Saturday, November 16, 2013

The State of Montana, Hamilton's NIH, Lincoln County Attorney Bernie Cassidy, Kalispell Regional Hospital, Prompt Care Eureka, and More in MT are involved in Lyme Disease Cover Up. Check out the Mary Deenen / Randy Wilson Case.

Today's News Regarding Lyme Disease and Corruptiong

"Lyme Disease Community Blows the Whistle on Corruption Within the CDC

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently announced that rather than 30,000 new cases of Lyme disease each year in the United States, there are likely 300,000. What the CDC failed to explain is why it's taken them so long to acknowledge that Lyme disease has reached epidemic proportions.
The Lyme disease community has been battling for years to get the CDC to admit that Lyme disease is a mass public health crisis. Meanwhile, the CDC itself has been informally saying since 2004 that Lyme disease is probably 6 to 12 times more prevalent than the reported cases. Why then have they suddenly decided to formally acknowledge these higher rates?

On a recent "Your Own Health and Fitness" show about Lyme disease on KPFA radio in Berkeley, Calif., host Layna Berman observed that the announcement of increased rates coincides with a financial interest in releasing the new Baxter Lyme vaccine:

"With this announcement of the increased number of cases, we might imagine that an economic opportunity has presented itself.  . . .The treatment favored by doctors who treat chronic Lyme . . . is long courses of antibiotics . . . But these treatments aren't money makers. So what inspired the CDC after so many decades of ignoring and denying chronic Lyme to release these new statistics? The promise of a new vaccine."
A pre-marketing campaign for the vaccine is already apparent. The New York Times editorial board heavily promoted the Baxter vaccine in a recent editorial. The article referenced an Op-Ed by Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who was described as a "leading vaccine expert" and "professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania," in which Plotkin said that he had been trying to "persuade manufacturers to make a new vaccine to help prevent some of the 300,000 new infections each year." He urged patients and physicians to write to the CDC and remind them of the need for a new Lyme vaccine, which would likely be recommended for a large part of the population of the United States. The editorial board concluded by saying, "It’s time to start writing those letters."

What the editorial board neglected to mention is that Dr. Stanley Plotkin is actually an "emeritus professor" at the University of Pennsylvania. His primary position is working as an executive adviser at the pharmaceutical firm Sanofi Pasteur, which is the largest company in the world devoted entirely to human vaccines. In addition, he's a consultant to most of the major vaccine manufacturers.

While news outlets like the Times receive funding through advertising from Big Pharma, the CDC is ostensibly an independent government agency acting to protect the public. Why would they have a financial stake in the vaccine?

The New York Times best selling author Dr. Joseph Mercola says, "Conflicts of interest are rampant in the vaccination infrastructure. The same people who are regulating and promoting vaccines are also evaluating vaccine safety.

For example, Dr. Paul Offit sat on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP), which helped create the market for the Merck RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine. He then went on to work for the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where he earned at least $29 million as part of a $182 million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the RotaTeq vaccine.

In August 1999, the Committee on Government Reform investigated the federal vaccine policy. They found that many of those on two of the key advisory committees had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines. Despite these conflicts of interest, the government employees were granted waivers allowing them to participate in discussions about vaccine licensing for children, even though federal law requires that members of advisory committees reveal such ties and recuse themselves from any discussions and decisions."

Source and Full Article

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.