even prior to the 19th century.

Nettleton 1724 “nineteen out of every hundred, or near one fifth of those,
who have had the natural Small Pox, have died; whereas out of sixty one
which have been inoculated hereabouts, not one has died …”

Shortly thereafter Jurin found that the probability of death from
variolation was roughly 1 in 50, while the probability of death from
naturally contracted smallpox was 1 in 7 or 8.

In the American colonies, “The practice was, at first, widely
criticized.[10] However a limited trial showed that 6 deaths occurred out of 244 who were vaccinated (2.5%) while 844 out of 5980 died of natural
disease, and the process was widely adopted throughout the colonies.”

Anti-vaccination activists keep citing the same 19th century numbers from the UK because those are the ONLY data they can find to contradict the overwhelming mass of evidence for the efficacy and safety of smallpox
vaccines.

Cowpox and smallpox shared antigens so that antibodies to one disease
protected against the other. The flu virus is constantly mutating and
changing its antigens. Even so, vaccination against one strain of flu
provides a small degree of protection against other strains. Adding
adjuvants to vaccines increases this cross-reactivity. For a brief
explanation of the principle of cross-reactivity see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-reactivity

Harriet Hall, MD
The SkepDoc
www.skepdoc.info
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org


From: Jennifer Craig
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 3:29 PM
To: Harriet Hall
Subject: RE: smallpox

Thank you for your response.

I think you are confusing inoculation with vaccination. Inoculation was the insertion of smallpox pus under the skin with the intent of introducing a case of smallpox. Vaccination was the introduction of cowpox pus under the skin with the intent of preventing smallpox. As Jenner’s so called experiment with vaccination on one boy was on May 14, 1796, clearly Nettleton is inaccurate.

I am referring to statistics from several sources. At least two sources indicate that as vaccination campaigns took place, the incidence of smallpox rose. For example: Tebb wrote in 1884, “Vaccination was made compulsory by an Act of Parliament in the year 1853; again in 1867; and still more stringent in 1871. Since 1853, we have had three epidemics of small-pox, each being more severe than the one preceding.” Between the first and second epidemic there was a 50% increase in smallpox cases; between the second and third, a 120% increase.

In answer to a parliamentary question by the British Minister of Health on July 16th, 1923, a written list of figures of vaccinations and deaths from 1872 – 1921 was presented.   These figures demonstrate that as compliance with vaccination went down so did the smallpox death rate. For example, between 1872 and 1881 vaccinations as per cent of births was 85% and deaths from smallpox per 100,000 persons was 15.2. Between 1912 and 1921 the figures were 43.5% and 0.1 deaths.

Please cite at least three studies from “the overwhelming mass of evidence for the efficacy and safety of smallpox vaccines.”

I don’t consider Wikipedia to be a scientific source.

Please cite the studies that demonstrate that the antigens for smallpox and cowpox are the same.

Jennifer Craig

.

.

(Response from Harriet Hall)
You are not looking for information. You are looking for validation of your beliefs.  I won’t play your game.

Harriet Hall, MD
The SkepDoc
www.skepdoc.info
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org


I was looking for an informed person to debate with. Debate with facts, not beliefs. Clearly you are not it. Yet, without data, you feel free to promote inaccurate ideas.
Some sceptic!

Jennifer Craig


  1. Jennifer Craig is the author of the book, Jabs, Jenner, and Juggernauts.
  2. From the Editor of Vactruth.com: One suggestion is for Dr. Hall and others to investigate if Edward Jenner was the ‘true inventor’ of vaccines. What other assumptions could be incorrect?

Who discovered smallpox vaccination? Edward Jenner or Benjamin Jesty?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279376/

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Documents Presented to FDA Show Evidence of Harm

Blindness, Cervarix, Death, Gardasil, Guillian Barre, HPV, Infection, Paralysis, Top Stories

Cervical Cancer Vaccine Documents Presented to FDA Show Evidence of Harm

5 Comments 12 March 2010

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The documents presented below were distributed in a meeting with FDA officials detailing adverse reactions to HPV vaccines in young women. Please feel free to distribute, copy, paste, print, link to, and share all of them. This information will assist parents and young adults in the future deciding the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

A special “Thank You” to InTheory.tv for recording this interview with Leslie Botha.

03.06.10 Table of Contents

03.12.10.FDA PPT Script Final1[1]

03 06 10 FDA Presentation Final

1.International Concerns regarding Gardasil and Cervarix

2. HPV Vaccine Injury Chart All

3. Investigate Gardasil Vaccine Risk Now! Petition1

4. Menstrual Cycle Evaluation

5. Vaccines and Autoimmune Diseases of the Adult

6. Visual Loss Following Immunization Against Human Papilloma Virus

7. Reports of Deaths

If you wish to link to this article, please use the following code on your website:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
Merck to Build New Vaccine Plant With IBM, GM, UPMC and Battelle

Medical Cartel, Top Stories, Vaccine Development

Merck to Build New Vaccine Plant With IBM, GM, UPMC and Battelle

No Comments 11 March 2010

Press Release

CONTACT: Wendy Zellner
PHONE: (412) 586-9777
E-MAIL: ZellnerWL@upmc.edu
Battelle, IBM, Merck Join UPMC’s Effort to Produce Vaccines to
Protect Public Health
21st Century Biodefense Offers Innovative Solution to President Obama’s Call for
Improved Response to Bioterrorism and Infectious Diseases

PITTSBURGH, March 11 – Building on its extensive efforts to establish a flexible vaccine development and production facility to strengthen the nation’s biosecurity, UPMC announced today that it has been joined by Battelle, IBM and Merck & Co. Inc. in this first-of-its-kind initiative. These industry and non-profit leaders are supporting UPMC and GE Healthcare in pursuing the construction of this facility, which UPMC proposes to operate in a unique partnership with the federal government.

“With this powerful coalition of partners, we will finally address a critical gap in the nation’s defenses against bioterrorism and infectious diseases,” said Robert J. Cindrich, UPMC’s chief legal counsel and chairman of the initiative, known as 21st Century Biodefense (21CB). “Through this collaboration, we are poised to deliver the urgently needed advances in vaccine development and manufacturing as recently called for by President Obama in his State of the Union address.”

Battelle, the world’s largest, independent research and development organization, has agreed to provide comprehensive pre-clinical research and development services, including infectious disease model development and product safety and efficacy evaluations in a Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) environment. These services will support the licensure of new vaccines and therapeutics by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Battelle also will provide project management support and senior leadership to 21CB’s advisory board. “We are committed to solving the most critical problems in human health and stand ready to be a full partner in this impressive public-private initiative,” said John Wade, vice president for Battelle.

IBM will provide innovative information technology, such as IBM’s new POWER7 systems, to create the infrastructure that will support 21CB manufacturing processes and operations. This infrastructure will be able to handle extreme volumes of data and scale quickly to adapt to changing demand. “IBM brings leading technology to 21CB, as well as access to teams of life sciences researchers at each of our eight research labs around the world,” said Dan Pelino, general manager, IBM Healthcare and Life Sciences. “We’re pleased to bring our deep skills and pharmaceutical industry consulting expertise to support 21CB and its important mission.”

Merck, a global pharmaceutical company, has agreed to provide drug-development and bioprocess counsel as part of a planned consortium of other biopharmaceutical companies. Merck also will provide senior leadership to 21CB’s advisory board and training for facility staff when 21CB begins operations. “As a global company with a long history of dedication to public health, Merck is pleased to share its technical expertise with 21CB in this innovative approach to enhancing our nation’s biodefense capabilities,” said Diana Lanchoney, executive director, Merck Research Laboratories. These new 21CB partners join GE Healthcare, which announced in October 2009 that it would provide manufacturing design and development expertise, as well as production equipment, consumables, and manufacturing processes for 21CB. GE Healthcare’s leadership in bioprocessing and its innovative disposable manufacturing technologies will enable 21CB to rapidly and flexibly produce vaccines for the U.S. government’s dynamic biosecurity needs. The new facility would be designed to produce multiple vaccines simultaneously and would have the ability to quickly switch production from one vaccine to another to respond in a crisis.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, President Obama announced a new initiative to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism and infectious diseases. The Administration said it plans to pursue “a business model that leverages market forces and reduces risk to attract pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry collaboration with the U.S. government.” Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has launched a comprehensive review of the nation’s public health countermeasure enterprise with the goal of providing “a modernized countermeasure production process where we have more promising discoveries, more advanced development, more robust manufacturing, better stockpiling, and more advanced distribution practices. In other words, we want to create a system that can respond to any threat at any time.”

