The Polypill

Wonderful name and another potential triumph of modern medicine. What is the polypill? Well let this October 13th 2022 article from https://medicalxpress.com/ explain.

Global health has paid a deadly price for not using simple, low-cost blood pressure lowering drugs, statins and aspirin widely in the form of a single pill, also known as the polypill, say two leading cardiologists in a commentary published in The Lancet. Widespread availability of polypills would substantially reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and be affordable for most people globally, says their call-to-action.

"Despite substantial scientific evidence of the high effectiveness, safety and affordability of the polypill, few such combined products are available, and in the few countries where they are available, use is low," says Prof Fausto Pinto, President of the World Heart Federation.

"This systemic failure is a global tragedy, as many premature deaths from CVD could be avoided," says Prof Salim Yusuf, Executive Director of the Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) and Professor Emeritus of Medicine at McMaster University.

About 54 million people suffer from cardiovascular disease every year—a third of them die from CVD—with 80 percent of them living in low-income and middle-income countries.

Most heart attacks and strokes afflict people who have no prior CVD, meaning that primary prevention of the first heart attack or stroke is essential. Secondary prevention for people who already have CVD is also important but does not have the same impact.

"The current strategy for primary and secondary prevention of CVD has only been modestly successful in most countries, including high-income countries. Even in these countries, fewer than half of patients with prior CVD, and fewer than 20% without prior CVD, receive effective preventive treatments," says Prof Yusuf.

The polypill, also known as fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy—with the combination of blood pressure lowering agents, a statin for lowering LDL cholesterol, and low-dose aspirin—was proposed in the early 2000s as a means to reduce CVD substantially and at low cost.

"The answer is now clear and resounding, with data from three independent, large, and long-term trials in primary prevention and one in secondary prevention showing its life-saving significance," says Yusuf, whose various publications have shown that heart attacks and strokes were cut by 35 to 50 percent by using a polypill.

"It is time to use the polypill widely to save millions of lives each year," says Prof Pinto. He and Prof Yusuf recommend the following new strategies:

Encourage large pharmaceutical companies to invest in developing and testing polypills—in particular, newer polypills with larger blood pressure lower effects (such as combining low doses of 3 or 4 classes of drugs with statins and low doses of aspirin). Manufacturing with generic components, and marketing polypills at locally sensitive prices, would ensure affordability while maintaining profitability for the companies, thereby enhancing use by the majority of people around the world.

Include polypills in the WHO's Essential Medicines List, and in guidelines for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD is an important next step. "This would encourage governments and insurance companies, especially in low-income and middle-income countries to include in their formularies, and clinicians to recommend its use," Pinto and Yusuf write.

Combine the polypill with lifestyle advice for CVD prevention delivered by trained non-physician health workers (NPHWs)—not meant as a replacement for physicians who can use their advanced skills on managing individuals with more complex conditions—thus a combined strategy that would help many more people.

Clearly the time has never been more opportune to push these polypills given the "fallout" from the Covid vaccinations. The time-worn trick is being played again, exacerbate an existing problem via pharmaceuticals and then propose a pharmacological solution. To quote from the article:

Encourage large pharmaceutical companies to invest in developing and testing polypills ...

Let's not forget the WHO. To quote again:

Include polypills in the WHO's Essential Medicines List

These are the sorts of solutions that one would expect from the medical establishment.  No investigation into the reasons for the uptick in CVD, just a new pill. Stay healthy and cheat death (for a while at least) with the help of BIG PHARMA.

The Fuster-CNIC-Ferrer cardiovascular polypill combines three drugs into one pill to make it easier
for patients to comply with secondary cardiovascular prevention therapy. Link.

I think we'll be seeing more of polypills in the future. Here's an October 13th 2022 headline from CNN Health:

Combination ‘polypills’ can help solve world’s heart problems, experts say, if more people can get them

Well, the "experts" are saying so you'd better listen. The pharmaceutical companies will need to come up with new patented drugs to pack into these polypills so as to make them as expensive as possible. As usual, third world countries will need to spend money allocated to their health care budgets to buy these new medications along with all the other crap that the WHO is foisting on them. Even if you're feeling well and are young and seemingly healthy, you'll be encouraged to take them as a prophylactic. The more young people that keep dropping dead on sporting fields or dying in their sleep, the more people will opt to take them. Most of the elderly are already dependent on several medications and will need no persuasion to use them.

