August 26, 2010
The Business Muse
hundreds of food supplements and thousands of health-benefit claims concerning food supplements will be banished from the European market as each European Union member state enforces the EU Supplements Directive of 2002. That administrative rule is one of the Western world’s most extensive experiments in centralized government planning. By order of the European Food Safety Authority, as confirmed by the European Commission, the nations of Europe will dutifully dispatch their health investigators and police to remove from the market hundreds of food supplements consumed for decades without serious complaint.
Companies forced to downsize or closeThose agents will force the downsizing or closure of a number of companies that have manufactured and distributed the banned products, particularly small to medium-size businesses. The agents will also censor health information in ways more sweeping (reaching health claims made in all 27 member states) than the dreaded English Licensing of the Press Act of 1662. The food supplement market in Western Europe is estimated to have an annual value of approximately US$80 billion. About 40 per cent of the adult population of Europe use dietary supplements daily, varying in kind preferred and in level of interest by country. Increasingly, Europeans have come to associate above-recommended daily intake of certain vitamins and minerals with beneficial health effects, causing them to depend on access to those products as part of a personal health regimen.
Countries seriously affectedCertain countries in Europe already suffering from high unemployment rates, such as Spain (near 20 per cent), Ireland (13 per cent), Portugal (10 per cent) and Greece (9.2 per cent), stand to suffer the most from unemployment resulting from the EU crackdown on supplements and supplement claims. The directive has empowered that bureaucratic scientific body – the Safety Authority – to stand between those who make and distribute food supplements and European consumers, and to dictate which products previously lawfully available may henceforth be allowed to reach consumers and what may henceforth be said about them. Its aim is to render uniform the entire European market, despite the great diversity in food-supplement preferences that exist among the peoples of Europe.
The system discriminates against small companies and new market entrants in favor of large companies and incumbent sellers because it presumes all products sold without incident to be unlawful unless proven – based on clinical trial evidence – to be safe and bioavailable. Proof, in the form of scientific dossiers, must establish to EFSA’s satisfaction that products intended for sale are safe and bioavailable. No claims may henceforth be made unless scientific dossiers establish to EFSA’s satisfaction that the claims are proven to a near conclusive degree. The dossiers are expensive, roughly US$500,000 or more per submission. At least 90 per cent of the companies in this market cannot afford to submit a dossier and so must either cease sales altogether or reduce product offerings to those that others succeed in getting approved.
EFSA, a draconian taskmasterTo date, EFSA has proven itself a draconian taskmaster. Of some 800 dossiers for food-supplement approval that have been submitted, almost 80 per cent haven’t been approved by the agency. Unless a food supplement is placed on EFSA’s list of approved supplement ingredients, it is unlawful to sell. That method reversed the prior burden of proof. Before the EU Supplements Directive, if a product was derived from food, it was presumed safe unless a government in Europe established the product to be adulterated (i.e., to be unsafe for human consumption). Since the EU Supplements Directive, every food supplement is presumed unsafe, regardless of its prior history of safe use, unless scientifically established to EFSA’s satisfaction to be safe and bioavailable.
Proof of safety and bioavailability has proven to be a catch-22 in EFSA’s Kafkaesque system of risk reviews. If a food supplement could be unsafe at some dose level (a truism for everything in nature, including water), then it is presumed unsafe at every dose level unless a dossier proves safety at a particular dose level. In addition, if a food supplement has an effect on the body (true for almost every food supplement and dependent on dose), then if that biological effect can be linked to some potential adverse event it becomes an impermissible dose. In the end, this system reduces dosages for food supplements to levels of inactivity, making them largely useless as aids to health, undermining entirely the market for these products by eliminating them except at dose levels that have no beneficial health benefits.
To date, EFSA has also been an effective censor. Of some 9,000 health-claim dossiers filed, EFSA has acted on only 1,080. EFSA says it will act in September on the remainder still on file. Its rulings have generally been negative, condemning nearly every claim for probiotic products, antioxidants, even omega-3 fatty acids. Claims not supported by proof to a near-conclusive degree are rejected. Although almost no science, including nutrition science, is ever provable conclusively, EFSA condemns all nutrition science that accurately reflects the extent to which a nutrient may affect health on the illogical presumption that science is false unless conclusively proven true.
