In essence, society’s attention has become focused on vaccination, focused solely on this health treatment. But TREATMENT is not what creates health, treatment is what changes or manages a persons’ symptoms of poor health. Instead of focusing solely on the treatment, there needs to be a shift. We need to evaluate the treatment in the context of the whole - what is working about the treatment? What needs improving? What is failing completely? How does the treatment affect evolution of the species? And how can health be supported moving forward so that the treatment is no longer needed?
Canada
United States

May 18, 2018

March 30, 2017

Please reload

Recent Posts

Table of Contents

May 18, 2018

1/1
Please reload

Featured Posts

The Pharmaceutical Reach: Part 4 of 14 - The CDC

 

 Watch Robert F Kennedy Jr say the above quote Here

 

Feel free to jump to the heading "The CDC" below, everything stated until then is a repeat of what was written on the first post.

 

When it comes to products that are available for purchase, there are many safety nets that are established, to protect consumers from dangerous products, and to ensure that products are designed, manufactured, and distributed in such a way that potential harms can be more easily minimized, and/or identified more quickly once in distribution. Unfortunately, there are shortcomings in many of these consumer safety nets, or industry has found a way to bypass some of those protective measures. As a result, unsafe products continue to be made and distributed widely. What’s more unique to vaccines though, is that every single safety net that was established to protect people and ensure product safety, all those protective measures have actually all been neutralized by the pharmaceutical industry. This neutralization has happened either by direct financial funding from pharma, or indirectly through Governmental conflicts of interest that affect internal policy, bureaucracy, and legislation. But before explaining how the consumer protective safety nets have been neutralized when it comes to vaccines, I’ll first list what those protective measures were, or should be. (Bolding in the list below denotes which topic point will be discussed in this article).

 

The consumer safety nets for vaccine products are:

  1. Government and our political leaders who represent the people

  2. Federal agencies that oversee vaccine regulation, research, safety, and distribution: These agencies include: Health and Human Services, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), The Institute of Medicine (IOM). Yes, these agencies are all based in the United States, however their policy are often adopted on a global scale.

  3. Scientific research and medical journals

  4. Our doctors and the institutions where they are educated and employed

  5. VAERS

  6. The media

  7. The legal system
     

Safety Net #2: The Federal Agencies (HHS, FDA, CDC, IOM) that oversee everything about vaccines, including vaccine regulation, vaccine safety, vaccine research, and vaccine distribution. In this post, we will be discussing the role that the CDC plays in protecting the public from unsafe vaccines, and how the CDC has been compromised by pharmaceutical financial influence.

 

The CDC

An issue that has been pointed out often, which affects all big industries and is not specific to only the pharmaceutical industry, is that it is normal for government officials to leave government and move into prominent positions within the private sector.

 

For the average lay person, this may seem like not a big deal, but this situation can pose a serious issue. Some private positions pay handsomely, and if you're in government, in a regulation capacity, your job is to either monitor that industry, or conduct research which may negatively affect that industry. If your position requires you to monitor that industry, sometimes that monitoring requires you to say "No" or penalize them. Publishing unfavourable drug research, monitoring industry, saying no or penalizing them, could cost the industry millions or billions of dollars in profit. If a government official is considering employment in the private sector, are they going to be willing to do their job properly, following the research through even if it shows unfavourably for a pharmaceutical product, will they be willing to say no or penalize the industry, when doing so would cost their prospective employer millions or billions of dollars. Doing so likely would jeopardize future employment with them. The government recognizes that there is considerable incentive for officials to not do the right thing in those instances, and policies have been established to try to minimize that from happening.

 

Dr. Julie Gerberding was the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009. Upon her resignation she was required to wait one year and a day before accepting a position within industry, at Merck. She waited as required. In 2010 she began a new career as president of Merck Vaccines. In accepting that position she likely received a bigger salary, and as part of her employment package she was given 70,000 Merck shares. In 2015 she sold just over half of those shares, for $2.3 million. 

 

In an interview she gave for students at Harvard Public School of Health, something she said alluded to the reality that many government officials move to Merck. She had the following to say (emphasis mine):

There are a lot of people from CDC who work at Merck Vaccines. And there is the same kind of passion for science. And the same kind of passion for public health. So in a sense, it feels kind of like a very academic environment. 