Panic Stations

The WHO never rests because the battle against pathogens is never ending. An interesting article appeared in IFLSCIENCE on November 3rd 2021 with the title:

Vaccine Urgently Needed For Bacteria Killing 

150,000 Babies Annually, WHO Reports

In this post, I'll dissect the article and add some comments. It begins:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has called for the development of a vaccine against Group B streptococcus (GBS), a common bacteria implicated in the deaths of around 150,000 babies each year.

This translates to:

PROBLEM: GBS is killing 150,000 babies per year

REACTION: How can we prevent these deaths?

SOLUTION: A vaccine must be developed

We'll return to this problem, reaction, solution in a moment. The article goes on to highlight the dangerous nature of this pathogen.

In their report, issued November 2, the WHO revealed the global burden of GBS is much higher than previously thought. As well as the aforementioned alarming number of newborn deaths, the bacterium is also linked to over half a million preterm births and at least 46,000 stillbirths a year – though the real numbers are likely even higher, as there are significant data gaps around the total burden of death and disease.

“This new research shows that Group B strep is a major and under-appreciated threat to newborn survival and wellbeing, bringing devastating impacts for so many families globally. WHO joins partners in calling for urgent development of a maternal GBS vaccine, which would have profound benefits in countries worldwide,” Dr Phillipp Lambach, Medical Officer from WHO’s Immunisation, Vaccines and Biologicals department, and report author, said in a statement.

Now comes the kicker. We learn the GBS is "harmless" and forms part of the microbiome of about 15% of mothers giving birth. 

GBS is harmless for most who carry it. An average of 15 percent of pregnant people – nearly 20 million per year – carry the bacterium in their vagina. While this is usually asymptomatic, GBS can pass to babies during pregnancy, childbirth, or in the early weeks of life, which can be extremely serious. The bacterium is linked to neonatal and newborn meningitis and sepsis, both of which can be fatal, and can result in neuro-developmental impairment and congenital defects.

However, these mothers can pass the bacteria on to their babies before, during and after birth. One might expect that the mother's immunity to the deleterious effects of GBS would be passed on to her child. Given half a chance this might happen but medical intervention will ensure that this probably does not happen. The article explains that:

Currently, antibiotic therapy is used to treat cases in infants and parents. Antibiotics are also used as a precaution to prevent GBS and are administered during labor to parents in whom the bacterium has been detected. However, the risk still remains high.

“Prevention of early onset GBS is possible in countries where it is policy,” Professor Joy Lawn, Director of the Maternal Adolescent Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and contributor to the report told IFLScience. “However, even with high use of GBS test and treat in pregnancy, GBS stillbirths and GBS-associated preterm birth will not be likely to be prevented by antibiotics.”

So we learn that a test has been devised to detect this "harmless" pathogen that can easily turn deadly and a positive test means that a course of antibiotics is administered to the expectant mother, ensuring that her microbiome is devastated before giving birth.

Where does GBS take its highest toll? We learn that:

This is the case across the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of GBS was the greatest. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, rates of maternal GBS are the highest in the world – accounting for almost half of the global burden. Eastern and South-Eastern Asia are also disproportionally affected.

In other words, GBS strikes in those countries where sanitation and nutrition is poorest. Here we might reframe our previous problem, reaction, solution:

PROBLEM: GBS is killing 150,000 babies per year in low and middle income countries

REACTION: How can we prevent these deaths?

SOLUTION: Let's improve sanitation, nutrition and the health infrastructure of these countries.

Of course, this is never a solution in the eyes of the WHO. The current solution of administering antibiotics is not a big money spinner and so the inevitable is proposed:

A preventative maternal vaccine, therefore, is urgently needed, the WHO says. Several candidates are in the pipeline, but none are available yet, despite almost 40 years of work.

“The idea for a maternal GBS vaccine was suggested about 4 decades ago, but is only in the last decade that more progress has been made,” Prof. Lawn told IFLScience.

Boosting natural immunity is never an option. Where potential pathogens are involved, a vaccine must be sought and it seems that one or more of them are nearly here.

“One hexavalent [six-in-one] vaccine is entering phase 3 trials in humans... Then following is a protein based one.” A few, including an mRNA vaccine, are in pre-clinical trials, she added.

