FDA vetää H1N1-rokotteen markkinoilta turvallisuussyistä

Euroopan Komissio ennen pandemiaa http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_threats/com/Influenza/docs/com481_2009_fi.pdf 

EMA (ent. EMEA) sivut http://www.ema.europa.eu/

Euroopan Neuvosto tutkii H1N1-valepandemiaa; uutissivut  http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/NewsManager/EMB_NewsManagerView.asp?ID=5209&L=2

On healthcare infrastructure:
“One area which is interesting about Finland is that you have not only good scientific expertise, but also medical records on individual patients that go back many years. The genetic makeup of the population is also fairly uniform because there hasn't been too much migration into Finland. For companies like us that are interested in doing genetics research, this is a good place to do it.” 

http://www.investinfinland.fi/cases/cases/en_GB/1117095145358/

On Tue, 3/16/10, VIC wrote:

From: VIC
Subject: Sebelius Asks Media to Censor Autism Debate
To: "Bettie Blecke"
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 6:45 PM

This article shows what an impact us parents are making, because nobody knows our babies better than we do! We don't need science to convince us that vaccines caused our child's autism or any other disorder. Please don't let the media persuade you, because obviously there is an agenda. This is more of a reason for us to unite and educate the misinformed masses. We have plenty of free "Educate BEFORE you Vaccinate" cards, so let us know if you would like to help plant seeds. We are also available for presentations, so please contact us if you have the ability to promote an event. We really need to keep us the good work and reach as many people as we are able with truth, which always prevails. We thank everyone dearly for their continued support and God bless, April

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/sebelius-asks-media-to-censor-autism-...

March 16, 2010
Sebelius Asks Media to Censor Autism Debate
By Katie Wright

"There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We (the office of the President of the Health and Human Services Administration) have reached out to media outlets to try to get them not to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting."

That's right. Kathleen Sebelius, the President of the HHS, has asked newspapers, magazines, television journalists, who knows who else- specifically NOT to listen to parents and scientists in the autism community, not to respect their concerns, not to take seriously the condition of chronically ill children with autism and to disregard a growing body of evidence questioning the safety of our infant and toddler's immunization schedule. If I have got anything wrong I would love to hear a tape or see a transcripts of these media "outreaches."

Pretty frightening stuff. Thank you to Jake Crosby who uncovered this frank and disturbing exchange between Arthur (autism is not so bad and there is no increase anyway) Allen and Ms. Sebelius.

I am taking Ms. Sebelius at her word. Ms. Sebelius has unilaterally that she knows that every single American parent who saw their child regress post vaccination or experience a severe adverse reaction is wrong and she knows better. Ms. Sebelius has ordered, suggested, beseeched, implored (?) American journalists NOT "give these people (anyone concerned with vaccine safety) equal weight in their reporting" because she has decided by informal governmental decree that the debate is closed?

Sounds like something that would happen in a communist dictatorship, right? Was there a similar decree when "citizen dissidents" questioned the safety of hormone replacement therapy for women? Was the media instructed to ignore those nuisances who were suspicious of a long denied link between hormone therapy and breast cancer? Did the HHS order a first amendment crackdown of those trouble-making women who had long complained that Fibromalgia was a real disease and not a psychosomatic condition. Menaces everywhere who dared to question medical authorities! They must be silenced! You have got to be kidding.

Sebelius boasts that she holds an H1N1 meeting every single day but cannot find the time to attend one IACC meeting or meet with any autism organizations. Well, not exactly, apparently Ms. Sebelius is personal friends with Ms. Alison Singer, leader a vaccine marketing/ autism org financed in part by Dr. Paul Offit. Newsflash Ms. Seblius: 1 in 100 American children, and rising, have autism and this is a much bigger deal than H1N1. One in four American parents do not think vaccines are safe for their children. At least half of all families affected by autism believe too many vaccines too soon triggered their child's autism. Hundreds of thousands of parents saw their child regress post multiple vaccinations. Sebelius' answer to this massive crisis of confidence is media censorship?
Hmmmm...Censorship has a long and illustrious history- of not working. Thankfully, we live in a democracy with a free press. So I don't know what is worse, the fact Sebelius asked that journalists censor the autism debate or the fact that they did.

While I have not read few reasoned, balanced or well written pieces of journalism on the subject of autism and vaccines I have read a host of spoon fed press releases masquerading as "news" stories about supposedly important autism research. Journalists from "Time", "Newsweek", "The New York Times", online health resources etc. have reported in depth on such "breakthroughs" as a recent Univ of Florida study concluding that "maternal sensitivity" is a good thing for autistic children, or Kennedy Krieger's incredible finding that autistic kids have bad handwriting (amazing, I know!) or the Children's Hospital of Boston study which found that married cousins from the Middle East who marry are more likely to produce autistic kids. I know, stop the presses, a cure is within sight!
In this embarrassing interview with Arthur Allen Ms. Sebelius asserts all the science is a closed book. At the top of the list of the science of vaccine safety studies are the definitive 2001 and 2003 "Pediatrics" articles. While the media has kept us front row center in the breaking developments regarding ASD kids with bad handwriting, journalists have neglected to report on perhaps one of the most striking recent events concerning the subject of autism research.