 

And I don't know enough about the whole company or the whole pharmaceutical industry to know if that's common or unique to the vaccine area. But I certainly feel comfortable there. And the scientists that I work with in my new role are as passionate and as smart as the scientists that I worked with in my old role. So it feels pretty comfortable.


If you recall back to Safety & Efficacy - Part 14, you will remember the story about Dr. William Thompson the CDC whistleblower. Of course Dr. Julie Gerberding was alleged to be a central participating figure in that story.

 

To recap, Dr. Thompson was part of a research team that looked into an MMR vaccine/autism connection. The research was published in 2004. Dr. Thompson has since come forward stating that their analysis based on the original study data revealed an increased risk of autism in African American boys who were vaccinated on time, according to the recommended CDC vaccination schedule. In the documentary Vaxxed, which used recorded phone calls with Dr. Thompson, we learn that the CDC research team destroyed data and altered the study design, to make it appear there wasn't an increased risk of autism. Dr. Thompson explains that he and his CDC co-workers committed scientific fraud, which is obviously a pretty serious crime. He shared documents with Congress, documents which show that at that time when they were actively committing fraud, he was so concerned about what was happening that he broke chain of command and went directly to Julie Gerberding. He wrote Dr. Gerberding stating he felt compelled to tell the truth and not go along with the scientific fraud. Dr. Gerberding did nothing about it, and afterwards Dr. Thompson was actually reprimanded for speaking to her. So Dr. Gerberding was aware of the scientific fraud her employees were committing, she had the employee that spoke out punished, and she did nothing further to stop the fraud. As the highest ranking representative of CDC, that makes her the most responsible and accountable. Yet she used her position of power to show her employees that they must remain complicit in illegal activities, if they want to keep their job.

 

In the interview that Dr. Gerberding gave to the Harvard students, she stated (emphaisis mine):

It's really hard for experts, and it's very hard for politicians to say, I wish I had an answer to that today but I don't. But here's what we're doing to try to get you that information as quickly as we can.

 

That kind of just candid telling the truth is not something that necessarily comes naturally. And I remember the first time I was in a hearing and somebody asked me a question, I said, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that. I'll try to get the answer to you when I can, but I don't have it.

 

And I saw my staffers sitting behind me writing notes like, oh my goodness, you never say you don't know. Pass this forward, get her some [INAUDIBLE]. But it was the truth. I didn't know. And I would rather say I didn't know then to try to bluff my way through it.

 

Though she explains that's it's important to share an unpleasant truth, I guess she feels the exception to that is for vaccines. From 2001 to 2004, Dr. Gerberding was aware that Dr. Thompson and his research team were behind closed doors committing scientific fraud, trying to make the MMR/autism connection go away, Dr. Gerberding demonstrated through her non-action then, that she felt it was best to "bluff" through and not tell the truth. To date, that CDC produced MMR/autism paper (the DeStefano et al 2004 paper -  Frank DeStefano was the lead author) is still used to exonerate the MMR vaccine of causing autism. Dr. Thompson explains this paper is actually a lie.

 

Take note, the MMR vaccine is manufactured by Merck. I'm sure Merck was pretty grateful that the CDC refused to publish the analysis of the original data, data which showed that African American boys vaccinated on time with MMR vaccine actually had higher rates of autism compared to boys who received that vaccine later. Based on that, and maybe other factors, it seems that Merck recognized Dr. Gerberding as a deserving and esteemed individual. Consequently, when she left the CDC, Merck offered her a multi-million dollar position as their President of Merck Vaccines.

 

When the DeStefano et al 2004 paper was published, another important review conducted by the Institute of Medicine was coming to an end. This review, titled Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism was published in May 2004. Dr. Dave Weldon, a politician in Florida, was aware that things happening with these reviews were suspicious. In a talk he gave on May 29, 2004, shortly after the publication of this IOM report, he had the following to say (emphasis mine):

On January 15 of this year I wrote Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the CDC, I asked her to post-pone the February 9, IOM meeting and this report because of my concern that this was not an exercise in discovering the truth but was instead a meeting “being driven by a desire to short- circuit important research and draw premature conclusions. If the purpose of this meeting is to seriously consider and address these concerns” I wrote, “then this will not be accomplished.”

 

Allow me to quote further from my letter to Dr Gerberding:

“It appears to me not only as a Member of Congress but also as a physician that some officials within the CDC’s NIP may be more interested in a public relations campaign than getting to the truth about thimerosal.”