With the expectation that the government will allocate money for this public health priority, UPMC and its partners plan to compete for the funds to build a vaccine facility. Through 21CB, UPMC would share in the necessary private funding and own and operate the facility under the direction of the federal government as a public-private partnership, thus ensuring that the plant focuses on national health priorities. The initiative would create 1,000 jobs directly and up to 6,000 indirectly, while increasing the nation’s pool of scientists and engineers.
# # #
About 21st Century Biodefense (21CB) 21CB is a non-profit corporation established by UPMC in 2009 to build, own and operate a facility for the development and manufacture of biologic drugs and vaccines to protect against bioterrorism and certain naturally occurring disease threats. The targeted drugs and vaccines have limited commercial markets, thus spawning the need for this new and innovative solution. 21CB has created a coalition of private interests to work with the U.S. government in helping it meet its responsibilities in the area of biodefense. 21CB would act in a public-private partnership with the U.S. government to bring to bear the expertise and resources necessary to meet the nation’s pressing need for medical countermeasures and therapeutics to combat bioterrorism, while fortifying and expanding the nation’s bio-industrial base.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
Henrietta Lacks, HeLa Cells, and Cell Culture Contamination

Vaccine Development, Vaccine Snafus

Henrietta Lacks, HeLa Cells, and Cell Culture Contamination

No Comments 10 March 2010

.
.
.
.
.

Brendan P. Lucey, MD, Walter A. Nelson-Rees, PhD, and Grover M. Hutchins, MDFrom the Department of Neurology, Michael O’Callaghan Federal Hospital, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada (Dr Lucey); and the Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr Hutchins).

Abstract

Henrietta Lacks died in 1951 of an aggressive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. A tissue biopsy obtained for diagnostic evaluation yielded additional tissue for Dr George O. Gey’s tissue culture laboratory at Johns Hopkins (Baltimore, Maryland). The cancer cells, now called HeLa cells, grew rapidly in cell culture and became the first human cell line. HeLa cells were used by researchers around the world. However, 20 years after Henrietta Lacks’ death, mounting evidence suggested that HeLa cells contaminated and overgrew other cell lines. Cultures, supposedly of tissues such as breast cancer or mouse, proved to be HeLa cells. We describe the history behind the development of HeLa cells, including the first published description of Ms Lacks’ autopsy, and the cell culture contamination that resulted. The debate over cell culture contamination began in the 1970s and was not harmonious. Ultimately, the problem was not resolved and it continues today. Finally, we discuss the philosophical implications of the immortal HeLa cell line.

Accepted: March 6, 2009

Deceased. Dr Nelson-Rees, retired, contributed significantly to the manuscript before his death.

Reprints: Brendan P. Lucey, MD, Department of Neurology, Michael O’Callaghan Federal Hospital, Nellis Air Force Base, 1400 N Las Vegas Blvd, Nevada 89191 (brendanlucey@hotmail.com).

HENRIETTA LACKS

On February 1, 1951, a 30-year-old woman named Henrietta Lacks presented to the Johns Hopkins Gynecology Clinic in Baltimore, Maryland, for symptoms of spotting between her menstrual periods. Her last menstrual period had been on January 4, 1951.1 Although the results of her general examination were unremarkable, examination of the cervix revealed a raised, smooth, glistening, and purple lesion less than 2.54 cm (1 inch) in size.2 The lesion was confined to the cervix and appeared different from other carcinomas of the cervix seen by the treating physician. It was later noted in the autopsy report3 by Ella Oppenheimer, MD, that “1 year before death the patient delivered a normal infant and 6 weeks later her cervix was said to be normal. Three months later she presented herself to the clinic with a 2–3 cm cervical tumor.” Results of tests for sexually transmitted diseases were negative and a biopsy of the cervix was performed. Four pieces of tissue from the biopsy were sent to the pathology department and “epidermoid carcinoma, cervix uteri, spinal cell type” was diagnosed with definite invasion of the stroma (Figure 1).1

During the next several months, the patient received 4800 mg-h of radium and 11500 R (roentgen) of deep x-ray.3 Treatment failed to prevent spread of the cancer, however, and it extended relatively rapidly to both parametria. On August 8, 1951, she developed severe abdominal pain and was admitted to The Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland). Her pain became progressively more severe and intractable. Because of failure to void urine, ureteral catheterization was unsuccessfully attempted several times and the serum level of nonprotein nitrogen rose to from 120 to 150 mg/dL (reference range, 25-50 mg/dL). Diathermy therapy was tried without positive effect. Henrietta Lacks died at 12:15 am on October 4, 1951.3

THE AUTOPSY

Ms Lacks’ autopsy was performed at 10:30 am on the same day as her death. Examination of the body revealed a “well-developed, thin, colored female [with] deeply pigmented skin over the lower abdomen such as seen after x-ray treatment.”3 The peritoneal cavity contained a small amount of yellowish fluid and approximately 1 L of fluid was found in the pleural cavity, but the pericardium was devoid of fluid. The lungs were noted to have bibasilar lobar pneumonia with cheesy material in the bronchi. The mucosa of the bronchi was blood stained. The cranial cavity and neck organs were not examined because permission was not granted.

Small, white, and firm nodules were observed throughout both the thoracic and abdominal cavities, including the surfaces of the peritoneum, the entire length of the intestines, and the surface of the liver. Furthermore, both the pleural surface and the superior surface of the diaphragm (right side more than the left side) were covered with nodules, as were the lung, liver parenchyma, and the pericardium. The nodules varied slightly in size, measuring from 8 mm in diameter on the peritoneal surface to 1 cm in the lung parenchyma. However, the largest mesenteric lymph node infiltrated with tumor was 6 cm in length. Small tumor nodules, 3 mm in diameter, were seen in each adrenal gland. At the apex of the right ventricle, a tumor nodule approximately 1 cm in diameter protruded into the lumen. Relatively little necrosis was seen in any of the nodules.

A large subcapsular hematoma was present at the superior pole of the right kidney and a tumor nodule had grown into the capsule. Bilaterally, the ureters, calyces, and pelves were markedly dilated, consistent with severe hydronephrosis. The left ureter was involved in a mass of tumor just inside the brim of the pelvis, while a tumor mass near the posterior wall of the bladder entangled the right ureter. The bladder itself was adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. Many small nodules were seen on the bladder mucosa, and the external surface was nearly a solid mass of tumor.

The right ureter was dilated within 4 cm of the bladder, where the dilatation ceased abruptly. At this level, the circumference of the ureter was 14 mm; distally, the right ureter had been left intact and a probe passed with some difficulty down to the bladder. The probe could not be passed through the left ureter to the bladder, although both ureteral openings appeared patent from within the bladder. Closer examination revealed that the left ureter was dilated to the bladder wall, at which point a mass of tumor on the external surface caused the obstruction. The bladder was partially surrounded by nodular masses of tumor that penetrated the bladder wall, particularly in the trigone area. The bladder was not especially dilated. Tumor was seen infiltrating the wall of the vagina and friable masses of tumor replaced the cervix. The uterus was approximately normal in size and covered with tumor nodules, while the fallopian tubes and ovaries were obliterated by clusters of tumor nodules. A mass of tumor surrounded the iliac veins, and the area of the right iliac vein appeared to have tumor entering its lumen. Focal uremic diphtheritic colitis was also noted.

HeLa CELLS

Henrietta Lacks’ cervical biopsy supplied tissue to the pathology department for clinical evaluation and to the Tissue Culture Laboratory in the Department of Surgery at The Johns Hopkins Hospital for research purposes. In 1951, George Gey, MD, was director of the laboratory and had already spent many years at Johns Hopkins as a student and faculty member. Prominent scientists at Johns Hopkins, such as Ross Harrison, MD, PhD, and Warren Lewis, MD, made important contributions to the history of tissue culture.4,5 Dr Gey and his wife and chief collaborator, Margaret Gey, RN, continued in this tradition and began working on tissue culture in association with Dr Lewis in 1922. Dr Gey’s work grew to encompass in vitro investigations related to endocrinology, cancer, and virology in addition to intracellular and membrane cytology.4 However, his greatest scientific contribution was due to Henrietta Lacks.