The miracle that is modern medicine may soon produce an mRNA vaccine to combat GBS. Given the devastating effects of this bacterium, the vaccine may well receive emergency approval before the trials are even concluded. It may well be administered to all expectant mothers, just in case. It may well be mandated for any woman entering hospital to give birth. We learn that the benefits are financial as well:

Promising as this is, the report highlights the urgency of the situation and calls for vaccine developers and funders to accelerate the development of a safe and effective GBS vaccine. An estimated 50,000 GBS-related deaths, as well as over 170,000 preterm births, could be prevented every year if said vaccine reached 70 percent of pregnant people. The benefits would not only be health-focused but also financial – the report claims that between $1 billion and $17 billion could be saved worldwide from just a year of maternal GBS vaccination.

No mention of the profits to Big Pharma of course. These vaccines are being developed for the benefit of humanity, to save the babies. Anyone who questions their administration is clearly a monster. The article concludes:

“A new maternal vaccine against GBS would be a game-changer in the reduction of newborn and maternal deaths for the most affected countries,” Dr Martina Lukong Baye, Coordinator of the National Multisector Programme to Combat Maternal, Newborn & Child Mortality at the Ministry of Public Health in Cameroon, said. “We plead to all stakeholders to treat this as a matter of moral priority.”

Wow, so it's a moral priority to develop a vaccine that can be administered to pregnant women. It's not hard to understand the game being played here and yet it will be almost impossible to stop it. Big Pharma will aggressively promote it, Big Medicine will enthusiastically embrace it, and Big Media will sing its praises. Big Government may even mandate it.

This is just another example of the medical madness that has overtaken global health. Confusingly, GBS is also an acronym not only for Group B streptococcus but also for Guillain-Barré syndrome, a known side-effect of the Covid mRNA vaccines. In any case, once again we have a manufactured crisis with a pre-planned solution.

Tweets from the Twitterverse

Let's start with a quote from today's Twitter feed:

Many fail to realize MOST alt-narratives are captured. It's designed that way. People given the spotlight who are deemed to be "stepping outside" the main narrative are just as likely, if not more, to be tasked with corralling the resistance, looping them back into the game.

This is something that Brendon O'Connell constantly points out and this tweet reminds us that some alternative media narratives (and personalities) are created and promoted by intelligence agencies that have a long history of infiltrating, controlling and if needs be, undermining, what they regard as the opposition.

The alternative media needs to be viewed with the same skepticism as the mainstream media, probably more so because we are emotionally primed to accept what the former is telling us and more likely to suspend our critical faculties. I've written before about how flat earthers aligned themselves with 9/11 truthers, so as to damage the credibility of that movement. 

Sometimes these suspect alternative media sites serve to distract us from deeper issues. At other times they simply promote division, pitting those on one side of an issue against those on another, and it's sad how many are absorbed in this tweedledum-tweedledee dichotomy. This tactic is especially prominent in the political arena.

The intelligence community has specialised for decades in psyops or psychological operations and it has become highly skilled at it. It helps enormously of course to have the mainstream media uncritically spewing forth scripted propaganda to support these operations. 

Another tweet that caught my attention was the following:

I assure you, if it requires coercion, manipulation, gaslighting, 24/7 advertising, fear-mongering, silencing of dissenting opinions and experts, slandering of alternative options, tons of incentives, and indemnification from liability, then it isn’t required for health.

Obvious of course but sometimes it helps just to spell it out. The current propaganda campaign promoting the vaccine uptake is probably the most sustained and pervasive ever attempted. At the same time, the pandemic drama serves as a powerful distraction. It diverts attention from the massive transfer of wealth to a tiny elite that are profiting enormously from the current crisis.

At the end of the day however, no matter what the distractions, it's all about CONTROL:

• control over your wealth 
• control over your health
• control over what you eat
• control over your energy consumption
• control over your behaviour 
• control over reproduction
• control over where you travel
• control over history
• control over information
• control over language

Whatever else might contribute to your autonomy and freedom of choice will be controlled as well. Every aspect of your daily life will be monitored and evaluated, and contribute to your social credit score. 

Root Canals: Drilling For Dollars

The dental procedure known as root canal has become ubiquitous. Even if a person hasn't been subjected to it, that person is bound to know someone who has.

