Jeffry John Aufderheide
Co-Author Erika Roberg
Concerned citizens along with representatives from the Vaccine Research Project, Safe Minds, and We Are Change Colorado gathered at the Rita Bass Trauma Center and EMS Education Institute in Denver on Saturday to discuss the CDCÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ‘Full Throttle’ plan to move forward with the H1N1 mass vaccine program this fall. The meeting focused heavily on the safety and efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine.
(Article continues below)
Be aware that an ID card and electronic monitoring of the vaccination program were mentioned (further in the article).
Please read the public statement below from Safe Minds.
It must be acknowledged that the CDC attempted to engage the public through the Keystone Center, a third party mediator, they failed to impress the public.Ã‚Â It was made abundantly clear on several occasions that the discussion was for discussion purposes only and bared no weight on the government’s decision to move forward with a mass-vaccination program.
According to the Discussion Guide handed out at the Public Engagement Project on the 2009 Novel H1N1 Influenza Vaccination Program Introduction under the section labeled Ã¢â‚¬ËœPublic DilemmaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ it states,
Ã¢â‚¬Å“These uncertainties and complexities pose a different dilemma because of the complexities and amounts of resources required to plan for mass vaccination well in advance of the pandemic—Should the US take a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfull throttleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ or a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœgo-easyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ approach to mass vaccination, or an approach somewhere in between?Ã¢â‚¬Â
Propositions for selecting an option for not continuing a mass vaccination plan were unavailable making the whole thing a farce as minds were already made up.
The real reason for the meeting was revealed in a small paragraph with University of Nebraska letterhead attached in the information packet. The purpose of the research noted,
“A survey may be given to you to get information about your opinions and knowledge about this topic (H1N1 Influenza). Research associated with the project will explore whether and how the views of participants change as a result of thinking about and discussing an issue.”
Stated earlier on the University of Nebraska letterhead the participants of this meeting included (as noted on the letterhead),
1. You are a member of a community taking part in this project as a participant
2. You are an expert on such topics as public health, influenza ethics and public engagement and agreed to participate as an expert or observer.
3. Your work with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or other federal, state or local governmental agencies involved in making decisions or analyzing public health policies
10 similar meetings are being held across America. The meeting in Denver had characteristics of an Edward-Bernays-style-public-relations-opinion-forming-campaign.Ã‚Â It is likely that the arguments and language used by the public at this meeting will be used in a future media blitz during fall to counter any arguments in debating government policy decisions.Ã‚Â Pre and Post-meeting questions were documented via a questionnaire to determine if our opinion concerning the ‘Knowledge about the Pandemic Flu’ has changed.
The agenda details, how the larger group, is broken down into small groups. In all likelihood this tactic is meant to minimize influential and knowledgeable speakers concerning the topic of vaccines and adverse reactions. As a side note, many of the public health officials came to observe the small group discussions and were visibly perturbed with the questions being asked concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
Prior to the meeting discussion beginning, a short movie produced by Beth Bell, MD at the CDC, was to elaborate on the ‘facts’ of the H1N1 influenza. The movie experienced technical difficulties early on and the large meeting quickly transitioned into a short impromptu presentation given by Naval Captain Ray Strikas working with the CDC.
The question apparently to be answered in this public engagement meeting was, “What type of implementation planning strategy should the U.S. adopt for vaccinating Americans against the novel H1N1 influenza virus?”
Assumptions of the discussion laid forth by the CDC/Keystone Center were:
Severity: The severity of illness and groups at higher risk for infection or complications will be similar to what has already been observed in the US in the spring of 2009, i.e., Pregnant women, children, young adults and individuals with underlying conditions
Safety: The safety profile of novel H1N1 vaccines will be similar to that of seasonal influenza vaccines for common, less serious reactions and the estimated risk for more serious reactions (e.g. Guillain-Barre syndrome) is between 1-10 per million persons vaccinated.
H1N1 Vaccine Supply: Supplies of licenses vaccine will become available in October 2009 but enough vaccines for all will not be available until February 2010.
Cost: Vaccine will be purchased by the federal government and made available to all states on a per capita basis
Vaccine Recommendations: Vaccine will be recommended for 5 subgroups of the population but not for everyone at first. 2 doses will be needed for protection.
Seasonal Vaccine: Novel H1N1 vaccine and seasonal vaccine availability will overlap and both will be recommended for many populations(sic) groups.
Despite feigning interest in public participation, it appears that by all indications plans are slated for preparing a wide scale vaccination campaign in the upcoming months.
Regardless of attempts to control the debate, some of the key topics addressed by the aforementioned concerned citizens and activist groups were:
1. The H1N1 vaccine has not been tested for safety or effectiveness
2. H1N1 is transmissible via a newly vaccinated person through viral shedding
3. Side effects from the vaccine are virtually unknown
4. Untested adjuvants (MF59, AS03) will be used, along with ingredients such as thimerisol, on pregnant women and infants
Channel 4 of Denver reported after the meeting held on Saturday, “We’re hearing people who are very concerned about the safety of vaccines and so this vaccine is being produced relatively quickly,” said Mike Hughes, Vice President of the Keystone Center. “So we hear a lot of people who are concerned that it might not be safe; that there might be side effects from the vaccine.”
The Associated Press released an article on August 7th, 2009, stating, “Sanofi Pasteur’s trials began Thursday, testing both the vaccine’s safety and how many doses would be needed to protect people from swine flu, the company said in a statement. Most experts think two doses will be necessary.” The ‘two dose theory’ was confirmed in the meeting and slide deck.