While Henrietta Lacks was treated at Johns Hopkins, Dr Gey was attempting to fulfill ambitious goals for the Tissue Culture Laboratory, that is, “the isolation and maintenance of normal and malignant or otherwise diseased tissues as temporary or stable organoids or as derived cell strains.”6 Toward this purpose, Dr Gey and his colleagues collected tissue from surgical procedures throughout the hospital.7 Approximately 30 specimens of cervical cancer had been sent to the laboratory of Dr Gey by the time Ms Lacks presented to the gynecology clinic.2 An investigator in the laboratory, Mary Kubicek (Figure 2), placed cells obtained from the biopsy specimen of Henrietta Lacks into culture by using the roller-tube technique; the cells grew robustly, contrary to the results with previous specimens, becoming the first human cancer cell line immortalized in tissue culture. The cells were named “HeLa” after the initial 2 letters of Henrietta Lacks’ first and last names. She would not be credited as the originator of the cell line for many years, and HeLa cells were misinterpreted as originating with “Harriet Lane” or “Helen Lane” for years.7,8

Previous efforts to grow either normal cervical epithelium or cervical carcinoma in culture proved elusive9; however, efforts to grow cells from the aggressive adenocarcinoma of the cervix that had affected Henrietta Lacks were successful. Twenty years later, reexamination of the histopathology slides from Ms Lacks’ surgical biopsy and autopsy led to a revision of the initial diagnosis, with the finding that the patient had a very aggressive adenocarcinoma of the cervix.9 The cervical carcinoma was clearly very malignant and the patient had a rapid clinical deterioration. Although the concept of rapidly progressive cervical carcinoma has been questioned,10 this case history would suggest otherwise. Recently, HeLa cells have been shown to contain human papillomavirus (HPV) 18 DNA11 and HPV18-positive HeLa cells have been linked to changes in microRNA expression.12 Since HPV18 has been associated with very aggressive adenocarcinomas, this finding may explain why Dr Gey was surprised by the prolific growth of HeLa cells in culture. Routine Papanicolaou smear screening may not detect rapidly progressive cervical carcinomas; the new HPV vaccine holds the promise of preventing these tumors.

Gey and colleagues13 published data with HeLa cells in 1952, reporting the “evaluation in vitro of the growth potential of normal, early intra-epithelial, and invasive carcinoma from a series of cases of cervical carcinoma.” Only 1 strain of cervical carcinoma cells was established in “continuous roller-tube cultures for almost a year,” which grew in a medium of chicken plasma, bovine embryo extract, and human placental cord serum: HeLa.13 Dr Gey’s roller-tube technique for tissue culture was another significant scientific contribution and was used by John Enders, PhD, and colleagues in their work cultivating poliomyelitis virus in nonnervous system tissue.4 Perhaps less well known in the history of poliomyelitis research is that Dr Gey successfully propagated poliomyelitis viruses in HeLa cell culture.14

TISSUE CULTURE CONTAMINATION

George Gey was generous with requests for HeLa cells. Since HeLa cells were a robust, immortal cell line, easily propagated over generations in culture, Dr Gey supplied samples to scientists in the United States and internationally who were interested in studying the first established human cancer cell line. HeLa cells proliferated in cultures around the world and, as the years passed, evidence accumulated that HeLa cells had contaminated other cell lines. Interspecies cross-contamination with HeLa, easier to detect than intraspecies contamination, was described in the early 1960s.15,16

Several years later, in 1967, intraspecies contamination of cell lines became more readily detectable through the work of Stanley Gartler, PhD.17 He described apparent HeLa cell contamination of 19 other human cell lines by using a technique of isoenzyme analysis of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) and phosphoglucomutase (PGM) electrophoretic polymorphisms; all cell lines had the same G6PD type A and PGM type 1 phenotypes.18 The G6PD type A variant is sex-linked and found at an increased frequency in the African American population. The phosphoglucomutase gene is autosomal and has 3 common variants. The likelihood of all cell lines having these 2 isoenzyme variants was low, and several of the tested cell lines were known to be from whites. Gartler18 noted that “with the continued expansion of cell culture technology, it is almost certain that both interspecific and intraspecific contamination will occur.” He hypothesized that the G6PD subtype could have changed because of multiple divisions in culture, but he later demonstrated the stability of isoenzymes in cell culture lines over time.19

Methods for identifying cell lines were not limited to isoenzyme phenotypes. Karyotyping and chromosome band analysis were added to the arsenal of techniques available. Chromosome band analysis involved limited trypsin digestion of histone proteins followed by Giemsa staining20; controlled exposure of nucleoproteins to trypsin resulted in their partial removal and revealed Giemsa-stained bands. The technique was time-consuming but reliable in experienced hands. Thus, in the early 1970s, the state of the art for HeLa cell identification included presence of G6PD type A, lack of a Y chromosome, and identification of a specific pattern of banded-marker chromosomes21; these 3 three findings were thought sufficient to define a cell line as HeLa.

In 1974, 5 cell lines—reportedly of human lineage and infected with animal viruses—were sent to the United States from the Soviet Union. All of the cell lines were revealed to be HeLa in origin.22 In a story previously detailed,7 the realization that HeLa cells had contaminated cultures so far afield led to a reappraisal of tissue culture stocks by the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC; Manassas, Virginia) and the Cell Culture Laboratory at the Naval Biosciences Laboratory (Oakland, California).21–27 For instance, a follow-up study to the proper identification of the Soviet Union cell lines implicated HeLa cells as contaminants of several other cell lines.23 The ATCC found that 27 of 56 cell lines had G6PD type A variant.24 Further analysis revealed that several of these cell lines possessed some, but not all, HeLa markers. It was hypothesized that these variations could represent somatic cell hybridization between the original cell line and the contaminating HeLa cells.

During the previous quarter century, Dr Gey’s samples of HeLa cells had multiplied in laboratories throughout the world, as they were transferred from researcher to researcher and across international borders. Several hypotheses were offered for HeLa cells’ remarkable growth beyond what might be expected of a very aggressive cervical adenocarcinoma. As the first human cancer cell line, and a potent cell at baseline, it had been selected to survive in culture after countless passages, cell divisions, and viral infections. In the battle for reproduction, HeLa was best selected to outcompete other cell lines and eventually overgrew other cultures it invaded. Another possible explanation was that cell lines often came from outside laboratories. Prior to their deposition in tissue culture collection banks, the cell lines had been subjected to variable laboratory techniques. Furthermore, these laboratories undoubtedly possessed other cell lines such as the ubiquitous HeLa. Since HeLa cell contamination has been reported from air droplets,28 poor laboratory technique would suffice to rapidly contaminate other cell lines, which would then be passed on to subsequent laboratories.24,29

CELL CULTURE CONTROVERSY

The debate over cell culture contamination was not always harmonious.7,30 Contaminated cell lines went far beyond HeLa cells. In one study, human breast cancer cell lines were found to have both intraspecies and interspecies contamination. Other cell lines reported to be human cells were actually derived from hamster, rat, mouse, mongoose, or mink; gibbon cells were actually human cells; horse cells were dog cells.25 In total, 41 of 253 cell lines (16%) were not what they had been purported to be. Years of research and numerous academic careers were built on the presumed identity of various cell lines, and clarifying incorrect data required repudiating previously reported results.31 Alternative explanations for HeLa cell contamination were offered in some instances.32

Unfortunately, the impact of cell culture contamination extended far beyond the relatively narrow field of cytobiology and the researchers studying cell lines. For example, radiobiologists investigating the relation of radiation doses to cell death in human kidney cells were surprised to discover that the cells they thought were derived from human kidney were actually HeLa.26 Controversy erupted regarding the interpretation of their results: how did irradiating malignant cells translate to normal cells when evaluating cell death?33 The debate even ensnared Jonas Salk, MD, who stated at a conference in October 1978 that he had injected study subjects, enrolled in a vaccine trial, with HeLa cells that had contaminated his cultures7; however, any mention of HeLa failed to find its way into his published remarks regarding the “‘theoretical’ possibility of transmitting a neoplasia-inducing factor.”34

HeLa CELLS AND CELL CULTURE CONTAMINATION TODAY

Despite the passing of nearly 50 years since the problem first surfaced of HeLa cell contamination of tissue cultures and despite the explosive advances in molecular biology, cell culture contamination remains an important issue for the scientific community.35–38 The problem extends far beyond HeLa cells, although they remain a culprit.38 In one study, 45 of 252 human cell lines (18%) supplied by 27 of 93 originators (29%) were contaminated.39 Most of the contaminants were intraspecies cells, suggesting improved detection of interspecies contamination, but still concerning. New techniques, such as amplification of minisatellite-region DNA40 and short tandem repeat profiling,41 which are faster and more precise than older techniques such as chromosome banding, have not been widely adopted in a standardized, universal fashion. Fortunately, there was recently a call to action on preventing contaminated cell lines.42