In the real world of science, information exists on a continuum between a bare hypothesis and a proposition that is proven, with most existing in the realm between the two, backed by credible evidence that links the nutrient to an effect on health and disease, albeit inconclusively. EU fails to disclose informationConsumers depend on credible science that is inconclusive in making daily purchasing decisions. Indeed, they depend on inconclusive science to make critical, life-affecting decisions in the market – everything from which car to buy to what drug to take. Uniquely, the EU has chosen to keep from consumers all less-than-conclusive information about nutrients potential to cause illness or disease. In this way, the EU is dumbing down the European marketplace for food supplements, robbing Europeans of essential information on emerging science and the potential of certain nutrients to reduce disease and improve health.
Ironically, while EU officials contend that this experiment in centralized planning protects the health of Europeans, it may well harm their health. Science linking certain nutrients to disease risk reducing effects (such as omega-3 fatty acids and heart and brain health; antioxidants and reduction in the risk of certain kinds of cancer; selenium and reduction in certain kinds of cancer, among many others) may well prove true, yet in Europe, consumers will be denied that information in the market into the foreseeable future.
Consequently, those Europeans who would wish to bet on the provability of emerging science by exercising choice in the market will be denied the opportunity to make that bet by a paternalistic EU, an EU that thinks it knows better than the typical European what is in that European’s own self-interest. The result may well be a higher level of heart disease, senescence, Alzheimer’s, and cancer than would otherwise be the case. At a minimum, this new system reduces the sovereignty of EU member states and, most importantly, citizens of each EU member country, proving once again that a common market can also mean common enslavement
· Jonathan W. Emord is the only attorney in history that has beat the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) in federal court a record breaking seven times. These victories proved that there is scientific evidence that:
1. Folic acid is a key in neural tube defect risk reduction.
2. Antioxidant vitamins are key cancer risk reduction
3. Omega-3 fatty acids are key coronary heart disease risk reduction
4. Dietary fiber is key in colorectal cancer risk reduction
5. B vitamins and folic acid are key in the reduction in the risk of vascular disease
6. Selenium is key in cancer risk reduction
Jonathan W. Emord has two Amazon bestselling books: The Rise of Tyranny (2008) which sold 3000+ units and Global Censorship of Health Information (2010) which sold almost 1500 units. He is also the author of Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment, a critically acclaimed academic work published by the Pacific Research Institute in 1991, which has sold in excess of 10,000 copies worldwide.
· George Noory, Coast to Coast AM, The #1 rated night nationally syndicated commercial radio host conducts a 4 hour interview with Jonathan Emord on FDA regulation, corruption and health care reforms: http://www.emord.com/radio.html
· Jonathan W. Emord served as a vice-president of the Cato Institute during the Reagan Administration.
About Jonathan W. Emord
Jonathan W. Emord, principal of Emord and Associates, practices constitutional and administrative law in Washington D.C. before the federal courts and agencies. He is the only attorney in American history who has defeated the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seven times in federal court, six times on First Amendment grounds.
Emord began his legal career as an attorney in the Mass Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission in 1985 during the Reagan Administration. In 1992, he served as a Vice President at the Washington, D.C. think tank the Cato Institute. Re-entering private practice, he formed his own law firm, Emord & Associates, in 1994 beginning with 10 clients and had over 450 by 2009. From 1994 to the present he has represented clients principally before the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Emord is rated “AV” (preeminent in the law, the highest possible legal rating in both legal ability and ethical standards) by the Martindale-Hubbell organization. His career is marked by defense of individual rights against government regulation. He was awarded the Cancer Control Society’s Humanitarian Award in 2007 for writing “critically acclaimed First Amendment books and professional papers” and for “tearing down walls of censorship.”
Congressman, and presidential candidate, Ron Paul has referred to Emord as “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and has said “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt.” Emord has written several pieces of legislation for Congressman Paul designed to restore constitutional government, including the Health Freedom Act; the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act; and the Freedom of Health Speech Act.
In 2009, Emord began working with jurists and public interest groups in Europe and Canada to develop legal strategies for attacking restrictions on the right to communicate health information in those countries. Increasingly Emord’s work on defense of the right to communicate truthful nutrient-disease information has become international. In 2009 the Walter Reed publishing company together with Nutraingredients.com invited Emord to Brussels to explain how European Food Safety Authority restrictions on the right to communicate nutrient-disease information could be challenged before the European Court of Human Rights. Emord’s December 10, 2009 speech was widely reported in the European and American trade press.