Look for yourself at the H1N1 clinical safety trials still occurring as of August 11, 2009.
With much public concern on safety, it appears that the safety posture of the CDC and the United States government concerning vaccines will be reactive in nature.Ã‚Â When questioned, CDC and health officials seemed unconcerned that no safety data is available for the H1N1 vaccine and stated that Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project are the tools of choice.Ã‚Â While this may sound appealing, it does the American Public no justice as it measures adverse reactions only after the fact, with no emphasis on long-term disabilities such as chronic arthritis or diseases as cancer.
Interestingly on the CDC’sÃ‚Â website addressing the question of vaccine safety monitoring it states,
“If the clinical trials show the vaccine works safely, the manufacturer asks the FDA for a license. The FDA reviews the clinical trial results and the proposed label for the vaccine. The FDA also inspects the plant where the vaccine will be made and reviews the process for making the vaccine. When the FDA is satisfied it is safe, the vaccine is licensed for public use. The licensing process can take 10 years or longer.”
Due to the fast-tracked process that the FDA has adopted concerning the H1N1 vaccine, scientists would be hard pressed to detect foreign contaminants such as animal DNA in the vaccines that could cause such things as cancer.
By example, scientists discovered the Oral Polio vaccine contaminatedÃ‚Â with the Simeon 40 (SV40) virus which causes cancer.
Cerebellitis (inflammation of the cerebellum) is documented in medical literature following an influenza vaccine. The cerebellum has a broader role in a number of key cognitive functions, including attention and the processing of language, music, and other sensory temporal stimuli. Interestingly Autism, Aspergers, and PDD-NOS can have similar characteristics. Of course symptoms can wax and wane during ones life, or they can remain dormant and reappear later on in life.
Dr. Andrew Moulden also describes how he believes that ALL vaccines cause impaired blood flow and vaccine damage. This is evidenced in his article VACCINATIONS ARE CAUSING IMPAIRED BLOOD FLOW (Ischemia), CHRONIC ILLNESS, DISEASE AND DEATH FOR US ALLÃ¢â‚¬Â¦along with photographic evidence.
The Swine Flu of 1976 and the many cases of Gullain-Barre were also severely downplayed at the meeting. Watch the 60 Minutes interview here.
Moreover, no reassurance was given from CDC or health officials who were in attendance at the meeting that a debacle that occurred with Baxter recently in the news wouldn’t be repeated. As a matter of fact, they all claimed ignorant to the fact. It has been noted in the past that the CDC has experimented mixing avian flu virus with human flu virus developed in a similar style lab as Baxter’s. Coincidentally, one of the countries that would have been potentially affected from the Baxter mix-up has decided not to purchase the H1N1 vaccine from Baxter.
Theresa Wrangham, President of Safe Minds, inquired about the recent meeting held by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to discuss the safety of the adjuvants (MF59/AS03) used in the production of the swine flu vaccines. Additional discussions on adjuvants by the Pandemic Influenza Working Group can be found here and here.
The U.S. has already purchased 1.8 billion dollars worth of adjuvants and yet, curiously, are not currently approved for human use in the United States.
It was a well placed question by Mrs. Wrangham as past experience has shown traditionally adverse reactions to vaccines are often under reported.
Meryl Nass reported on her website,
“At the 12/2008 FDA-NIH meeting on how to study novel adjuvants, Novartis scientist (Novartis owns the MF59 adjuvant) Dr. Novicki made the following statement:
Continuing, Meryl Nass wrote,
“And if that wasn’t reckless enough, DHHS Secretary Sebelius has since given Novartis a liability waiver through the PREP Act for injuries their swine flu vaccines and adjuvants may cause, as long as Novartis lacks prior knowledge of the products’ dangers.”
“How will we know who has been vaccinated and who has not,”Ã‚Â was also asked by a member of We Are Change.
Apparently in development is an ID card that could be used to electronically track proof of influenza inoculations, however, details about the program were not elaborated on nor confirmed.
Electronic monitoring should be specifically brought to the attention of health officialsÃ‚Â in future meetings held around the nation until there is a satisfactory answer and details made publicly available!
NO ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES or VOICES
Vaccines were listed as the only “viable” option by the FDA and recommended by the CDC at the public meeting.Ã‚Â Any mention of collodial silver, anti-viral herbs and oils, homeopathy, chiropracty, vitamin therapies were simply ignored by ‘health’ officials.
The FDA has also authorized two products addressing influenza thus far, one of which is Tamiflu. Tamiflu has been found harmful to administer to children and is not recommended by most health conscious parents. It is no surprise then that in the long list of Washington insiders profiteering on the backs of BigPharma is Donald Rumsfeld. Donald is one of the more well-known recent personalities and is ex-Secretary of Defense.
Donald Rumsfeld owns stock in the company that produces Tamiflu.
Donald Rumsfeld also served as Chairman of Board from 1981Ã¢â‚¬”1986; 1995-1996 at RAND Corporation. RAND Corporation has contracted with BigPharma on a number of interesting projects. Notably, RAND Corporation recently published a briefing of a project entitled “Strategies and Models for Promoting Adolescent Vaccination For Low-Income Populations” sponsored by Sanofi Pasteur.
All of the information mentioned in this article is culminating into a war of the minds and battle for consent. The CDC and other entities are already postured and maneuvered into pulling the trigger on a vaccine campaign this fall. The same policies mentioned in the document, “Strategies and Models for Promoting Adolescent Vaccination For Low-Income Populations”,Ã‚Â are suddenly being brought to the forefront as almost by magik.