CONCLUSION

Philosophically, we wonder if Henrietta Lacks has achieved a kind of corporeal immortality through her eponymous cell line. Sir William Osler, MD, delivering the Ingersoll Lectureship titled “Science and Immortality” at Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, in 1904 pondered new lessons from modern embryology and how they may impact the meaning of death. Although he obviously knew nothing of cell lines or DNA, he could marvel that “the individual is nothing more than the transient off-shoot of a germ plasm, which has an unbroken continuity from generation to generation, from age to age … ‘the individual organism is transient, but its embryonic substance, which produces the mortal tissues, preserves itself imperishable, everlasting, and constant.’43

It is impossible to know what Dr Osler would have thought about immortal HeLa cells. Has Henrietta Lacks’ “germ plasm” or “embryonic substance” (her DNA) provided her with an unbroken, unaltered chain to the present day so that we can claim that HeLa cells are Henrietta Lacks? Or, has her DNA evolved into a new entity—Helacyton gartleri has been suggested44—after countless cell culture passages, viral infections, and other cell line contaminants? Although the question of whether or not such a new species has evolved in the cell cultures of laboratories around the world is difficult to answer, as molecular biology continues to expand the frontiers of our knowledge at breathtaking speed, this question may need to be answered to fully comprehend both the findings of experiments performed on HeLa cells and the ethical implications of creating what may be regarded as a new organism.

References
1. Surgical Biopsy Number 92498. Baltimore, MD: Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital; 1951.
2. Jones, H. W. Record of the first physician to see Henrietta Lacks at the Johns Hopkins Hospital: history of the beginning of the HeLa cell line. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997. 176:227S–228S.
3. Autopsy Protocol 23260. Baltimore, MD: Autopsy Records of The Johns Hopkins Hospital; 1951.
4. Harvey, A. M. Johns Hopkins—the birthplace of tissue culture: the story of Ross G. Harrison, Warren H. Lewis, and George O. Gey. Johns Hopkins Med J Suppl. 1976:114–123.
5. Bang, F. B. History of tissue culture at Johns Hopkins. Bull Hist Med 1977. 51:516–537.
6. Gey, G. O. Some Aspects of the Constitution and Behavior of Normal and Malignant Cells in Continuous Culture. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1955. The Harvey Lectures, Series L, 1954–1955..
7. Gold, M. A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman’s Immortal Legacy and the Medical Scandal It Caused. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1986.
8. Culliton, B. J. HeLa cells: contaminating cultures around the world. Science 1974. 184:1058–1059.
9. Jones, H. W. , V. A. McKusick , P. S. Harper , and K. D. Wuu . George Otto Gey: the HeLa cell and a reappraisal of its origin. Obstet Gynecol 1971. 38 (6):945–949.
10. Schwartz, P. E. , O. Hadjimichael , D. M. Lowell , M. J. Merino , and D. Janerich . Rapidly progressive cervical cancer: the Connecticut experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996. 175:1105–1109.
11. Meissner, J. D. Nucleotide sequences and further characterization of human papillomavirus DNA present in the CaSki, SiHa, and HeLa cervical carcinoma cell lines. J Gen Virol 1999. 80:1725–1733.
12. Martinez, I. , A. S. Gardiner , K. F. Board , F. A. Monzon , R. P. Edwards , and S. A. Khan . Human papillomavirus type 16 reduces the expression of microRNA-218 in cervical carcinoma cells. Oncogene 2008. 27:2575–2582.
13. Gey, G. O. , W. D. Coffman , and M. T. Kubicek . Tissue culture studies of the proliferative capacity of cervical carcinoma and normal epithelium. Cancer Res 1952. 12:264–265.
14. Scherer, W. F. , J. T. Syverton , and G. O. Gey . Studies on the propagation in vitro of poliomyelitis viruses. J Exp Med 1953. 97:695–710.
15. Defendi, V. , R. E. Billingham , W. K. Silvers , and P. Moorhead . Immunological and karyological criteria for identification of cell lines. J Natl Cancer Inst 1960. 25:359–385.
16. Brand, K. G. and J. T. Syverton . Results of species-specific hemagglutination tests on “transformed,” nontransformed, and primary cell cultures. J Natl Cancer Inst 1962. 28:147–157.
17. Gartler, S. M. Genetic markers as tracers in cell culture. In: Westfall BB, ed. Second Decennial Review Conference on Cell Tissue and Organ Culture. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1967:167–195. National Cancer Institute Monograph No. 26..
18. Gartler, S. M. Apparent HeLa cell contamination of human heteroploid cell lines. Nature 1968. 217:750–751.
19. Auersperg, N. and S. M. Gartler . Isoenzyme stability in human heteroploid cell lines. Exp Cell Res 1970. 61:465–467.
20. Wang, H. C. and S. Fedoroff . Karyology of cells in culture: trypsin technique to reveal G-bands. In: Kruse PF Jr, Patterson MK Jr, eds. Tissue Culture Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1973:782–787.
21. Nelson-Rees, W. A. and R. R. Flandermeyer . HeLa cultures defined. Science 1976. 191:96–98.
22. Nelson-Rees, W. A. , V. M. Zhdanov , P. K. Hawthorne , and R. R. Flandermeyer . HeLa-like marker chromosomes and type-A variant glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase isoenzyme in human cell cultures producing Mason-Pfizer monkey virus-like particles. J Natl Cancer Inst 1974. 53:751–757.
23. Nelson-Rees, W. A. , R. R. Flandermeyer , and P. K. Hawthorne . Banded marker chromosomes as indicators of intraspecies cellular contamination. Science 1974. 184:1093–1096.
24. Lavappa, K. S. , M. L. Macy , and J. E. Shannon . Examination of ATCC stocks for HeLa marker chromosomes in human cell lines. Nature 1976. 259:211–213.
25. Nelson-Rees, W. A. and R. R. Flandermeyer . Inter- and intraspecies contamination of human breast tumor cell lines HBC and BrCa5 and other cell cultures. Science 1977. 195:1343–1344.
26. Nelson-Rees, W. A. , R. R. Flandermeyer , and D. W. Daniels . T-1 cells are HeLa and not of normal human kidney origin. Science 1980. 209:719–720.
27. Nelson-Rees, W. A. , D. W. Daniels , and R. R. Flandermeyer . Cross-contamination of cells in culture. Science 1981. 212:446–452.
28. Coriell, L. Detection and Elimination of Contaminating Organisms. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare; 1962. National Cancer Institute Monograph No. 7..
29. Grimwade, S. HeLa takes over. Nature 1976. 259:172.
30. Chatterjee, R. Cases of mistaken identity. Science 2007. 315:928–931.
31. Nelson-Rees, W. A. , R. A. Akeson , and R. Cailleau . Lung organ-specific antigens on cells with HeLa marker chromosomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 1978. 60 (6):1205–1207.
32. Pathak, S. , M. J. Siciliano , R. Cailleau , C. L. Wiseman , and T. C. Hsu . A human breast adenocarcinoma with chromosome and isoenzyme markers similar to those of the HeLa line. J Natl Cancer Inst 1979. 62 (2):263–271.
33. Broad, W. J. The case of the unmentioned malignancy. Science 1980. 210:1229–1230.
34. Salk, J. The spector of malignancy and criteria for cell lines as substrates for vaccines. In: Petricciani JC, Hopps HE, Chapple P, eds. Cell Substrates and Their Use in the Production of Vaccines and Other Biologicals. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1979:107–113.
35. Stacey, G. N. , J. R. W. Masters , R. J. Hay , H. G. Drexler , R. A. F. MacLeod , and R. I. Freshney . Cell contamination leads to inaccurate data: we must take action now. Nature 2000. 403:356.
36. Masters, J. R. HeLa cells 50 years on: the good, the bad and the ugly. Nat Rev Cancer 2002. 2:315–319.
37. Nardone, R. M. Eradication of cross-contaminated cell lines: a call for action. Cell Biol Toxicol 2007. 23 (6):367–372.
38. Lucey, D. J. , M. A. Walsh , and R. Costello . Imposter cell lines. Laryngoscope 2006. 116:161–162.
39. MacLeod, R. A. F. , W. G. Dirks , Y. Matsuo , M. Kaufmann , H. Milch , and H. G. Drexler . Widespread intraspecies cross-contamination of human tumor cell lines arising at source. Int J Cancer 1999. 83:555–563.
40. Silva, L. M. , H. Montes de Oca , C. R. Diniz , and C. L. Fortes-Dias . Fingerprinting of cell lines by directed amplication of minisatellite-region DNA (DAMD). Braz J Med Biol Res 2001. 34:1405–1410.
41. Masters, J. R. , J. A. Thomson , and B. Daly-Burns . et al. Short tandem repeat profiling provides an international reference standard for human cell lines. PNAS 2001. 98 (14):8012–8017.
42. Lacroix, M. Persistent use of “false” cell lines. Int J Cancer 2008. 122:1–4.
43. Osler, W. Science and Immortality: The Ingersoll Lecture, 1904. New York, NY: Arno Press; 1977.
44. Van Valen, L. M. and V. C. Maiorana . HeLa, a new microbial species. Evol Theor Rev 1991. 10 (1):71–74.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
FDA Requests Meeting With Activists Exposing Gardasil Adverse Reactions