Emord is the author of the Amazon Bestselling and critically acclaimed books: The Rise of Tyranny (2008) ; and Global Censorship of Health Information (2010) He is also a weekly columnist for www.newswithviews.com and a monthly columnist for Troy Media.
Julian M. Whitaker, M.D.: “Global Censorship of Health Information is a must read—and call to action—for every lover of liberty.”
Paul H. Rubin, Ph.D., Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics,
Emory University: “Jonathan Emord is a litigator involved in the actual pursuit of the right to free speech, and a dedicated defender of freedom. … Anyone interested in the First Amendment in the U.S. or in issues of free speech in general should read this book.”
Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, Scientists and NY Times Best-Selling Authors:
“A wonderful and badly needed book! Everyone should read it.”
Scientist and Columnist, Whole Foods Magazine Richard A. Passwater, Ph.D.: “The various efforts by government agencies may seem unrelated at first, but when Emord exposes the larger picture, readers will understand the magnitude of the problem confronting their future health. If you don’t think [health information censorship] is a serious problem to you and your family—read Global Censorship and you will think again.”
August 26, 2010
By MICHAEL J. CRUMB
Low-cost vaccines that may help prevent the kind of salmonella outbreak that has led to the recall of more than a half-billion eggs haven’t been given to nearly half the U.S.’s egg-laying hens.
The vaccines aren’t required in the U.S., although in Great Britain, officials say vaccinations have given them the safest egg supply in Europe. A survey conducted by the European food safety agency in 2009 found about 1 percent of British flocks had salmonella compared to about 60 to 70 percent of flocks elsewhere in Europe, said Amanda Cryer, spokeswoman for the British Egg Information Service.
Since Britain’s vaccinations began, the only salmonella outbreaks in eggs have been linked to those imported from elsewhere in the European Union, Cryer said. Overall salmonella cases in the country dropped by half within three years.
There’s been no push to require vaccination in the U.S., in part because it would cost farmers and in part because advocates have been more focused on more comprehensive food safety reforms, those watching the poultry industry said. And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet determined how the hens in Iowa became infected.
But Darrell Trampel, a poultry veterinarian at Iowa State University, predicted vaccination will become more common after the recent outbreak.
“I think (vaccination) will move from hit and miss to being a standard,” Trampel said.
About 125 million of the 218 million egg-laying hens in the U.S. have been vaccinated, said Gary Baxter, a spokesman for French pharmaceutical company CEVA, which makes some of the vaccines available in the U.S. The salmonella vaccine prevents chickens from becoming infected and then passing the bacteria on to their eggs. It has been available in the U.S. since 1992.
There are two forms. One is a spray that uses a live bacteria, and chickens inhale it. The other contains dead bacteria that’s injected. Jewanna Porter, a spokeswoman for the Egg Safety Center, an industry group, said both forms provide good protection. The injected vaccine lasts longer, but veterinarians recommend both be updated.
In most cases, laying hens are vaccinated at between 10 and 16 weeks old, which is before they are put into production.
The FDA said last month it doesn’t believe mandatory vaccination is necessary, but it supports farmers doing it voluntarily.
Data on the vaccine’s effectiveness in field trials conducted in real world conditions “was insufficient to support a mandatory vaccination requirement,” the agency said in the text of new rules requiring increased inspections and testing of eggs.
“If individual producers have identified vaccines that are effective for particular farms, FDA encourages the use of vaccine as an additional preventative measure,” the agency said.
Telephone and e-mail messages left for FDA spokeswoman Patricia El-Hinnawy for further explanation were not immediately returned Tuesday.
Doug Grian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the vaccine deserves additional study, but it would likely have only have limited effectiveness against a bacteria like salmonella, which has many different strains.
“It’s only going to be a Band-Aid on a much bigger problem,” he said.
It would be more effective to give the FDA additional authority to stop repeat offenders and pull contaminated products off shelves and to move away from big production facilities that ship across the nation and can quickly spread disease, Grian-Sherman said.
“The way we produce a lot of our food and meat and eggs in particular, has gotten to a scale where it’s very difficult to prevent these problems,” he said. “That needs to change and we need to think about producing food on a scale that is better for the communities and safer for consumers.”
Trample, the Iowa State University veterinarian, said no vaccine for any disease is required for chickens.