I never suspected that there were any health dangers associated with the procedure until one days, years ago, I did a simple search on the Internet linking root canal and health problems. Of course, a lot of the results addressed the potential health problems that a root canal could remedy. However, there were others that warned about its risks. Here is a 2015 video in which a person who underwent the procedure talks about the consequences to her health:

Generally, it's difficult to link later health problems directly to root canal because their onset may take years to manifest. You might think that, unlike vaccinations, this dental money-maker is performed only on adult teeth but you'd be wrong. Here is a quote from a pediatric dentistry website:

Root canal treatment is a safe and effective way to stop many kinds of tooth pain, and to keep a tooth from being lost due to decay or injury. But if a root canal is recommended for your young child, you may wonder why: Isn't that baby tooth going to fall out in a few years anyway? 

That's true — the primary (baby) teeth typically are shed between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Yet there are some good reasons for trying to save baby teeth for as long as possible with root canal treatment, rather than simply extracting any that are damaged by trauma or infection. 

For one, primary teeth have the same functions as adult teeth — and a missing tooth at any age can cause problems with speech and eating. Baby teeth also have another important role: They serve as guides for the proper placement of the permanent teeth. 

Without primary teeth to guide them in, permanent teeth tend to emerge in a crooked fashion, often becoming tilted or crowded because of inadequate space. This can result in bite problems that may require extensive orthodontic treatment later.

The 2007 scandal in the United States surrounding Small Smiles, a chain of Medicaid dental clinics for children, is an extreme example of how the lust for profits from baby root canals can get out of hand. To quote from the news article:

Parents weren’t allowed to sit with their children during treatment. Young children were routinely strapped to papoose boards, immobilised with Velcro straps. And she showed me a bonus check for beating production goals while acknowledging that she, like other dental staff, conducted x-rays on children even though they weren’t certified, a clear violation of Maryland law.

The key danger with root canal is the potential for bacteria, especially anaerobic, to proliferate in the tubules of the dentine and to later spread throughout the body. It would be a rare dentist who would ever warn a recipient of this danger. Like vaccinations, there is simply too much money to be made for the practice to be overturned anytime soon. The following story deserves to be quoted in full because it shows that some oral surgeons at least are aware of the dangers posed by root canals:

Root Canals and Heart Disease: My Personal Story

By: Dr. David Friedman

We’ve all known or heard of someone who died suddenly of a heart attack for no apparent reason. That 50 year old neighbour, seemingly healthy with no history of cardiovascular disease, found dead in his back yard after having a massive heart attack. What if this deadly heart attack could have been prevented by a simple visit to a dentist? Sadly, I could have been that man found dead on his lawn, had it not been for a dentist who saved my life. 

Those that know me say I make the energiser bunny look lethargic. I wake up each morning with vigour and I always embrace the day with zest. I believe in seizing life to its fullest. About a year ago that all changed. My zig no longer zagged. I started going to bed tired and waking up even more exhausted. I was experiencing headaches and having a hard time concentrating. I went to see my doctor who did a complete physical and he discovered I had developed high blood pressure!! What?! How could that be possible? I’m a nutritionist. I eat clean and I exercise regularly. When the results of my blood test came back, I learned that I had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP). CRP is produced by the liver and rises when there is inflammation throughout the body. CRP is considered one of the major predictors of a future heart attack. My CRP measured a staggering 9.8 mg/L! Anything above 3.0 is considered a very high risk for heart attack and stroke. 

The body produces CRP during the general process of inflammation which is why it is called the “marker” for inflammation in the body. Your level of CRP is a good indicator of how at risk you are for developing cardiovascular problems.   In fact, research shows CRP predicts cardiovascular risk more accurately than a person’s cholesterol levels. Data from the Physicians Health Study, a clinical trial involving 18,000 apparently healthy doctors, found that elevated levels of CRP were associated with a 300% increase in the risk of heart attack. 

In addition to an elevated CRP, my white blood cell levels were also high, meaning my body was clearly fighting some type of infection. This internal inflammation was causing a chronic low grade fever, high blood pressure of 170/110; normally my levels are 120/82, and a resting heart rate of 90; normally I’m at 50. With all these factors, I had “the perfect storm” for a massive heart attack! I immediately went to a cardiologist who performed a stress test, EKG and a nuclear heart scan. The findings showed my heart was normal and I had no blockage whatsoever. This was great news; however, I was anything but normal. As the months progressed, I felt even more miserable! No one could give me any answers. I only knew my body was suffering from systemic inflammation but I had no idea why. 