Christina England, Gardasil, HPV, Top Stories

FDA Requests Meeting With Activists Exposing Gardasil Adverse Reactions

4 Comments 08 March 2010

.
.
.
.

Christina England
Vactruth.com
03/08/10

Throughout history there have been strong women debating big issues and changing history, amongst them are Joan of Arc, Emrneline Pankhurst and Amelia Earhart. On the 12th March 2010 in an extraordinary move, six strong, brave women of the world will come forward to present their research, documents and findings involving probably the most controversial vaccine of all times Gardasil to the FDA. What they have uncovered does not make easy reading.

Calling themselves ‘Little Women with Big Voices’ they have been formally invited by the FDA to present their information. The women making the presentation on behalf of the parents whose daughters have died or have been injured by the HPV vaccines are: Karen Maynor; mother of the late Megan Hild, New Mexico; Rosemary Mathis: whose daughter Lauren was adversely injured, North Carolina; Freda Birrell; political activist and lobbyist, Scotland and the United Kingdom; Leslie Carol Botha; broadcast journalist, Colorado; Cynthia Janak: research analyst, Illinois; and Janny Stokvis: research analyst, Netherlands.

The press release released today, Monday 8th 2010 says

“Over 17,500 adverse reactions and 64 deaths have been reported to VAERS (estimated 1 to 10% of the population reporting). The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has posted 272 VAERS reports of abnormal pap tests post-vaccination. Reports of deaths and injuries are now coming in from the United States, New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and India.

Birrell has compiled 40 pages of reports of deaths and injuries from the above countries for the FDA. Stokvis and Mathis have compiled data of vaccine injuries and deaths from VAERS. Botha is presenting studies on menstrual cycle evaluation to prevent vaccine injury – and the impact of aluminium on the endocrine system. Janak has researched vaccine ingredients and believes that she has found the reason as to why “healthy” girls have been injured or have died suddenly and unexpectedly within days weeks, months or potentially years after vaccination.”

According to Botha, it has been an amazing effort to mobilize a group of mothers and concerned women internationally to address the dangers of the HPV vaccines. A colleague of Botha’s, publicist Bobbi Cowan from Los Angeles joined the ranks providing here expertise in organizing a national media campaign. A press release was written and the group of six plus Stephen Tunley from Australia, whose daughter was injured by the vaccine, raised $600 to buy a major news release list through a professional news wire service. According to Botha, the group of ‘Little Women’ is now playing on the same marketing level as Merck and GSK. “They will be shocked at our savvy, expertise and determination to get our message out to the media and to the public.”

The presentation will be presented by the women to the FDA, on Friday, March 12 in the form of a power point presentation which will include 54 slides. Each member in the group will receive a file containing with over 236 pages of research, data and parental concerns. As soon as the presentation is over the data will be released to the public and media.


I have been told that the information contained in file will send shock waves around the world. There have been problems with this vaccine from the onset. Over the four years that Gardasil has been in use, the media has reported deaths, cases of Guillian Barre Syndrome, paralysis, seizures, blindness, problems with menstrual cycles, miscarriage and yet still this vaccine has been given to our children and women. Warnings have not been heeded and the problems have continued. This vaccine has now approved for use in males.

Merck has stated over and over that this vaccine is safe, the FDA and CDC have stated this vaccine is safe. This has been taken from the Merck website

“How safe is GARDASIL?

The safety of a vaccine is an important part of its story.

The common side effects include pain, swelling, itching, bruising, and redness at the injection site, headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and fainting. Fainting can happen after getting GARDASIL. Sometimes people who faint can fall and hurt themselves. For this reason, your health care professional may ask you to sit or lie down for 15 minutes after you get GARDASIL. Some people who faint might shake or become stiff. This may require evaluation or treatment by your health care professional.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA have reviewed all the safety information available to them. Based on data available to them as of May 2009, the CDC and FDA determined that GARDASIL continues to be safe and effective, and its benefits continue to outweigh its risks. In August 2009, the CDC reaffirmed its continued recommendation for vaccination with GARDASIL in females. In October 2009, the FDA approved the use of GARDASIL in boys and young men ages 9 to 26 to protect against 90% of genital warts cases.

For more information on GARDASIL, talk to your doctor or health care professional.”

Karen Maynor one of the women involved in the presentation has told me her daughter Megan died after using this vaccine. Megan’s story along with the many others is included on the website The Truth About Gardasil a site dedicated to the girls who have lost their lives to Gardasil a vaccine manufactured by Merck to help protect women against cervical cancer.

‘Truth About Gardasil’ was designed to remember the girls who have lost their lives but also to alert the public to the dangers of Gardasil. The mission statement is firm stating “This website is dedicated to the girls whose lives have been taken way too early because of this vaccine. It is also dedicated to their families who continue on in this fight. We must unite to get this vaccine off the market, together we CAN make a difference!”

In a recent interview with journalist Marcia G. Yerman, Huffington Post , Expert Dr Diane Harper outlines these issues when speaking about the pros and cons of Gardasil.

Harms of HPV Vaccination:
• Duration of efficacy is key to the entire question. If duration is at least fifteen years, then vaccinating 11-year-old girls will protect them until they are 26 and will prevent some pre-cancers, but postpone most cancers. If duration of efficacy is less than fifteen years, then no cancers are prevented, only postponed.
• Safety: There is at least one verified case of auto-immune initiated motor neuron disease declared triggered by Gardasil [presented by neurologists at the 2009 American Neurological Association meeting in Baltimore, Maryland). There are serious adverse events, including death, associated with Gardasil use.
No population benefit in reduction of cervical cancer incidence in the United States with HPV vaccination as long as screening continues.
• Incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States based on screening is 7/100,000 women per year.
• Incidence rate of cervical cancer if women are only vaccinated with Gardasil is 14/100,000 per year (twice the rate of cervical cancer if young women vaccinated with Gardasil do not seek Pap testing at 21 years and the rest of their life).
• Incidence rate of cervical cancer with Cervarix vaccination is 9/100,000 per year– better than with Gardasil, but still more than with screening alone.
• Incidence of cervical cancer without screening and without vaccination is nearly 90/100,000 per year. The combination of HPV vaccine and screening in the U.S. will not decrease the incidence of cervical cancer to any measurable degree at the population level. Those women who do not participate in Pap screening, and who are vaccinated, will have some personal benefit for five years for Gardasil and 7.4 years for Cervarix (maybe longer), but they will not affect the population rates.

Boosters for Gardasil after antibodies wane makes the cost of vaccination escalate significantly, and cause implementation challenges to reach those women who might want to be revaccinated.”

Slightly different to what Merck are saying don’t you agree?

Jeffry John Aufderheide from VacTruth.com agrees that he feels that it is big bucks that is driving the vaccine saying :-

“In general, many are becoming wise to the fact that young women are being monetized with the cervical cancer vaccines. At $130.27per vaccine, Gardasil is the most expensive on the market. What we know from the documents made available is the Gardasil vaccine has been one gigantic experiment. The FDA is now between a rock and a hard place. Do they continue protecting the brand of corporations or will management recognize a moral responsibility to protect these young women from an experimental product?”