“They are all left up to the decision of the producer,” he said. “Almost all other vaccines are strictly for chicken diseases that have no public health significance.”
Both farms involved in the recall vaccinated some of their chickens.
Julie DeYoung, a spokeswoman for Hillandale Farms, said the company began purchasing vaccinated laying hens in September 2009. The company didn’t vaccinate older hens but replaced them with vaccinated ones as they went out of production, she said.
“So about 80 percent of the hens have been vaccinated,” DeYoung said.
Wright County Egg has vaccinated some hens since 2009, investing more than $570,000 in the effort, spokeswoman Hinda Mitchell said. She declined to offer details due to an FDA investigation but said young hens were vaccinated “when they are in our care.”
The FDA’s El-Hinnawy said Monday it appeared the company vaccinated some but not all of its hens.
In Great Britain, farmers use a vaccine that goes into the water hens drink. The British government began encouraging, but not requiring, vaccination after a salmonella scare in the late 1980s crippled its egg industry. There was a 60 percent drop in egg sales overnight, Cryer said.
“Looking back, that scare was probably the best thing for the industry because we sorted out the problem, and we now have very high standards and there are no consumer concerns about safety,” she said.
At least 90 percent of eggs in Great Britain come from vaccinated hens. The other 10 percent come from very small farmers who may have vaccinated chickens but don’t sell to major retailers.
Dr. George Boggan, a veterinarian with CEVA, said they aren’t always effective. If egg farms are dirty, and there’s a lot of contamination, the bacteria can “overwhelm” the protection from the vaccine, he said.
“It’s in the best interest to keep the environment as clean as possible,” Boggan said.
S&R Farms near Whitewater, Wis., began inoculating its 2.5 million hens seven years ago.
“We kept our birds on that program and we’ve never had a positive (salmonella) result in the thousands of tests we’ve done,” manager Dave Hill said.
He didn’t know exactly how much the company paid for the vaccines, but others estimated vaccination costs between 40 and 60 cents per bird. That includes the cost of the vaccine and the expense involved in administering it.
“It’s a relatively inexpensive thing to do for the safety you get from it,” Hill said.
August 26, 2010
Most people are not aware that the “B” vitamins are your best insurance policy against diseases like heart attack and stroke. And, they’re more powerful than any drugs for the same conditions.
“B” vitamins are water soluble – you’ll find them in meat of animal protein, instead of the unhealthy patty parts. Some of the “Bs” are also found in fruits and vegetables, but your best source is found in red meat – for “B12” red meat is the ONLY source…click to continue reading..
According to an impressive 14-year study conducted in Japan, the following are the health benefits of specific “B” vitamins that you should know about:
- When folate is high:
- A man’s chance of a heart attack is cut in half.
- A woman’s risk of heart attack drops by 43%.
- A woman’s risk of stroke drops by more than a third.
- When vitamin B6 is high:
- A man’s chance of heart attack is reduced by over 60%.
- A woman’s risk of heart attack drops by more than 50%.
- A woman’s risk of stroke drops by more than a third.
Yes, eating red meat will get you vitamin B12, however, for those over the age of 50, supplemental “B” supplementation is recommended.
Folate, vitamin B6 and vitamin B12 work in synchronicity (together). They produce red blood cells, make nerves function, and reduce Homocysteine levels. Studies show that vitamin B12 deficiency leads to dangerously high Homocysteine, especially in vegetarians. Homocysteine is the amino acid that causes cardiovascular disease when levels are greatly elevated.
Additionally, when Homocysteine levels are elevated, you become a good candidate for Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and a list of birth-related disorders.
Most vegetarians have very high Homocysteine levels and are a high risk for a vitamin “B” deficiency. If you take medications such as antibiotics or birth control pills, your risk of vitamin B deficiency and high Homocysteine literally skyrocket.
What EXACTLY are the Role of Bs?
