Thimerosal Free Vaccines Removed From Market
December 17, 2009
InfoWars.com
By Brandon Turbeville
On December 15, 2009 the CDC released a statement announcing the recall of 800,000 doses of H1N1 vaccine from the market. This was a story that should have received widespread coverage in the national media but, instead, largely died out at the local news level. Although some local stations made the recall their top story, many simply reported it as if it were no big deal and mentioned nothing else about it in subsequent broadcasts. Yet you would think that the recall of close to 1 million vaccines would spark the national interest, especially when the vaccines are for a “pandemic” that was initially supposed to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and disrupt the entire society.
If one chooses to believe the hype about H1N1 then he/she should be quite worried about the reasons given for the recall – that it is not potent enough. The fact that the company who manufactures the vaccine is Sanofi-Pasteur is also significant because Sanofi-Pasteur made a similar mistake with the H5N1 vaccine in 2006. At the time, H5N1 was the virus that was supposed to kill us all. It seems that the lack of potency issue is a recurring theme with this particular company demonstrating, at best, a dangerous level of incompetence.
Since true independent science has never been able to find that vaccines are even effective, let alone safe, potency becomes a non-issue to those of us who do not take Big Pharma’s word as truth. However, there are two peculiar questions regarding this recall that need to be asked.
First, although Sanofi-Pasteur and the CDC cite lack of potency as a reason for the recall, they seem to cast doubt upon their own claims. The “potency” of a vaccine is merely measured by the concentration of the antigen (the active ingredient), and the CDC admits in its’ own statement that the potency of the vaccine is only “slightly below the specified range (CDC FAQ).” Yet they go on to say that “The vaccine in these lots is still expected to be effective in stimulating a protective response despite this slight reduction in the concentration of antigen (CDC FAQ).” If the media and government claim of vaccine shortage is true, it would seem illogical to recall such a large number of them if they were still effective.
Second, and perhaps most disturbing, is the fact that the vaccines being removed from the market are the preservative and thimerosal free versions. In article published by Bloomberg, Tom Randall writes, “The recalled shots are preservative-free syringes of a low-dose version made for children ages 6 months through 25 months, [Anne Shuchat, head of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC] said. There are no remaining preservative-free shots available for children under 2 years old (Randall).” According to Randall, Schuchat goes on to say that thimerosal has proven safe in different studies even though some parents are leery of it.
The idea that thimerosal, aluminum, monosodium glutamate, or any of other preservatives used in these vaccines is safe is absolutely ludicrous. The fact is, thimerosal is 49.6% mercury. The EPA itself declares .1 mcg of mercury to be toxic yet there is, on average, 25 mcg in a single flu shot. The science that Shuchat refers to is the new brand of welfare science that relies on research grants from Big Pharma, vaccine makers, and eugenics foundations. True independent science has shown just the opposite of her claims.
Regardless of the lack of coverage by the mainstream media (something informed individuals should be used to by now), this is information that needs to be distributed. This recall has effectively removed all preservative-free vaccines off the market for children under two. So, for those parents who at least know to ask for thimerosal-free vaccines, the option is no longer on the table. With only the thimerosal vaccine now available, one has to wonder if potency was ever an issue at all or if the recall was merely an attempt to leave the plebs with only one option. That is, if they are uninformed enough to be vaccinated to begin with.
Click here for the full report
Drug Companies and Doctors Make Billions on Swine Flu
October 14, 2009
ABC News
By Dalia Fahmy
Americans are still debating whether to roll up their sleeves for a swine flu shot, but companies have already figured it out: vaccines are good for business.
Drug companies have sold $1.5 billion worth of swine flu shots, in addition to the $1 billion for seasonal flu they booked earlier this year. These inoculations are part of a much wider and rapidly growing $20 billion global vaccine market.
“The vaccine market is booming,” says Bruce Carlson, spokesperson at market research firm Kalorama, which publishes an annual survey of the vaccine industry. “It’s an enormous growth area for pharmaceuticals at a time when other areas are not doing so well,” he says, noting that the pipeline for more traditional blockbuster drugs such as Lipitor and Nexium has thinned.
As always with pandemic flus, taxpayers are footing the $1.5 billion check for the 250 million swine flu vaccines that the government has ordered so far and will be distributing free to doctors, pharmacies and schools. In addition, Congress has set aside more than $10 billion this year to research flu viruses, monitor H1N1’s progress and educate the public about prevention.
Drugmakers pocket most of the revenues from flu sales, with Sanofi-Pasteur, Glaxo Smith Kline and Novartis cornering most of the market.
But some say it’s not just drugmakers who stand to benefit. Doctors collect copayments for special office visits to inject shots, and there have been assertions that these doctors actually profit handsomely from these vaccinations.