The USA Government seem to have few concerns about Gardasil and have pushed for its use.

The Republican Governor Rick Perry has been reported to have pushed for all girls in Texas to be vaccinated at 11 – 12 signing an executive order requiring this to be mandatory for entry to 6th grade.

ON GUARD – GARDASIL

A critical look at a new and controversial vaccine by Ralph W. Moss, PhD says

“Despite vocal opposition from some religious groups and worried parents, on February 2, 2007, the Republican governor of Texas Rick Perry signed an executive order requiring all 11- and 12-year-old Texas schoolgirls to be vaccinated with Gardasil. This is a newly approved vaccine, manufactured by the pharmaceutical giant, Merck, Inc. It is designed to prevent infection with four strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV): types 6 and 11, which cause genital warts, and types 16 and 18, which are among the 30 or more strains that are capable of causing cervical cancer.

By signing this executive order, Gov. Perry bypassed the Texas legislature, and thereby avoided an open political debate on this controversial issue. Grassroots opposition in the Texas legislature may yet reverse this unilateral decision (see below). But at this writing the order stands: any girl who wants to enter sixth grade next September in the Lone Star State will have to show proof that she has received three Gardasil injections before school begins.”

Of course if you trace Mr Perry’s activities the usual conflicts of interest emerge. He has been reported to have links to Merck including the following as reported in Rick Perry’s Ties With Merck Run Deep – KBTX.com

“One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, his (Perry’s) former chief of staff. His current chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

Toomey was expected to be able to woo conservative legislators concerned about the requirement stepping on parent’s rights and about signalling tacit approval of sexual activity to young girls. Delisi, as head of the House public health committee, which likely would have considered legislation filed by a Democratic member, also would have helped ease conservative opposition.

Perry also received $6,000 from Merck’s political action committee during his re-election campaign.”

Another report Larry Flynt.com describes Perry as snarky, scheming, and slimy.

However, from my research into vaccines this seems to be the usual dodgy pattern when you study the wheeling and dealing that goes on behind the scenes of the Governments we trust and it is easy to see why. It benefits Merck hugely to get officials on side if you consider the fact that every child vaccinated with Gardasil is worth $360 to Merck. If this vaccine becomes mandatory throughout the USA it is a nice little earner for the drug giants.

If the drug companies and Governments were honest with the public it would not take brave women of the world prepared to take risks to expose and uncover the truth. The truth would already be there and so to would our trust.

.

A personal message from Leslie Botha concerning Gardasil…

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine
SEBELIUS: HHS document EXTENDING THE PANDEMIC to 2012

H1N1, Influenza, Top Stories, Undue Influence, Vaccine Laws

SEBELIUS: HHS document EXTENDING THE PANDEMIC to 2012

No Comments 08 March 2010

.
.
.

*Special thanks goes to Eileen D. for bringing this to our attention.

See bolded Excerpt such as:

Therefore, pursuant to section 319F-3(b) of the Act, I have determined there is a credible risk that the spread of pandemic influenza A viruses and those with pandemic potential and resulting disease does or could constitute a public health emergency.

…and extends through February 28, 2012.

Section 319F-3(a)(4)(A) confers immunity to manufacturers and distributors of the Covered Countermeasure, regardless of the defined population.

…and amended on September 28, 2009 to provide targeted liability protections for pandemic countermeasures to enhance distribution


100226 Sec HHS Sebelius Pandemic Influenza Vaccines Amendment

[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10268-10272]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-76]

=======================================================================
———————————————————————–

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Pandemic Influenza Vaccines–Amendment

Authority:  42 U.S.C. 247d-6d.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to the September 28, 2009 Republished
Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: Amendment to declaration issued on September 28, 2009 (74 FR
51153) pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act
(“the Act”)

[[Page 10269]]

(42 U.S.C. 247d-6d) to revise covered countermeasures and extend
effective date and republication of the declaration to reflect the
declaration in its entirety, as amended.

DATES: The amendment of the republished declaration issued on September
28, 2009 is effective as of March 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Lurie, MD, MSPH, Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, Telephone               (202) 205-2882         (202) 205-2882 (this is not a toll-free
number).
HHS Secretary’s Amendment to the September 28, 2009 Republished
Declaration for the Use of the Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act for H5N1, H2, H6, H7, H9 and 2009-H1N1 Vaccines:
Whereas there are or may be multiple animal influenza A viruses,
circulating in wild birds and/or domestic animals that cause, or have
significant potential to cause, sporadic human infections or have
mutated to cause pandemics in humans;
Whereas, these viruses may evolve into virus strains capable of
causing a pandemic of human influenza because these viruses may cause
infection in and spread among humans and because humans have little or
no immunity to these viruses;
Whereas, one such virus is the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Virus;
Whereas, vaccination may be effective to protect persons from the
threat of pandemic influenza;
Whereas, Secretary Michael O. Leavitt issued a Declaration for the
Use of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act dated
January 26, 2007 (“Original Declaration”), as amended on November 30,
2007 and October 17, 2008 with respect to certain avian influenza
viruses;
Whereas, I amended the declaration on June 15, 2009 with respect to
2009 H1N1 influenza virus and on September 28, 2009 to provide targeted
liability protections for pandemic countermeasures to enhance
distribution and to add provisions consistent with other declarations,
and republished the declaration each time in its entirety;
Whereas, the September 28, 2009 declaration extended through
February 28, 2010 for vaccines against influenza virus strains named in
the Declaration other than 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine;
Whereas, modifications are necessary to revise covered
countermeasures and to extend the effective date of the Declaration;
Whereas, the findings I made in the declaration issued on September
28, 2009 continue to apply;
Whereas, in accordance with section 319F-3(b)(6) of the Act (42
U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)), I have considered the desirability of encouraging
the design, development, clinical testing or investigation,
manufacturing, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging,
marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing,
prescribing, administration, licensing, and use of additional covered
countermeasures with respect to the category of disease and population
described in sections II and IV of the September 28, 2009 Republished
Declaration, as hereby amended, and have found it desirable to
encourage such activities for these additional covered countermeasures,
and;
Whereas, to encourage the design, development, clinical testing or
investigation, manufacturing and product formulation, labeling,
distribution, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase,
donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use
of medical countermeasures with respect to the category of disease and
population described in sections II and IV of the September 28, 2009
Republished Declaration, as hereby amended, it is advisable, in
accordance with section 319F-3(a) and (b) of the Act, to provide
immunity from liability for covered persons, as that term is defined at
section 319F-3(i)(2) of the Act, and to include as such covered persons
other qualified persons as I have identified in section VI of the
September 28, 2009 Republished Declaration, as amended;
Therefore, pursuant to section 319F-3(b) of the Act, I have
determined that there is a credible risk that the spread of influenza A
viruses with pandemic potential and resulting disease could in the
future constitute a public health emergency and that spread of one of
these viruses (2009 H1N1 Influenza) has caused a disease that
constitutes a public health emergency.
In order to extend the scope of covered countermeasures and to
extend the effective date of the Declaration, the September 28, 2009
Republished Declaration, is hereby amended as follows:
In the title, delete “for H5N1, H2, H6, H7, H9 and 2009 H1N1
Vaccines” and replace with “for Vaccines Against Pandemic Influenza A
Viruses and Those with Pandemic Potential”.
In the recitals, delete the first through the fourth “whereas”
clauses, and insert two new recitals as follows:
Whereas there are or may be multiple animal influenza A viruses
circulating in wild birds and/or domestic animals that cause, or have
significant potential to cause, sporadic human infections or have
mutated to cause pandemics in humans;
Whereas, these viruses may evolve or have evolved into virus
strains capable of causing a pandemic of human influenza because these
viruses may cause infection in, and spread among, humans and because
humans have little or no immunity to these viruses;
In the sixth “whereas” clause, insert “October 1, 2009, and
December 28, 2009” after “July 24, 2009”.
In the “therefore” clause, delete “avian influenza viruses and
resulting disease could in the future constitute a public health
emergency, and that 2009 H1N1 influenza constitutes a public health
emergency” and replace with: “pandemic influenza A viruses and those
with pandemic potential and resulting disease does or could constitute
a public health emergency”.
In section I, first paragraph, delete “the pandemic
countermeasures influenza A H5N1, H2, H6, H7, H9, and 2009 H1N1
vaccines” each time it appears and replace with “vaccines against
pandemic influenza A viruses with pandemic potential”.
In section I, at the end of the second sentence, replace “IX”
with “X”.
In section II, delete “the virus with (1) highly pathogenic avian
influenza A (H5N1, H2, H6, H7, or H9) virus; or (2) 2009 H1N1
influenza” and replace with “animal and/or human influenza A viruses
against which most humans do not have immunity, except those included
in seasonal influenza vaccines and/or covered under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, that are circulating in wild birds
and/or domestic animals causing or having significant potential to
cause sporadic human infections or have mutated to cause pandemics in
humans”.
In section III, first paragraph, delete in its entirety and replace
with: “The effective period of time of this Declaration commenced as
described in the September 28, 2009 Republished Declaration, and
extends through February 28, 2012.
In section III, second paragraph, delete “; except that with
respect to 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine, the effective period commences
on June 15, 2009 and extends through March 31, 2013” and replace with
“through February 28, 2012.”
In section III, add to the end of the section as a new paragraph:
“With respect to any covered countermeasure subsequently covered under
the