The following chart should answer most of your questions regarding each vitamin B and their specific role. All of the nutrients listed are included in one tablet of a complex B supplement as indicated below:
|Circulation, nervous system, healthy skin||Lean meats, nuts, legumes and potatoes|
|Adrenal hormones, antibodies, neurotransmitters, stamina||Eggs, pork, beef, fish, milk, and most fruits/vegetables|
|Brain/immune system function, cancer immunity, mild diuretic||Chicken, fish, kidney, liver, eggs, bananas, lima beans, walnuts|
|Cell growth, metabolism of carbohydrates/fats/proteins||Liver, eggs yolks, nuts, cauliflower, milk, legumes|
|Hair growth, reduces cholesterol and plaque||Heart, fruit, milk, nuts, meat, vegetables|
|“Brain food,” energy, red blood cells, strengthens immunity||Beef, lamb, pork, chicken liver, eggs, green leafy vegetables, salmon|
|Prevent anemia/nerve damage, digestion, cellular longevity||Lamb, beef, herring, mackerel, liver, oysters, poultry, clams, eggs|
In order to protect your health from the risks listed in this article, eat foods high in folate, vitamin B6 and B12 every day. In addition, use a vitamin “B” supplement that is a balanced ratio of the entire Bs”. I use and recommend a B-100 tablet taken at least twice a day with meals for those over age 50, and a B-50 tablet taken at least twice a day for those under age 50. At times of accelerated stress, each dose listed should be increased to one tablet with each meal. Always take your “Bs” with food for better absorption.
August 26, 2010
By: Christina England
Vaccine programmes grind to a halt in India once more, when four children died after they received the measles vaccination in Lucknow. The four children were reported to have fainted soon after they were vaccinated and witnesses reported seeing the children’s eyes roll back as they began to have seizures. All of the children were under the age of two years of age, with the youngest being just six months. Sadly the children died before medical aid workers could reach them.
As news of the deaths spread, immunization drives in 41 villages have been halted until further investigations have taken place.
The Indian Express stated in their article “4 children die within minutes of vaccination” that-
“The immunisation programme was being conducted as part of the government’s Jachha Bachha Suraksha Abhiyan launched on August 15. Minutes after vaccination, the children started gasping for breath.”
NDTV reported that the Health Ministry has ordered an inquiry after the four infants, all now believed to be below nine months, died after the vaccine. The inquiry team has yet to reach Uttar Pradesh, however, the Uttar Pradesh government has announced compensation for the families of the victims.
This is not the first report of adverse reactions after the measles vaccination. The measles vaccine has had a dubious and rather tainted history. In the UK, a government report dating back to 1968 , exposed on the website VacTruth.com in May of this year stated:-
Section 6 – Reactions
“Mild febrile reactions and transient rashes may be expected to follow the administration of the vaccine in a substantial proportion of cases. The rise of body temperature which may occur from 5 to 10 days after vaccination – usually about the 8th day – is due to the multiplication of the attenuated virus. This febrile reaction, when it occurs, seldom lasts more than 24 to 48 hours. The Committee on Safety of Drugs has agreed that severe and unusual reactions to measles vaccine should be reported on the yellow card used for reporting adverse reactions to drugs. The Committee does not however, wish to receive reports of mild febrile reactions and rashes associated with the use of this vaccine.”
This proves that the UK government as far back 1968 knew that the measles vaccine gave children adverse reactions, in fact, after reading the papers it is very clear that they were quite happy to be offering babies a vaccine that they admit, in a substantial proportion of cases, gives them high fevers and rashes.
That same report stated in section 7 that it was unwise for this vaccine to be given to children under the age of 9 months.
“Section 7 – Routine Vaccination
The live measles vaccine should not be given to children below the age of nine months since it usually fails to immunise such children, owing to the presence of maternally transmitted antibodies.”
The Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunization who advise the government said that the vaccine should instead be given to children in their second year of life after the completion of the immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus whooping cough and polio!
Yet it appears that none of this was ever even considered before the children of India were vaccinated.
In India ,this is the third vaccine disaster this year. In April the Indian Times wrote an article “Hib vaccine: Are press releases telling whole truth?” and reported that their country was being misled over the effectiveness of the Hib vaccine. The vaccine for Haemophilus influenzae type b (the main cause of childhood meningitis and pneumonia) was advertised as being safe and effective however, in the Medical Journal of Medical Research three senior paediatricians accused three agencies, USAID, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health the Hib Initiative and the GAVI Alliance of misrepresentation of the facts by selectively and inaccurately reporting the actual findings of the Bangladesh Hib probe study in order to promote the vaccine’s wider use. The India Times said :-
“According to the Agencies joint press release the results of the Bangladesh study conducted in 2007 “showed that the routine immunization of infants with the Hib conjugate vaccine prevented over one-third of life-threatening pneumonia cases and approximately 90 per cent of Hib meningitis cases”.