The lead author of the two most frequently cited "vaccines do not trigger autism" articles are Dr. Poul Thorsen. Well, well, well. this week we learned that Thorsen has absconded with approximately $2 million of CDC research money and is the target of an international police manhunt. We also learned that the Univ. of Aarhus, Denmark, where Thorsen was employed when conducting the studies (naturally in close cooperation w/ the CDC) has released a letter detailing Thorsen's recently uncovered crimes. These crimes include but are not limited to: theft, forgery and assorted serious breaches of ethical norms.

Apparently Thorsen was a very, very busy scientist. He was simultaneously and secretly employed at the Univ of Aarhus, Emory University, Drexel University and as a "visiting scientist at the CDC." Emory and Drexel have, some might say, inappropriately close relationships with the CDC. There appears to be very little room for independent or unbiased science at these research centers. All three are heavily invested in denying any relationships between vaccines and autism. The CDC owns numerous vaccine patents and Emory and Drexel receive tremendous financial support from vaccine companies.

Hmmmm.I know some of you might be thinking "Emory University is in the news a lot lately!" Yes, Emory has been in the news a great deal thanks to the amazing anti- corruption work of Senator Charles Grassley. Ms. Sebelius should dump Arthur Allen and have a conversation with someone who is actually doing something to restore public confidence in our health systems by the fighting the fraud and greed inherent at places like Emory. Grassley is conducting an investigation a pervasive pattern of corruption among Emory researchers who fail to disclose significant financial conflicts of interest in the outcomes of the research they conduct. Isn't it interesting that Thorsen found a second home there?

Thorsen was working hard for everyone's benefit: him own, his employers, pharmaceutical companies- everyone's benefit, that is, except the public's. The health and safety of American kids being administered the world's most aggressive infant vaccine schedule was last on his list. Thorsen was also employed as a consultant on the official revisions of the all-important DMS V. Thorsen was advising how to count and classify autism cases. It is absolutely frightening that a wanted felon has such an enormous and pervasive influence on the lives of our children.

So I am trying to get this straight Ms. Sebelius. Help me out here. We should take lying thieves with no interest in operating in the public's interest at their word but the media should ignore parents and legitimate scientists who question the validity of vaccine science research performed by alleged criminals? I'm really confused!

Wouldn't it be great if Sebelius lifted her fatwa on vaccine research reporting and someone discovered what this creep Thorsen was actually up to at Drexel and Emory? Why was Thorsen a "visiting scientist at the CDC" at the same time? Apparently the CDC has known about this theft (of our money) for some time but has chosen to remain silent. I wonder why? How likely is it that Thorsen was the only scientist involved in what appears to be a massive and long term scheme to manipulate and forge scientific documents? Is it true that Madsen, Thorsen's co-author of the Danish studies is also under investigation? Most importantly, why should the public believe that a thief and a liar with no ethical standards would be honest and scrupulous in his research? I shudder at the thought of Thorsen recounting "the facts" of his studies to students while asserting, as he frequently did, that "absolutely no more vaccine/ autism research is warranted." Now there's a guarantee you can take to the bank. Oops, maybe a bank Thorsen hasn't robbed.

Katie Wright is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.

VIC (Vaccine Information Coalition)
Autism is 1 in 67 children today and it's impossible to have a genetic epidemic!
Please learn from our mistake and educate BEFORE you vaccinate!
For more information visit www.vacinfo.org or call 800-939-8227

French Weekly Epidemiologic Bulletin 46/1990

"Kysymys: Tuleeko laboratoriossa työskentelevät tiedemiehet rokottaa isorokkoa vastaan?"
Vastaus: Ei, koska se on hyödytöntä, epäloogista ja liian vaarallista ilman mitään etuja."

No, muista en tiedä mutta itse haluaisin mielelläni tietää onko THL:n nyt (henkilökuntaansa) kokeilema A/H5N1-rokote (jota käsitellään THL:n BSL3-laboratoriossa) täysin erilainen, joka suhteessa?

Laki no ARGR 9100679A EEC-maissa kieltää suu- ja sorkkatautirokotteen, koska se ehkäisemisen sijaan lisää tartuntariskiä.

