Pneumonia: More Fear Mongering

Here is the header from an article that appeared in today's Jakarta Post:

Pneumonia to kill nearly 11 million children by 2030, study warns

The article was taken from NEWS DESK, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Paris, France on Tuesday, November 13th, 2018 at 03:04 am. The article goes on to say that:

Pneumonia will kill nearly 11 million children under five by 2030, experts warned Monday on a global day aimed at raising awareness of the biggest infectious killer of infants worldwide. 

While in the developed world the severe lung infection mainly affects the elderly, in developing nations it is children who bear the brunt, with hundreds of thousands dying each year from the easily preventable disease.

It continues:

A new analysis conducted by Johns Hopkins University and the aid group Save the Children using forecasts based on current trends showed more than 10,800,000 under-fives would succumb to the disease by the end of the next decade.  

Furthermore, a handful of countries are set to carry the highest burdens, with 1.7 million children set to die in Nigeria and India, 700,000 in Pakistan and 635,000 in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Yet there is some good news.  

The study, published on World Pneumonia Day, found that scaling up existing vaccination coverage, coupled with cheap antibiotics and ensuring good nutrition for children could save a total of 4.1 million lives. 

Of course, the article is intended to grab attention. Save the Children CEO Kevin Watkins, whose group operates health programs in some of the countries worst hit by the disease, called for prices of major existing pneumonia vaccines to be lowered "dramatically". It's unlikely that pharmaceutical companies will be lowering their prices. Instead the hope is that governments in developing countries will subsidise the cost from their health care budgets. Much needed funds are thus diverted from where they could be truly useful such as improving sanitation and nutrition.

In the nineteenth century, measles epidemics killed a great many children in England and other developed countries because families lived in vermin-infested, overcrowded and unventilated dwellings with primitive sanitation. Additionally, children ate poorly and sometimes not at all. When housing conditions and diet were improved, measles ceased to be a significant factor in childhood mortality.

It is the same of course with pneumonia which as the article admits "mainly affects the elderly in developed countries". In these countries, pneumonia does not take a significant toll of children because they are generally well-fed and adequately housed. It's a transparent ploy on the part of NGOs like Save the Children to attract funds but what organisations lie behind these NGOs. Well, the usual villains of course. One of this NGO's global partners is GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), laughingly described on the NGO's website as "a science-led global healthcare company on a mission to help people do more, feel better and live longer".

Ah no, GSK is, according to Wikipedia:

a British pharmaceutical company headquartered in Brentford, London. Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham, GSK was the world's sixth largest pharmaceutical company as of 2015, after Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Hoffmann-La Roche and Sanofi.

Of course, nobody is going to donate money to a pharmaceutical company and so GSK and other Big Pharma companies hide behind NGOs like Save the Children and push a very straight forward agenda: marketing their products. Save the Children and its current CEO have been mired in controversy lately. In July, as reported in this article in The Guardian: "(British) MPs question Kevin Watkins on failing to investigate claims of sexual misconduct by senior charity staff". Specifically:

Pauline Latham MP questioned Watkin’s decision to use £114,000 in charity funds on lawyers “to try and stop reports [of inappropriate behaviour] coming out”, adding that such money was likely to have been taken from funds raised by volunteers in the UK. 

Clearly, when donating money to NGOs like Save the Children, one needs to seriously consider how the money is being spent. However, if one were casually reading the article under discussion in the Jakarta Post or elsewhere, the simple takeaway would be that the pneumonia vaccine can save the lives of millions of children. If only it were that simple.

Vaccines damage the immune systems of children throughout the world but in developing countries, children's immunity is further compromised by overcrowded living conditions, poor sanitation and inadequate diet. These children do not need vaccines and yet limited health care funds are being diverted to this end.

GIVE LOVE NOT HPV

An article in today's Brisbane Times trumpets the following headline: Queensland researcher sets Australia up to be first country to eliminate cervical cancer. The article then begins with:

Experts predict Australia is likely to become the first country to effectively eliminate cervical cancer, with the eradication expected in the next 40 years.

Professor Ian Frazer, who is attached to the University of Queensland, created Gardasil, the vaccine for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which causes about 99.9 per cent of cervical cancers.

The mention of the word "experts" arouses suspicion. Who are these experts? Are 99.9% of cervical cancers really caused by HPV? Mention is made of some recent research:

According to research recently published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, there's been a dramatic decline in the rates of HPV, which has been attributed to the effectiveness of Gardasil. 