It further said “this vaccine study builds on the evidence of the real burden of Hib pneumonia” in Indonesia.
Both these statements argue in favour of Hib vaccination in developing countries through “selective interpretation/presentation of the actual research findings”, says Jacob Puliyel at St. Stephens Hospital in New Dehli and one of the doctors finding fault with the press release.
The Bangladesh study compared Hib vaccination status among children with confirmed pneumonia or meningitis against those without these diseases (controls). The major finding that there was “no difference” in the Hib vaccination status of children with pneumonia compared to community controls was omitted in the press release, the Indian doctors claim.
The study also found that among those who received all three doses of the vaccine, there was “no statistically significant protective effect” against either confirmed meningitis or probable meningitis but it found statistical significance in a sub-group that received only two doses of the vaccine.”
The Times continued:-
“The press release made another misrepresentation by saying the study “builds on” evidence of the burden of Hib pneumonia from Indonesia whereas the Indonesia study actually reported more pneumonia in the Hib vaccinated group than controls, says Puliyel.
In fact, the Indonesia study paper concludes by saying
” Hib Vaccine”will not have a major role in efforts to reduce the overall burden of respiratory illness…..as improvements in nutritional status, maternal education and socioeconomic status” (can have).”
Sadly India were to be told further vaccine lies again in April this year, this time relating to the Gardasil vaccine. In an article I wrote at the time “India suspends use of HPV Gardasil vaccines” I reported the following:-
“It seems that the HPV vaccine Gardasil manufactured by Merck, has been in the spotlight again this week, as the news pours in that the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has decided to immediately suspend it’s cervical cancer control vaccination programme for girls. The action was taken after 4 girls died and 120 were injured after receiving the vaccine.”
Further on I continued by adding:-
“The programme was marred by controversy after four deaths and complications among 120 girls were reported after vaccination. The girls complained of stomach disorders, epilepsy, headaches and early menarche. Women activists fear the vaccine may impact the mental health of girls who have shown no signs of distress so far.”
A few weeks later a letter appeared on the front page of the The Hindu on the 14th April 2010 to Azad that read:-
“Another issue which unfortunately has not been addressed in your letter is the conflict of interest involved in the PATH project. This NGO is a partner of the manufacturing company MERCK in other projects.
As a partner, it can be easily understood that the conflict arises from the interests of the subjects of the project, in this case children, on the one hand, and the vaccine manufacturer, on the other.
If there is not to be a cover-up of what appears prima facie to be a case of connivance with a vaccine manufacturing company in violation of set guidelines, I would once again request you to kindly look into the aspect of the inquiry, both in its terms of reference and in its composition.”
So if The Hindu’s research is correct and all indications show that it is, the NGO can hardly be classified as impartial, can he?
The campaign group the Truth about Gardasil were disgusted by these revaluations. India was at the time a country trying to come to terms with the fact that their children were used as part of an experiment, when all the time it was known that the vaccine used had been seen to cause adverse reactions worldwide.
The Truth about Gardasil put out a press release stating :-
“Where is representation for the families of the four young tribal girls in Khammam district who died following the vaccination? Where is representation from the 70 public health organizations, networks, medical professionals, human rights groups and women’s organizations that brought the HPV vaccine campaign in India to its knees on April 7, 2010 by voicing their intense opposition to the unethical nature of the HPV vaccination ‘projects’ conducted in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat by PATH International, in collaboration with ICMR and State Governments?
Where are these organizations now? Perhaps they will be allowed to sit in the balcony of their congressional hall just as the women adversely affected by the first birth controls pills in the 1960’s had to do as they listened to senate testimony orated by men as they argued the risks and benefits in January of 1971.”
However, the deaths did not stop there, as the death toll in India rose to 6 but according to the reports that followed none of the deaths had anything to do with this vaccine. In one article the Indian Minister was reported to have said that the deaths of the 6 girls was not due to vaccine failure but instead they were put down to various causes including, viral fever, drowning, suicide and a suspected snake bite.
If vaccines continue to injure and kill the children of India, India may decide to become the first country to ban vaccinations altogether, after all who could blame them?
As yet no one is sure why there have been so many vaccine disasters in India this year. It seems that false advertising by the drugs companies and conflicts of interest could be held responsible at least to some extent.