Then one day while at a writer’s convention in California I met a dentist named Dr. P. Piero, from Michigan. He had just authored a book and was sharing it with me. As I thumbed through the pages, I noticed a section on C- reactive protein.  I asked him why a dental book would have a section on this inflammatory marker? What he told me next would finally bring answers on why I was having so many health issues. Dr. Piero told me that the number one cause of elevated CRP is a bacterial infection in the gums (i.e. a tooth abscess). This creates inflammation inside the gums, which enters the blood stream and travels throughout the body. I explained to him that I did not have any tooth pain so this couldn’t be the culprit. He then asked me if I have had any root canals? I told him I’ve had three. Dr. Piero shared that in a root-canaled tooth, the nerve is destroyed so I may feel no pain. 

When I got back home, I made an appointment with an Endodontist who discovered one of my root-canaled teeth was so badly abscessed it had eaten away part of my jaw bone! I made an appointment with an oral surgeon who had to extract the entire tooth and cut out the infection in my jaw bone using a tiny saw. The excruciating pain I experienced was beyond words! He would later pack cadaver bone inside the hole in my jaw, which will need to sit for approximately 6 months before I can get a dental implant. 

The oral surgeon that performed the procedure explained that a root-canaled tooth is essentially “dead” which makes it silent incubators for highly toxic bacteria which can make their way into the bloodstream leading to a number of serious medical conditions—many not appearing until decades later.  Within two days of having this failed root canal removed, I felt alive again! My energy, drive, endurance was back to normal! My heart rate and blood pressure were normal. After getting another blood test, I was happy to see my CRP was now at a normal level of 1.4 mg/L! 

If you are told by your dentist that you need a root canal, there is a safer alternative. Instead of opting to keep a dead tooth that will rot in your mouth, opt for a dental implant. Trust me, it’s MUCH cheaper in the long run and safer! Had I not met Dr. Piero, I feel certain I would have ended up a healthy nutritionist found dead in my yard from a fatal heart attack. 

The next time you go to your doctor ask him to check your CRP level.  I believe this should be a routine part of everyone’s annual physical. There are two tests for CRP. One can show a non-specific elevation of CRP that occurs with general inflammatory changes in the body; the other test is called hs-CRP – highly sensitive CRP – which is a measure of inflammation in blood vessels. This is the test needed to help establish heart disease risk. Thankfully, more and more doctors are realising the importance of measuring hs-CRP levels along with cholesterol to determine the risk of heart disease and to evaluate disease progression and prognosis in those who already have cardiovascular disease. Be sure and ask your doctor for this test to determine if you are at risk.

I was about to quote from an article that appeared on a website belonging to the Toxic Elements Research Foundation (TERF), a non-profit research foundation dedicated to stimulating interest in the research community as well as informing the public to become aware of potential problems associated with dental materials and procedures. However, closer inspection revealed that TERF was simply a very basic website, last updated in 2009, and the work of a single person by the name of Jamie Tolle. There were good quotes to be had from the site and reference was made to a ground-breaking "study" that was soon to be released to a waiting world. However, it was clear that there was no research foundation. Sources always need to be checked.

The cruel reality is that, just as with vaccinations, there is no research being carried about the long-term effects of root canals. Where would the funding for this come from? There are too many vested interests involved to get anything meaningful research off the ground. It's medical orthodoxy that vaccinations are safe. Doctors who question that do so at their professional peril and it's dental orthodoxy that root canals are safe. Dentists who question that do so at their professional peril. Of course, not many will question the procedure, because it's never raised as an issue in their training.

OVERDIAGNOSIS

It's was refreshing to read something this morning from the Medical Mafia, reported in the Brisbane Times, that makes some sense. It came from Australia's Chief Medical Officer Professor Brendan Murphy who said about overdiagnosis in the medical profession:

(it is) "a significant issue in all countries with advanced health systems. We know harm can come from overdiagnosis,” Professor Murphy said, from causing undue anxiety and labelling people with stigmatising disorders, to serious adverse effects from unnecessary aggressive or invasive treatments. There is no doubt we need some sort of approach to address it.