[[Page 10270]]

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the effective time period
expires immediately upon such coverage.”
In section VIII, insert “and use” after “administration in the
first sentence, delete “the Act’s” from the second sentence and
replace with “this”, and delete “Countermeasure” from the second
sentence and replace with “Countermeasures”.
In section IX, add to the end of the first sentence: “; and
amended on September 28, 2009 to provide targeted liability protections
for pandemic countermeasures to enhance distribution and to add
provisions consistent with other declarations and republished in its
entirety.”
In section X, after the fifth paragraph, insert a new definition as
follows:
Pandemic influenza A viruses and those with pandemic potential:
Animal and/or human influenza A viruses, except those included in
seasonal influenza vaccines and/or covered under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program, that are circulating in wild birds and/or
domestic animals, that cause, or have significant potential to cause,
sporadic or ongoing human infections, or historically have caused
pandemics in humans, or have mutated to cause pandemics in humans, and
for which the majority of the population is immunologically na[iuml]ve.
In Appendix I, title and item 32, add “H7,” after “H6”.
Throughout, insert “National” before “Vaccine Injury
Compensation Fund”.
All other provisions of the June 15, 2009 Republished Declaration
remain in full force.
Republication of HHS Secretary’s September 28, 2009 Republished
Declaration, as Amended, for the Use of the Public Readiness and
Emergency Preparedness Act for Vaccines Against Pandemic Influenza A
Viruses and Those with Pandemic Potential.
To the extent any term of the September 28 Republished Declaration,
as hereby amended, is inconsistent with any provision of this
Republished Declaration, the terms of this Republished Declaration are
controlling.
Whereas there are or may be multiple animal influenza A viruses
circulating in wild birds and/or domestic animals that cause, or have
significant potential to cause, sporadic human infections or have
mutated to cause pandemics in humans;
Whereas, these viruses may evolve or have evolved into virus
strains capable of causing a pandemic of human influenza because these
viruses may cause infection in, and spread among, humans and because
humans have little immunity to these viruses;
Whereas, on April 26, 2009, Acting Secretary Charles E. Johnson
determined under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, (42
U.S.C. 247d), that a public health emergency exists nationwide
involving the Swine Influenza A virus that affects or has significant
potential to affect the national security (now called “2009-H1N1
influenza”);
Whereas, on July 24, 2009, October 1, 2009, and December 28, 2009 I
renewed the determination by the Acting Secretary that a public health
emergency exists nationwide involving the Swine influenza A virus (now
called “2009-H1N1 influenza virus”);
Whereas, vaccination may be effective to protect persons from the
threat of pandemic influenza;
Whereas, the possibility of governmental program planners obtaining
stockpiles from private sector entities except through voluntary means
such as commercial sale, donation, or deployment would undermine
national preparedness efforts and should be discouraged as provided for
in section 319F-3(b)(2)(E) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247d-6d(b)) (“the Act”);
Whereas, immunity under section 319F-3(a) of the Act should be
available to governmental program planners for distributions of Covered
Countermeasures obtained voluntarily, such as by (1) donation; (2)
commercial sale; (3) deployment of Covered Countermeasures from Federal
stockpiles; or (4) deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise
voluntarily obtained Covered Countermeasures from State, local, or
private stockpiles;
Whereas, the extent of immunity under section 319F-3(a) of the Act
afforded to a governmental program planner that obtains Covered
Countermeasures except through voluntary means is not intended to
affect the extent of immunity afforded other covered persons with
respect to such covered countermeasures;
Whereas, to encourage the design, development, clinical testing or
investigation, manufacturing and product formulation, labeling,
distribution, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase,
donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use
of medical countermeasures with respect to the category of disease and
population described in section II and IV it is advisable, in
accordance with section 319F-3(a) and (b) of the Act, to provide
immunity from liability for covered persons, as that term is defined at
section 319F-3(i)(2) of the Act, and to include as such covered persons
such other qualified persons as I have identified in section VI;
Whereas, in accordance with section 319F-3(b)(6) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)) (“the Act”), I have
considered the desirability of encouraging the design, development,
clinical testing or investigation, manufacturing and product
formulation, labeling, distribution, packaging, marketing, promotion,
sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration,
licensing, and use of medical countermeasures with respect to the
category of disease and population described in sections II and IV
below, and have found it desirable to encourage such activities for the
Covered Countermeasures;
Therefore, pursuant to section 319F-3(b) of the Act, I have
determined there is a credible risk that the spread of pandemic
influenza A viruses and those with pandemic potential and resulting
disease does or could constitute a public health emergency.

I. Covered Countermeasures (as Required by Section 319F-3(b)(1) of the
Act)

Covered Countermeasures are defined at section 319F-3(i) of the
Act.
At this time, and in accordance with the provisions contained
herein, I am recommending the manufacture, testing, development,
distribution, dispensing; and, with respect to the category of disease
and population described in sections II and IV, below, the
administration and usage of vaccines against influenza A viruses with
pandemic potential and any associated adjuvants. The immunity specified
in section 319F-3(a) of the Act shall only be in effect with respect
to: (1) Present or future Federal contracts, cooperative agreements,
grants, interagency agreements, or memoranda of understanding for
vaccines against pandemic influenza A viruses with pandemic potential
used and administered in accordance with this declaration, and (2)
activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical
response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer,
deliver, distribute or dispense the pandemic countermeasures following
a declaration of an emergency, as defined in section X below. In
accordance with section 319F-3(b)(2)(E) of the Act, for governmental
program planners, the immunity specified in section 319F-3(a) of the
Act shall be in effect to the extent they obtain Covered
Countermeasures through voluntary

[[Page 10271]]

means of distribution, such as (1) donation; (2) commercial sale; (3)
deployment of Covered Countermeasures from Federal stockpiles; or (4)
deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise voluntarily obtained
Covered Countermeasures from State, local, or private stockpiles. For
all other covered persons, including other program planners, the
immunity specified in section 319F-3(a) of the Act shall, in accordance
with section 319F-3(b)(2)(E) of the Act, be in effect pursuant to any
means of distribution.
This Declaration shall subsequently refer to the countermeasures
identified above as Covered Countermeasures.
This Declaration shall apply to all Covered Countermeasures
administered or used during the effective time period of the
Declaration.

II. Category of Disease (as Required by Section 319F-3(b)(2)(A) of the
Act)

The category of disease for which I am recommending the
administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is the threat of
or actual human influenza that results from the infection of humans
following exposure to animal and/or human influenza A viruses, against
which most humans do not have immunity, except those included in
seasonal influenza vaccines and/or covered under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program, that are circulating in wild birds and/or
domestic animals causing or have significant potential to cause
sporadic human infections or have mutated to cause pandemics in humans.

III. Effective Time Period (as Required by Section 319F-3(b)(2)(B) of
the Act)

The effective period of time of this Declaration commenced as
described in the September 28, 2009 Republished Declaration and extends
through February 28, 2012.
With respect to Covered Countermeasures administered and used in
accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority
Having Jurisdiction, the effective period of time of this Declaration
commences on the date of a declaration of an emergency and lasts
through and includes the final day that the emergency declaration is in
effect including any extensions thereof through February 28, 2012.
With respect to any covered countermeasure subsequently covered
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the effective
time period expires immediately upon such coverage
.