 

“Pressing forward with this meeting at this time, I believe, will further undermine the credibility of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on matters of vaccine safety and do damage to the reputation of the IOM. I believe the proposed date of this meeting, which you have the ability to change, is in the best interests of no one who is seeking the truth about a possible association between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

 

In a follow-up telephone conversation to me on February 3, 2004, Dr. Gerberding assured me that the IOM’s February meeting was “not an attempt [to] draw conclusions” but merely to “update on the science” of where we are at this point in time. However, [the IOM report] clearly draws conclusions and in what is perhaps the greatest outrage it goes further to call for a halt to all further research."

 

A public relations campaign, rather than sound science, seems to be the M.O. of the officials at the CDC’s National Immunization Program (NIP) office. Why do I say this? Let’s look, not only at the timing of the IOM meeting in February, the content of the IOM report, but also at studies the IOM used as a basis for their decisions. The IOM bases their decision almost entirely on five epidemiology studies, all of which were conducted by researchers with an interest in not finding an association, all of which have short-comings, and all of which the IOM declares would miss an association if it were in a genetically susceptible subset of children.

 

Keep in mind that the IOM is not a government agency. The IOM a private, non-profit institute. They are tasked with conducting research and providing advice to government agencies. The CDC paid for this IOM review, and the CDC therefore had the position to give direction to the IOM committee which completed this review.

 

Dr. Weldon goes on to say (emphasis mine):

It is critical to note the instructions that the IOM was given, primarily by the CDC, which has been funding the IOM. Pages 5 and 6 of the IOM report make it clear that epidemiology was to reign supreme. In the absence of epidemiological evidence to support causality, IOM was instructed to give biological evidence little consideration, and was prohibited from allowing biological evidence to lend evidence toward causality.

 

Is it any wonder that the CDC has spent the past two years dedicating significant funding to epidemiology while starving funding for clinical and biological research? The IOM notes in their report that the epidemiology studies they examined were not designed to pick up a genetically susceptible population. Yet, they attempt to use these five flawed and conflicted statistical studies to quash further research into the possible association between vaccines and autism. This report is extreme in its findings and recommendations. The IOM process became little more than an attempt to validate the CDC’s claims that vaccines have caused no harm, while quashing research to better understand whether or not and how the MMR or thimerosal might contribute to the epidemic of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

 

If you remember from Safety & Efficacy - Part 4, I explain that epidemiological studies are population studies and population studies cannot prove causation. So Dr. Weldon is explaining here that the CDC prohibited the IOM from considering causation from biological evidence, the stronger evidence, and they forced the IOM to complete their review using only population studies (and poor ones at that he explains) which cannot establish causation.

 

Remember, the CDC is a subordinate agency under the direction of HHS. In 1984, HHS gave the instruction about vaccines, that "any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives."

 

The CDC is the federal agency responsible for ensuring that everyone is getting the vaccines they need. The CDC creates the vaccine schedule for the nation to follow, and all the CDC vaccine measurements are centred around maximizing vaccine uptake. In addition to that, the CDC is also tasked with conducting research to ensure vaccines are safe. But those two tasks compete with each other (explained in more detail in the previous article about HHS). You can't ensure maximum uptake of vaccines if you publicly point out the problems with them. In consequence, one of those CDC priorities had to be unofficially dropped, and HHS' actions since 1984 have demonstrated that "monitoring vaccine safety" was the task to forget about.

 

In that article about HHS, I also explained that HHS is the defendant in vaccine court. Despite legislation requiring HHS to conduct safety audits, one audit and report every two years since 1987, to continually improve the safety of vaccines, HHS has refused to do this work, and has never prepared and submitted a single safety audit report to congress. In contrast to that, HHS has spent billions of dollars promoting vaccines and has published numerous reports detailing how to improve vaccine uptake. Because HHS is the defendant in vaccine court, it only makes sense that they would refuse to conduct safety audits, and file those reports. Any problems they identify and report on regarding failures that need to be corrected in vaccine safety, that information would be used against them in vaccine court. Recognizing that the CDC is a subordinate agency under HHS, obviously HHS would instruct CDC to not publish any research that shows vaccines cause problems.

 

When you understand that, you can better understand the concern that Dr. Weldon expressed to Dr. Gerberding.

 

In the audio recordings of Dr. Thompson, Thompson stated, "Senior people just do completely unethical, vile things and no one holds them accountable.”