The Brisbane Times article goes on to say that:

Overdiagnosis is exposing healthy people to tests and treatments that are at best useless, and at worst trigger aggressive procedures with devastating side effects, a formidable alliance of peak doctors colleges, researchers, advocates and public health experts warned. 

The alliance - forged by the Wiser Healthcare research collaboration - is developing a world-first national action plan to curb overdiagnosis across the medical spectrum, from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to cancer. Reversing the harms of too much medicine was becoming a healthcare priority, members of the emerging alliance wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday.

The Wiser Healthcare collaboration states that:

Wiser Healthcare is a research collaboration involving The University of Sydney, Bond University, Monash University and international colleagues. We investigate the cause and size of the problem and test new solutions, in the areas of cancer, cardiovascular disease and musculoskeletal disorders, with a particular focus on overdiagnosis caused by imaging (like CT scans and MRI scans), testing biomarkers (for example, blood tests like the Prostate Specific Antigen test), and genetic tests. Here you can find out about our plans, read our work, see the evidence about overdiagnosis, and get help to make decisions, whether you are a clinician, policymaker, or citizen considering your own healthcare.

There's clearly no plans to address the scourge of vaccinations but at least it's a start. What it will achieve actually however, remains to be seen. At least the issue is being discussed and advice given to prospective victims of overdiagnosis. Here is some advice that is offered:

Keeping it short 

Short questions that have been shown to improve the quality of information that doctors provide about treatment options: 

What are my options?
What are the possible benefits and harms of those options?
How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?
What will happen if I do nothing? 

Choosing Wisely 

Questions recommended by the Choosing Wisely organisation in Australia, to help avoid unnecessary tests and treatments: 

Do I really need this test, treatment or procedure?
What are the risks?
Are there simpler, safer options?
What happens if I don’t do anything?
What are the costs?

The Choosing Wisely organisation professes to be helping healthcare providers and consumers start important conversations about improving the quality of healthcare by eliminating unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests, treatments, and procedures. It is facilitated by NPS MEDICINEWISE that purports to be making Australia more medicinewise, through digital health and data insights, health professional education and reliable health information for consumers.

The authors of the MJA Perspective wrote:

Cultural beliefs that more tests and treatments were always better, financial incentives to diagnose and treat in the health system and increasingly sensitive diagnostic technologies detecting minor abnormalities were likely major drivers of overdiagnosis. 

Doctors’ cognitive biases and the fears that they might miss something, coupled with the public’s expectation that the clinicians should “do something” also fed overdiagnosis.

Of course, there will be immediate reactions from those medical areas that feel threatened:

Chief executive of Cancer Council Australia Sanchia Aranda said any moves to curb overdiagnosis must not undermine national screening programs and the benefits of early detection. 

 Here is the link to the MJA article and also a link to some information about Alan Cassels (his website at www.alancassels.com doesn't seem to be working). This is some information taken from the footnotes to a YouTube video which I just watched and which I've embedded below:

Alan Cassels has been immersed in pharmaceutical policy research and healthcare journalism for the past 23 years, mostly studying and writing about how prescription drugs are regulated, marketed, prescribed and used. His niche is in exposing the large gap between the marketing and the science around prescription drugs, medical screening and other forms of disease creation. His books include Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies are Turning us All into Patients (co-written with Ray Moynihan), The ABCs of Disease Mongering: An Epidemic in 26 Letters, and Seeking Sickness: Medical Screening and the Misguided Hunt for Disease.

An Acne Vaccine?

There are seemingly no limits to the vaccine madness that has taken hold of the world. This article in today's online edition of The Jakarta Post reports on a study in the United States that looked into the possibility of vaccination to prevent acne.

"Current treatment options are often not effective or tolerable for many of the 85 percent of adolescents and more than 40 million adults in the United States who suffer from this condition," Huang said. "New, safe and efficient therapies are sorely needed."

Despite the damage caused to adolescents by Gardasil, the pharmaceutical companies would of course love to be able to promote an anti-acne vaccine to such a huge market. As with the production of all vaccines, clinical trials of potential candidates would be limited if not overtly fraudulent. The safety of vaccines will always be secondary to the need to maximise profits.