IV. Population (as Required by Section 319F-3(b)(2)(C) of the Act)

Section 319F-3(a)(4)(A) confers immunity to manufacturers and
distributors of the Covered Countermeasure, regardless of the defined
population.
Section 319F-3(a)(3)(C)(i) confers immunity to covered persons who
could be program planners or qualified persons with respect to the
Covered Countermeasure only if a member of the population specified in
the Declaration administers or uses the Covered Countermeasure and is
in or connected to the geographic location specified in this
Declaration, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably
could have believed that these conditions were met.
The populations specified in this Declaration are the following:
(1) All persons who use a Covered Countermeasure or to whom such a
Covered Countermeasure is administered as an Investigational New Drug
in a human clinical trial conducted directly by the Federal Government,
or pursuant to a contract, grant or cooperative agreement with the
Federal Government; (2) all persons who use a Covered Countermeasure or
to whom such a Countermeasure is administered in a pre-pandemic phase,
as defined below; and/or (3) all persons who use a Covered
Countermeasure, or to whom such a Covered Countermeasure is
administered in a pandemic phase, as defined below.

V. Geographic Area (as Required by Section 319F-3(b)(2)(D) of the Act)

Section 319F-3(a) applies to the administration and use of a
Covered Countermeasure without geographic limitation.

VI. Other Qualified Persons (as Required by Section 319F-3(i)(8)(B) of
the Act)

With regard to the administration or use of a Covered
Countermeasure, Section 319F-3(i)(8)(A) of the Act defines the term
“qualified person” as a licensed individual who is authorized to
prescribe, administer, or dispense the countermeasure under the law of
the State in which such Covered Countermeasure was prescribed,
administered or dispensed. Additional persons who are qualified persons
pursuant to section 319F-3(i)(8)(B) are the following: (1) Any person
authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency
response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer,
deliver, distribute or dispense Covered Countermeasures, and their
officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a
declaration of an emergency, and (2) Any person authorized to
prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures or who is
otherwise authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization.

VII. Additional Time Periods of Coverage After Expiration of
Declaration (as Required by Section 319F-3(b)(3)(B) of the Act)

A. I have determined that, upon expiration of the applicable time
period specified in Section III above, an additional twelve (12) months
is a reasonable period to allow for the manufacturer to arrange for
disposition of the Covered Countermeasure, including the return of such
product to the manufacturer, and for covered persons to take such other
actions as are appropriate to limit the administration or use of the
Covered Countermeasure, and the liability protection of section 319F-
3(a) of the Act shall extend for that period.
B. The Federal Government shall purchase the entire production of
Covered Countermeasures under the contracts specifically listed by
contract number in section I for the stockpile under section 319F-2 of
the Act, and shall be subject to the time-period extension of section
319F-3(b)(3)(C). Production under future contracts for the same vaccine
will also be subject to the time-period extension of section 319F-
3(b)(3)(C).

VIII. Compensation Fund

In addition to conferring immunity to manufacturers, distributors,
and administrators of the Covered Countermeasures, the Act provides
benefits to certain individuals who sustain a covered injury as the
direct result of the administration or use of the Covered
Countermeasure. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)
within the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
administers this compensation program. Information about the CICP is
available at               1-888-275-4772         1-888-275-4772 or http://www.hrsa.gov/countermeasurescomp/
default.htm
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html\
&log=linklog&to=http://www.hrsa.gov/countermeasurescomp/default.htm> .

IX. Amendments

The Declaration for the Use of the Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act for H5N1 was published on January 26, 2007; amended on
November 30, 2007 to add H7 and H9 vaccines; amended on October 17,
2008 to add H2 and H6 vaccines; amended on June 15, 2009 to add 2009
H1N1 vaccines and

[[Page 10272]]

republished in its entirety; and amended on September 28, 2009 to
provide targeted liability protections for pandemic countermeasures to
enhance distribution and to add provisions consistent with other
declarations and republished in its entirety. This Declaration
incorporates all amendments prior to the date of its publication in the
Federal Register. Any future amendment to this Declaration will be
published in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 319F-2(b)(4) of
the Act.

X. Definitions

For the purpose of this Declaration, including any claim for loss
brought in accordance with section 319F-3 of the PHS Act against any
covered persons defined in the Act or this Declaration, the following
definitions will be used:
Administration of a Covered Countermeasure: As used in section
319F-3(a)(2)(B) of the Act includes, but is not limited to, public and
private delivery, distribution, and dispensing activities relating to
physical administration of the countermeasures to recipients,
management and operation of delivery systems, and management and
operation of distribution and dispensing locations.
Authority Having Jurisdiction: Means the public agency or its
delegate that has legal responsibility and authority for responding to
an incident, based on political or geographical (e.g., city, county,
Tribal, State, or Federal boundary lines) or functional (e.g., law
enforcement, public health) range or sphere of authority.
Covered Persons: As defined at section 319F-3(i)(2) of the Act,
include the United States, manufacturers, distributors, program
planners, and qualified persons. The terms “manufacturer,”
“distributor,” “program planner,” and “qualified person” are
further defined at sections 319F-3(i)(3), (4), (6), and (8) of the Act.
Declaration of Emergency: A declaration by any authorized local,
regional, State, or Federal official of an emergency specific to events
that indicate an immediate need to administer and use pandemic
countermeasures, with the exception of a Federal declaration in support
of an emergency use authorization under section 564 of the FDCA unless
such declaration specifies otherwise.
Pandemic influenza A viruses and those with pandemic potential:
Animal and/or human influenza A viruses, except those included in
seasonal influenza vaccines and/or covered under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program
, that are circulating in wild birds and/or
domestic animals, that cause, or have significant potential to cause,
sporadic or ongoing human infections, or historically have caused
pandemics in humans, or have mutated to cause pandemics in humans, and
for which the majority of the population is immunologically na[iuml]ve.
Pandemic Phase: The following stages, as defined in the National
Strategy for Pandemic Influenza: Implementation Plan (Homeland Security
Council, May 2006): (4) First Human Case in North America; and (5)
Spread Throughout United States.
Pre-pandemic Phase: The following stages, as defined in the
National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza: Implementation Plan (Homeland
Security Council, May 2006): (0) New Domestic Animal Outbreak in At-
Risk Country; (1) Suspected Human Outbreak Overseas; (2) Confirmed
Human Outbreak Overseas; and (3) Widespread Human Outbreaks in Multiple
Locations Overseas.

Dated: February 26, 2010.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.

APPENDIX

I. List of U.S. Government Contracts–Covered H5N1, H2, H6, H7, H9, and
2009-H1N1 Vaccine Contracts

1. HHSN266200400031C
2. HHSN266200400032C
3. HHSN266200300039C
4. HHSN266200400045C
5. HHSN266200205459C
6. HHSN266200205460C
7. HHSN266200205461C
8. HHSN266200205462C
9. HHSN266200205463C
10. HHSN266200205464C
11. HHSN266200205465C
12. HHSN266199905357C
13. HHSN266200300068C
14. HHSN266200005413C
15. HHSO100200600021C (formerly 200200409981)
16. HHSO100200500004C
17. HHSO100200500005I
18. HHSO100200700026I
19. HHSO100200700027I
20. HHSO100200700028I
21. HHSO100200600010C
22. HHSO100200600011C
23. HHSO100200600012C
24. HHSO100200600013C
25. HHSO100200600014C
26. HHSO100200600022C (formerly 200200511758)
27. HHSO100200600023C (formerly 200200410431)
28. CRADA No. AI-0155 NIAID/MedImmune
29. HHSO100200700029C
30. HHSO100200700030C
31. HHSO100200700031C
32. All present, completed and future Government H5N1, H2, H6, H7,
H9, and 2009-H1N1 vaccine contracts not otherwise listed.

[FR Doc. 2010-4644 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine

Newsletter

Click to Join Our Newsletter! Carl Bruning Constitutional Larimer County Sheriff

Users Online

Featured Vaccine Book

Dr. Todd Elsner's Book

 

Today, according to the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule, a child receives 36 shots containing a total of 126 vaccines from birth through six years of age. This is quadruple the number of vaccines a child received in the 1980’s. In 1983 a child received only 10 shots containing 30 vaccines.

Could this quadrupling of the schedule be responsible for the drastic increase in childhood disorders we are seeing today?

 

Get the information your pediatrician will never tell you!

Live Healthy

Award Winning Inspirational Documentary by Valya Boutenko
Best Selling Books and DVDs from the Raw Family

Ads

Silver Lungs

Optimize Your Health

Vibrant Living with Delicious Green Smoothies