 

It appears this vile, unethical behaviour within the CDC is actually a necessary requirement for CDC operations. Officials have to do vile and unethical things, to ensure that nothing gets in the way of maximum uptake of vaccines, and to ensure their superior agency, the HHS, doesn't lose their vaccine court cases. Those two tasks are priority number, over everything else.

 

But the unethical and vile behaviour is not limited to the CDC vaccine division alone, it seems it's actually an office-wide culture. In 2016 the Huffington Post reported on this, explaining that a group of CDC scientists who wish to remain anonymous (they've named themselves CDC Spider: Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research), wrote a letter to the Chief of Staff of the CDC. The introduction of the CDC Spider letter states:

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. We would like to see high ethical standards and thoughtful, responsible management restored at CDC. We are asking that you do your part to help clean up this house!

 

The allegations against CDC, for lack of ethics and fraud, is pretty incredible.

 

But the concerning information doesn't end there. Let's now move into a discussion about money. ICAN is a non-profit organization that has been extensively researching vaccine policy. Last year ICAN wrote a letter addressed to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). This letter states (emphasis mine):

..."while the CDC states on its website -- not less than 130 times -- that “CDC does not accept commercial support,” this is simply not true. For example, the British Medical Journal reported in 2015 that: “Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.” As another example, pharmaceutical companies and other private entities, through the “CDC Foundation,” can create and fund programs at the CDC (over half a billion dollars’ worth to-date), endow positions at the CDC, and even place individuals to work at the CDC, paid through “private funding.”

 

Separate from that money, but still related, one of the CDC committees that is engaged in vaccine policy making is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee determines which vaccines are added onto the childhood vaccination schedule. The CDC vaccine schedule is the schedule that all American children are vaccinated in accordance with, and several nations also make changes to their schedule following the US ACIP committee's recommendations. In recent years, government investigations have shown that nearly all of the members on the ACIP have conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These conflicts of interest involve owning patents on specific vaccines, working for or receiving financial compensation directly from a pharmaceutical company, and/or by having stocks, shares or investments in the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

 

Dr Paul Offit is an example of a former ACIP member who had a severe conflict of interest at a time when he was a voting ACIP committee member.

 

To quote some excerpts from an investigative article written by Age of Autism (Link Here):

From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP. Before and during his ACIP term, Offit was involved in rotavirus vaccine development activities, the value of which ACIP influenced.

 

Four months before Offit was appointed to ACIP in October 1998, the committee had voted to give the rotavirus category a “Routine Vaccination” status, in anticipation of an FDA approval of RotaShield.

 

Shortly after Offit’s term began, there were several additional votes involved in establishing the rotavirus vaccine market and Offit voted yes in every case. In May of 1999, the CDC published its revised childhood vaccination schedule and rotavirus vaccine was included. This series of favorable votes clearly enhanced the monetary value of Offit’s stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, which was five years into clinical trials.

 

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) took home a fortune of at least $29 million as part of a $182 million sale by CHOP of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royalty Pharma in April of last year [2008], according to an investigation by Age of Autism. Based on an analysis of current CHOP administrative policies, the amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million.

 

To quote Robert F Kennedy Jr in an interview he gave for episode three of a documentary titled Vaccines Revealed (Link Here):

They [ACIP & CDC] added that vaccine to the schedule that created a market opening for [Offit's] vaccine which then became enormously profitable as a direct result of that vote. ...That transaction caused kind of a scandal at HHS and CDC and the inspector general of HHS investigated that practice. And what they came back and said you know that transaction was bad but it was not illegal under CDC rules. 

 

In fact up to 97% of the people who sit on that committee, they have the same kind of conflicts. They found that 64% actually had the conflicts, but that 97% either had the conflicts or hadn't filled out the paper work to make the legal disclosures whether or not they had those conflicts. It's hard for Americans who've watched their vaccine schedule increase exponentially to completely have faith that all of these vaccines are being added to the schedule, and then given to their children at a very young age, in most cases, simply because of a narrow focus on public health. When people are actually making money from these transactions. The people who are not just making decisions over that vaccine policy are making personal profit on it. And I think those are conflicts that I think if the American people knew about them would leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

 

To quote from one governmental investigation, by the Committee on Government Reform, titled Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making, the investigation states (bolding and/or underline emphasis within the paragraphs is mine):

§ The CDC routinely grants waivers from conflict of interest rules to every member of its advisory committee.