There's further information about a potential vaccine here. Having suffered from acne myself as a youth, I would have welcomed a cure and would have opted for a vaccine had one been available. Of course back in those days, I thought vaccines were safe and beneficial. I didn't much the safety of vaccines or the need for them until much later in life. My parents never questioned the vaccine propaganda of the times and told me how the polio vaccine had stopped the terrifying spread of poliomyelitis. This vaccine that I received was later found to be contaminated with a cancer-causing virus of simian origin.

I often wonder whether my youngest brother's acoustic neuroma wasn't caused by the additional vaccines that he received because he was born in 1960, eleven years after me. He was around four years of age when he suddenly developed strabismus.

I remember my mother being quite shocked at the discovery because this was certainly not something that he had from birth. This sudden onset of strabismus in toddlers and children is a classic sign of brain damage caused by the aluminium in vaccines as outlined in Forest Maready's book Crooked B (see my post about this). When my brother was diagnosed with his brain tumour (acoustic neuroma) at age 19, the doctors were of the opinion that, because of its size, it had been growing since he was two years of age. Of course, no one will ever know if his tumour was caused by vaccine damage but I am highly suspicious that this was the reason.

Link

Even after reading Maready's book, it was only now when writing this blog post that I remembered my own brother's sudden onset strabismus. That's how conditioned I was to not connect his condition to vaccine damage. Certainly at the time, there was never any question that his condition had been precipitated by a recent vaccination. It was just accepted and he suddenly had to wear spectacles with a patch over one of the lenses so that his misaligned eye would be encouraged to straighten up. While Tony's strabismus was the result of damage to the muscles controlling eye movement, his tumour may have been the result of impairment to the nerves related to hearing and balance.

It's too late now to know what his vaccination schedule was back then. The clinic where he would have received his shots is still there, I suspect, but my brother would have to request access to his records if they are available. He's not likely to do that and in fact he dutifully receives his flu shots every year and seems to have complete faith in the medical "profession". Almost certainly however, my brother was a victim of a war on his well-being. It is a war that was only ramping up when he was at his most vulnerable but it is now in full swing and gaining momentum.

Malaria Vaccine

"Because the way each person's body deals with the disease is different and we can't predict what you will do if you get exposed to the disease," According to a BBC News report, "the world's first vaccine against malaria will be introduced in three countries - Ghana, Kenya and Malawi - starting in 2018." Three doses are required, spaced three months apart, and then a fourth dose eighteen months later. Without the fourth dose, the benefits decline rapidly. As it is, the vaccine benefits less than four in ten children. The pilot will involve 750,000 children of whom half will get the vaccinations. The funding is coming from the usual suspects:

• Gavi - The Vaccine Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation)
• Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria
• Unitaid
• WHO (World Health Organisation)
• GSK (GlaxoSmithKline)

An earlier article in The Guardian dated 30th June 2016 is less positive:

As the vaccine wears off, the study shows that children living in areas where there is high transmission of the disease end up with more infections than those who have never had a jab – known as the malaria rebound effect. Unvaccinated children – if they survive malaria – develop some natural immunity over the years.

One has to be skeptical of yet another vaccine being added to the hefty number that children already receive. How effective will be the collection and collation of the data relating to 750,000 children in these countries? The pilot involves a control group of 375,00 who get no vaccinations and the same number in the vaccinated group whose vaccine regime extends over 27 months.

To quote from The Guardian article again:

Dr David Kaslow, vice-president for product development at Path, a non-profit international organisation that has been a key player with the pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline, said up to six doses could be needed to maintain the protective effect.

Six doses of a vaccine? With this in mind, one would suppose that this vaccine, rolled out across Africa and South East Asia, would be a big money spinner for the pharmaceutical companies involved. If the benefits are dubious, well so what and given the reported rebound effect, drawbacks may outweigh benefits. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has a long history of criminal activity so this company's involvement in anything should be enough to raise suspicions.

Developing countries are an excellent venue for testing out new vaccines. GSK was convicted for killing 14 babies during vaccine trials in Argentina in 2012. It was fined less than US $100,000 for the offences (source). The problem with vaccines is not the vaccines themselves but the way they are brought to market. The pharmaceutical companies oversee the trials, there is little independent testing because of the expense involved. They lobby governments to push the vaccines via the healthcare infrastructure in various countries. If they can persuade governments to mandate the vaccine, all the better. They ensure that mainstream media carries news of the supposed benefits of vaccines.