The research paper is not identified in the news article that then goes on to mention that the International Papillomavirus Society (IPVS) had issued a statement saying that it believed cervical cancer could soon be eliminated as a public health problem. The IPVS is described as being made up of the world's leading cervical cancer and HPV researchers, including Professor Suzanne Garland from Victoria's Royal Women's Hospital and the University of Melbourne, who advises the WHO and global policymakers on cervical cancer prevention and screening. It is Garland who makes the claim that:

Australia would likely be the first country to achieve the milestone of cervical cancer eradication. "We are forecasting that over the next 30-40 years, rates of cervical cancer will drop from around the current 1000 cases a year in Australia to just a few".

So what exactly are the facts? An unnamed research article claims that somewhere in the world a study had indicated that there's been a dramatic decline in the rates of HPV. It's a bit of a stretch to forecast on the basis of that research that cervical cancer rates will drop dramatically in the next 30 to 40 years. Of course, Garland hastens to add that this will only happen if vaccinations continue.

The statistic is quoted that among Australian women aged 18 to 24, the HPV rate dropped from 22.7 per cent to just 1.1 per cent during the past 10 years. Before the vaccinations, almost all sexually active people had contracted HPV.

This of course means that only a little more than 22.7% of Australian women aged 18 to 24 were sexually active ten years ago because almost all sexually active people had contracted HIV. This is an absurd statistic but it's quoted by an expert so you'd better believe it. Of course, the old line is trotted out that the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh any dangers.

The statistic that struck me was that there only 1000 cases of cervical cancer a year in Australia. Considering that there are about 12.2 million females, that's a ratio of 1:12,200. Of course females younger than 15 are not likely to be at risk of this type of cancer. In 2017, the under-15s comprised 18.8% of the population and so that leaves a little under 10 million females aged 15 and above. That's still only a ratio of 1:10,000 and yet there's a determined effort to get every adolescent girl in Australia vaccinated. That's over 2 million girls based on 2017 figures. Of course, adolescent boys are encouraged to get vaccinated as well and together this cohort would total around 4 million.

That's requires a lot of Gardasil and a lot of money for Big Pharma. Let's forget screening. Garland wants increasing screening rates as well as increased vaccination rates for millions of females in Australia alone, regardless of the rest of the world. HPV is a cash cow for the medical and pharmaceutical industry and looks set to remain so as the fear-mongering about HPV shows no sign of abating.

So what are the facts about HPV? This 2005 article from The Body sheds some light on the matter:

There may be more than 100 kinds of HPV variants, with a few strongly linked to the development of cervical and anal cancer. Because the transmission of these worrisome kinds of HPV are associated with sex, the fight against the virus is becoming increasingly fraught with all of the fears, myths and misinformation that now accompanies any public health response to sexual issues in the United States. With two new vaccines against HPV on the horizon, there are emerging concerns that these weapons may not be effectively deployed due to moral and political objections. HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States. Over 5 million cases are thought to occur each year, with half of all women between the ages 18 to 22 having vaginal infections at some point. The anal infection rate in young gay men is higher still. Infection occurs through skin-to-skin contact -- including areas not covered by condoms -- and warts need not be present for transmission to occur. Most infections are transient and are cleared by the immune system. Of the 40 or so types of HPV that infect the genital and anal regions, those that cause genital warts are deemed "low-risk" whereas those linked to cancer of the cervix or anus are termed "high risk." Types 16 and 18 are the most common high-risk varieties. Most HIV-negative people -- and 90 percent of women -- clear HPV infections within two years, but infections with types 16 and 18 seem to last longer. Studies have consistently found that persistent infection with varieties such as 16 and 18 are a necessary precondition for the development of precancerous lesions. Those who clear the virus are out of danger.

The same article explains that there are two vaccines available: Gardasil from Merck and Cervarix from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). However, as of 2016 GSK seems to have ceded the market to Merck and its 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil 9), which protects against infection from HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. It is recommended that children and adolescents between 9 and 14 years receive two doses of this vaccine and in 2015, about 63% of US girls and about 50% of boys received at least one dose. Not surprisingly, Merck initiated a direct-to-consumer ad campaign to encourage parents to have their children vaccinated (article). Current price of a dose is US $116.22 (link). Merck has no competitors in the HPV vaccine marketplace, it has both a monopoly and the endorsement of all the officially sanctioned oncological organisations in the world. In Australia, if all the two million females on their way to adulthood have two doses, that would represent over US $450 billion dollars in sales. If the boys could be signed on as well, that's getting close to a trillion dollars. Some governments will offset the cost of the vaccinations for children and adolescents (at taxpayers expense) but Merck will still reap the rewards.