 

§ CDC Advisory Committee members who are not allowed to vote on certain recommendations due to financial conflicts of interest are allowed to participate in committee deliberations and advocate specific positions.

 

§ The Chairman of the CDC's advisory committee until very recently owned 600 shares of stock in Merck, a pharmaceutical company with an active vaccine division.

 

§ Members of the CDC's advisory Committee often fill out incomplete financial disclosure statements, and are not required to provide the missing information by CDC ethics officials.

 

§ Four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.

 

...Decision-Making Process of the ACIP

a. Working Groups of the ACIP

When deemed appropriate by the Executive Secretary and the Chair of the ACIP, working groups may be formed to prepare draft policy recommendations to be submitted to the full ACIP for its consideration. The working groups must: 1) include one or more regular voting members, 2) include CDC staff members, 3) may include ex officio members and liaison representatives and other consultants. Vaccine manufacturer's official representatives may not serve on working groups but, at the discretion of the chair, may be consultants to a working group.[lvi]

 

Generally, working groups range from six to fifteen members.[lvii] The working group is charged with reviewing all pertinent information relative to the recommendation for use of a vaccine. No notice is given to the public of working group meetings and discussions of the group are held in private. No minutes are taken at the meetings.

 

Upon drafting a proposed recommendation, the chair will submit the draft proposal to the ACIP for consideration. The ACIP members review the proposal and suggest revisions to the working group. This process is generally repeated numerous times. The process for making a final recommendation to the full ACIP generally takes eighteen to twenty-four months. The work that the working group does contributes in large part to the recommendations for use of a vaccine submitted to the Director for approval.

 

...The Use of Working Groups is Contrary to the FACA [Federal Advisory Committee Act] (Exhibit 71)

a. Members of the Rotavirus Working Group of the ACIP

The ACIP rotavirus work group was responsible for creating the statement recommending universal use of the rotavirus vaccine. The working group has ten members, seven of whom have identifiable conflicts of interest with vaccine manufacturers or vaccine interest groups. The group's meetings were held in private with no minutes or records of the proceedings taken. It appears that members who were not allowed to vote because of conflicts of interest with Wyeth-Lederle, such as Dr. Le, were allowed to work extensively on the recommendation for a long period of time in the working group.

 

The broad ability to grant waivers from the federal conflict of interest statutes was specifically enacted because of the statutory requirements and safeguards of the FACA. FACA requires that advisory committees hold public meetings, except in unusual circumstances. As such, deliberations of advisory committees are open to the most exacting public scrutiny. These requirements are to ensure public scrutiny of advisory committees operations and ensure that it is not a secretive or hidden vehicle for special interest influence.[lxxviii] The ACIPs prolific use of working groups to draft vaccine policy recommendations outside the specter of public scrutiny opens the door to undo special interest access.

 

Continue to the next article in this series: Here

 

Article Links

  • D.r Gerberding sold just over half her Merck shares for $2.3 million Here

  • Dr. Gerberding speaks to students at Harvard Public School of Health Here

  • Documentary Vaxxed from Cover-Up to Catastrophe Here

  • Talk given by Dr. Dave Weldon, politician in Florida Here

  • Letter addressed to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Here

  • The CDC website states at least 130 times that it does not receive commercial funding Here

  • Editor of BMJ writes article explaining that CDC actually does receive funding from industry, both directly and indirectly Here

  • Committee on Government Reform - investigation titled Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Here

  • Robert F Kennedy Jr - excerpt from lecture explaining the CDC corruption Here

  • Article that Robert F Kennedy Jr wrote, explaining the federal investigations into the corruption within the CDC Here

  • Paul Offit - Investigative article about Paul Offit as a voting member on the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) Here

  • Interview of Robert F Kennedy in the documentary series Vaccines Revealed Here

 

You are currently on Part 4 of a 14 Part Series.

View an article in the Series Using the Links Below:

Part 1: Consumer Safety Nets Here

Part 2: HHS Here

Part 3: The FDA Here 

Part 4: The CDC (You are on this page)

Part 5: The DHHS & IOM Here 

Part 6: Scientific Research Here 

Part 7: Scientific Research Corruption Here 

Part 8: The Medical Journals Here 

Part 9 : Our Doctors Here 

Part 10: Doctors Responsibility Here 

Part 11: Medical Institutions Here 

Part 12: VAERS Here 

Part 13: The Media Here 

Part 14: The Legal System Here 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

Archive
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square