The more sophisticated the health care services of a country, the more warmly vaccines are embraced. In developing countries, there is well-deserved skepticism about the benefits of vaccinations but not so in countries like Australia. The elderly dutifully line up for their flu shots. From neonate to teenager, the young are subjected to a plethora of shots to protect them allegedly from a dangerous, pathogen-filled world. Any reservations about the number of vaccines received or their scheduling is howled down as being a matter for health care professionals to decide. Of course, any criticisms from within the health care community are rare and any person bold enough to voice concerns risks ostracism from her or his fellow professionals. There seems to be no middle ground. One is either for or against vaccines.

ABC News recently carried this news article: Are you an unvaccinated adult? Here's what you need to know about catching up. The article goes on to suggest the following:

• MMR — measles, mumps, rubella — approximately $35.00 per dose
• Varicella (chicken pox) — approximately $80.00 per dose
• Hepatitis B — approximately $20.00 per dose
• Poliomyelitis (polio) — approximately $39.99 per dose
• Tetanus/whooping cough/diphtheria — approximately $45.00 per dose
• Influenza (flu) — approximately $20.00
• Hepatitis A — approximately $65.00 per dose
• Human Papillomavirus (HPV/Gardasil) — approximately $200.00 per dose
• Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib) — approximately $24.95 per dose
• Meningococcal C — approximately $100.00 per dose

This amounts to well over A$600. The government will actually cover these costs for an individual up until the age of 20, which means that taxpayers are footing the bill. One comment by a doctor in the article is revealing: Because the way each person's body deals with the disease is different and we can't predict what you will do if you get exposed to the disease. This observation could be applied equally well to vaccines. It's clear that in certain individuals the reaction to a vaccination can be unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic. The argument always is that the benefits of vaccines outweigh their drawbacks. For those who suffer catastrophic reactions, this is of little comfort.

Can it be that vaccines are less about public health and more about private profits? What happens when we follow the money trail? The following quote from ENCOGNITIVE.COM is revealing:

The vaccine industry was worth about $23 billion in 2014 and expected to reach $42 billion by 2020. That's big business. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole is BIG Business, thus the moniker Big Pharma. Below are some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, as of October, 2014. After looking at these numbers, you'll understand why they're called BIG Pharma and how it is that they're able to steer and dictate public health policies. Almost every single public policy pertaining to drugs and vaccines was drafted by the pharmaceutical industry--it is able to do this by showering money on those it seeks to influence.
Big Pharma's sphere of influence extends from journalists to doctors: 

• TV Networks (advertising),
• Scientists (research grants),
• Researchers (research grants, salary),
• Doctors (kickbacks, consulting fees, prescriptions, legal bribery),
• Government Bureaucrats (revolving door, stock options),
• Universities and Colleges (endowments, research grants, tuition sponsorships)
• Public Health Officials (revolving door, stock options),
• Politicians (campaign contributions, revolving door),
• Journalists (paid stipends, through TV network owners)
• Consumers (mass advertising, fear-mongering/scare tactics through media).

Of course, if fears of a pandemic can be heightened to the point of hysteria, then vaccines can be fast-tracked and administered to all who are gullible enough to take them. Here are the big players in the pharmaceutical game (from ENCOGNITIVE.COM):

Big Pharma by the Numbers 

Sanofi
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $42 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $138 billion
Headquarter: Paris, France
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), Euronext 

GlaxoSmithKline
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $24 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $106 billion
Headquarter: Brentwood, England
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), London 

Merck
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $42 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $156 billion
Headquarter: Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Johnson & Johnson
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $76 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $280 billion
Headquarter: New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Eli Lilly and Co.
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $21 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $70 billion
Headquarter: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Novartis
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $56 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $237 billion
Headquarter: Basel, Switzerland
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), SIX (Swiss Exchange) 

Astellas
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): N/A
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): 3.52 trillion Yen
Headquarter: Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Stock exchange: TKO (Tokyo Stock Exchange) 

Roche Holding Ltd.
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $90 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $246 billion
Headquarter: Basel, Switzerland
Stock exchange: OTCMKTS, SIX (Swiss Exchange) 

Pfizer Inc 
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $47 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $177 billion
Headquarter: New York, New York, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

The first legal duty of a public listed company: maximise profit for shareholders.