It is a notion that Dr. Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Practitioners, says is simply not true.
“According to most of the physicians I have talked to, the administration of these vaccines is done for the community’s benefit as opposed to anything that helps profit,” she says. Heim adds that even though doctors will not have to shell out for the H1N1 vaccine, they will bear the usual costs associated with storage and administering the shots.
“There is an administration fee, for the costs that you can’t get reimbursed through Medicare or Medicaid,” she says. “This is usually less than, or right at the break-even point.”
Still, pharmacies also charge co-payments or full price of about $25 to those without insurance and often make more money if patients end up shopping for other goods.
“Flu shots present a good opportunity to bring new customers into our stores,” says Cassie Richardson, spokesperson for SUPERVALU, one of the country’s largest supermarket chains. Drawing customers to the back of a store, where pharmacies are often located, offers retailers a chance to pitch products that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Even companies outside of the medical industry are benefiting: the UPS division that delivers vaccines in specially designed containers, for example, has seen a bump in business.
New Entrants in Flu Shot Business
The intensifying competition has irked some doctors.
“Retailers and other non-medical professionals have siphoned off the passive income that once helped to cover medical overhead,” says Dr. Caroline Abruzese, an internist in Atlanta. “The larger retail chains can invest up front in large volumes of vaccine at low prices, and market to customers already in their stores.”
The promise of profits has attracted new players into the business. Some of the world’s largest drugmakers, who in the past avoided the vaccine market because of its limited scope — its not easy to convince healthy adults to get a shot for measles — are now jumping into the fray.
Last month alone saw three large vaccine deals. Abbott Labs bought a Belgian drug business, along with its flu vaccine facilities, for $6.6 billion. Johnson & Johnson invested $444 million in a Dutch biotech firm that makes and develops flu vaccines. Merck, which already makes vaccines for shingles and other diseases, struck a deal to distribute flu shots made by Australian CSL.
Smaller biotechs are also angling for a slice of the action, making vaccines one of the fastest-growing areas of research in the biotech industry.
Large and small drugmakers are drawn to the business largely because of scientific advances that promise to radically expand the range of health problems that vaccines can address. In addition to preventing childhood diseases such as measles and polio, vaccines can now also ward off cervical cancer, and researchers are working on vaccines for HIV and tuberculosis.
Scientists believe they can create therapeutic vaccines than treat diseases such as Alzheimers and diabetes after they have set in. (At least one company is betting on a vaccine that helps cigarette smokers quit.)
“These innovations broaden the market potential for vaccine makers and partly explained the renewed interest by drugmakers,” says Anthony Cox, a professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business who specializes in the marketing of medical products.
But Mark Grayson, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, says that drugmakers are also compelled by the government to join efforts to ensure that there is enough vaccine to go around.
“Because of national security implications, the government felt that they needed to encourage and ask [vaccine manufacturers] to move much quicker,” he says. Grayson adds that vaccine manufacturers also face significant costs; aside from the expense of fitting a new vaccine into a tight production schedule, drugmakers GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur were forced to acquire new vaccine production facilities in recent years to keep up with demand.
Alternatives to Vaccines Are Few
While this promise of new treatments for painful diseases brings hope to many, vaccines continue to attract critics. The National Vaccine Information Center, a non-profit advocacy group, is at the forefront of a movement demanding that vaccines be tested more thoroughly before hitting the market. Although there has been little evidence to support their claim, detractors — including the comedian Jim Carrey — believe that vaccines are at least partly to blame for the sharp rise in autism in recent decades.
The swine flu vaccine has also attracted its share of critics. Frank Lipman, a New York-based doctor who specializes in a mix of Western and alternative medicine, points out that the swine flu is rarely fatal and that it’s too early to tell if it’s safe because it hasn’t been widely tested.
Others argue that Americans have little choice. The cost of a widespread pandemic, similar to Spanish Flu outbreak in 1918, which killed 675,000 Americans (and 50 million worldwide), would be devastating. The Trust for America’s Health, a Washington-based non-profit organization, estimates that a severe pandemic could push down GDP by more than 5 percent and cost Americans $683 billion.
“We’re not seeing a pandemic that’s this severe,” says Jeff Levi, director of Trust for Americas Health. “We’ve dodged a lot of bullets.”
Click here for the full report
Big Pharma Says Children Under 10 Double Vaccine
October 14, 2009
CBS News
By Associated Press
The vaccine maker Sanofi Pasteur says tests of its swine flu vaccine suggest that children under 10 may need two doses to be fully protected.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says Wednesday’s news is not surprising. This age group needs two doses of regular seasonal vaccine for full immunity to develop.
Federal officials have been hoping that one shot or squirt of nasal spray would do, so they can stretch the available supply of a vaccine much in demand.
Click here for the full report.