If potential sales in a small country like Australia can total close to a trillion dollars then the potential sales worldwide are nothing short of staggering. The resulting influence that Merck can exert on the medical establishment and governments around the world is terrifying and explains why Gardasil will not be disappearing from the marketplace anytime soon. In the United States at least, lawmakers have granted the pharmaceutical industry immunity from prosecution for any ill-effects of vaccines so in the case of Gardasil Merck does not even have to worry about litigation from those harmed by it. The government quietly takes care of that side of things (at taxpayers expense) and often does make payment to the victims of vaccinations (on condition that they keep their mouths shut).

Merck as a company is not concerned with the future health of adolescents. However, the parents of these adolescents are concerned with the future health of their children and preying on this concern is the key to a successful marketing campaign. Firstly, identify a virus such as HPV that has been implicated in the development of a life threatening illness (in this case, the adult onset of cervical cancer, possibly acquired in late adolescence via sexual activity). Secondly, exaggerate the threat that this virus poses to the health of adolescents who become infected. The formula HPV = CERVICAL CANCER works just fine in the same way that HIV = AIDS once used to. Thirdly, develop a vaccine and then get the Medical Mafia and Big Government to endorse it (usually a formality). Lastly, aggressively promote the benefits of the vaccine to brain-washed medical professionals and, via advertising, to brain-dead sheeple. If some parents are reluctant to subject their children to the vaccine, then a stick must be used in place of the carrot. Some countries now are punishing parents financially by withdrawing child support benefits and excluding the children from school if they don't vaccinate their children. This hasn't happened yet with Gardasil but it might.

Here is a link to the Australian Standard Vaccination Schedule with an excerpt shown below:

Alarm as Super Malaria Spreads in South East Asia

This was one headline that caught my eye on today's BBC News. The article begins:

The rapid spread of "super malaria" in South East Asia is an alarming global threat, scientists are warning. This dangerous form of the malaria parasite cannot be killed with the main anti-malaria drugs. It emerged in Cambodia but has since spread through parts of Thailand, Laos and has arrived in southern Vietnam. The team at the Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit in Bangkok said there was a real danger of malaria becoming untreatable. Prof Arjen Dondorp, the head of the unit, told the BBC News website: "We think it is a serious threat. "It is alarming that this strain is spreading so quickly through the whole region and we fear it can spread further [and eventually] jump to Africa."

The news article is based on a letter that appeared in The Lancet Infectious Diseases website this month (October 2017). The letter, quite brief, references four sources, the second of which is referred to as "a sinister development" in which a single dominant artemisinin-resistant P falciparum C580Y mutant lineage has arisen in western Cambodia, outcompeted the other resistant malaria parasites, and subsequently acquired resistance to piperaquine (link). It's a long and detailed scientific article and I'm not competent to assess its validity or significance but I did note that funding for the study came from The Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The multiple authors pointed out that the funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

In fact most of the founding for this Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit comes from The Welcome Trust that describes itself as:

Wellcome exists to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas to thrive.

We’re a global charitable foundation, both politically and financially independent. We support scientists and researchers, take on big problems, fuel imaginations, and spark debate. 

Disturbingly, the organisation lists vaccine development at the top of its list of types of supported projects. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that, when a news article like this appears, some sort of new antimalarial vaccine might be in preparation. The idea would be to promote the threat of a malaria apocalypse (as opposed to an Ebola or Zika apocalypse) to maximise vaccine sales. There's no such new vaccine promised at the moment, but a vaccine does exist. 

The only approved one at the time of writing is RTS,S. It requires four injections, and has a relatively low efficacy (26–50%). Due to low efficacy, WHO does not recommend the use of RTS,S vaccine in babies between 6 and 12 weeks of age. The vaccine is going to be studied further in Africa in 2018. Research continues into recombinant protein and attenuated whole organism vaccines. It was developed by developed by PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Here is a link to an earlier post of mine on a Malaria Vaccine. It seems that this latest article might be an attempt to justify an extension of the trial of the vaccine to South East Asia in addition of Africa. Let's watch developments and see how this alarming global threat unfolds.