"biopankkilain valmistelu, siinä on samanhenkisiä asioita kuin Salaa vanhemmilta / Lex Puska -lakiehdotuksessa, eli siiretään päätäntävaltaa THL.lle ja pyritään laillisestamaan THL:n aiemmin luvattomasti kerättyjä näytekokoelmia ym. Valmistelijakin on sama Päivi Kaartamo. Määräaika lausunnoille oni 9.4. ja lausuntopyyntö löytyy osoitteesta http://www.stm.fi/vireilla/lausuntopyynnot - kyseisen lakiehdotuksen aikaisemman lausuntokierroksen lausuntoni löytyy osoitteesta http://bioetiikka.blogspot.com/ mutta nyt en ole kovin tarkasti lukenut, mitä kaikkia muutoksia sitten tuon vuoden 2007 ehdotuksen tähän on tehty."

Tästä lisää myöhemmin

Kausi-influenssarokote lisää riskiä sairastua sikainfluenssaan; 4 kanadalaista tutkimusta

"In late spring 2009, concern was raised in Canada that prior vaccination with the 2008–09 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) was associated with increased risk of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) (pH1N1) illness. Several epidemiologic investigations were conducted through the summer to assess this putative association."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.10...

T.K, #35, jepu #43 ja Sikkara #44, niinpä!

By Michael Fumento Monday, April 19, 2010

Having spread H1N1 swine flu hysteria for nearly a year, the World Health Organization’s “swine flu czar,” Keiji Fukuda, last week finally “fessed up” to agency wrongdoing. But it’s like listening to Enron admitting to a tabulation error. “I think we did not convey the uncertainty” about the risks of the flu strain, he said.

Sorry, but this was no poor communications problem. Indeed, earlier this year Wolfgang Wodarg, an epidemiologist with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, accused the WHO of creating a “false pandemic” that’s “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

At the least, by portraying as a raging razorback what proved to be more of a pathetic piglet, the WHO needlessly scared the public, wasted vast billions of dollars, destroyed the value of the term “flu pandemic” and perhaps left the organization’s reputation “tarnished” and “irreparably damaged,” as one authority put it.

A year ago, Fukuda was comparing swine flu’s potential with the Spanish flu, which killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million worldwide in 1918-19, with more than half a million here. (Extrapolating to today’s population, that would be 1.5 million.) Now, with the annual U.S. epidemic ending, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates we’ve had had perhaps 12,000 total deaths—a third of the usual number. (Almost all the infections this year were swine flu.) About 140 million doses of swine flu vaccine appeared headed for the trash heap. France and Japan say their epidemics have been far milder. Last July an Associated Press headline declared, “Britain Braces for 100,000 Swine Flu Cases a Day.” Actual deaths: 457.

It’s not as if the WHO knew nothing about the mildness of H1N1 early on. I wrote about it on May 1, subsequently publishing 14 articles in major publications on what I immediately dubbed hysteria. If I knew better, there’s no reason the WHO shouldn’t have known better.

Indeed, when the WHO officially labeled swine flu a pandemic in June, it was 11 weeks into the outbreak, and yet fewer people had died worldwide (144) than succumb to seasonal flu every few hours.

In contrast, the mildest true pandemic in the 20th century killed at least a million people. A recent WHO document stated that “best-case scenarios” of a new pandemic “project global excess deaths in the range of 2 million to 7.4 million,” and the WHO’s own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

Slapping the “pandemic” label onto swine flu directly led to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology‘s “plausible scenario” of as many as 90,000 excess flu deaths, while flu book author John Barry told Washington Post readers to expect “89,000 to 207,000” extra deaths. Yet in Australia, with the epidemic already well under way and no vaccine, people were dying at a lower rate.

How could the WHO justify declaring a pandemic? Easy. It rewrote the definition

So given the mild course swine flu was taking, how could the WHO justify declaring a pandemic? Easy. It rewrote the definition! The new one, viewable here and published last July, simply eliminates severity as a factor. This renders the definition meaningless, since flu always causes “simultaneous epidemics worldwide.” Instead, it closely matched the new definition to swine flu by requiring that the strain contain either animal or mixed-human animal genetic material.

Now, Fukuda and other WHO officials insist the definition was never changed. In a January virtual conference, Fukuda stated, “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later, on tape at a press conference, he insisted, “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”

Meanwhile, here’s a news item from last May in which Fukuda himself discusses the forthcoming change, and here’s an official 2009 WHO report explaining the change in retrospect. You know, the change that never occurred.

You don’t vociferously deny doing something you obviously did with no reason. So what was it?

WHO also saw an opportunity to push a political agenda

In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “avian flu czar” had predicted in 2005. Around the world, nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”

But the WHO also saw an opportunity to push a political agenda.

In a September speech, Chan said the swine flu pandemic should be exploited to fight for “changes in the functioning of the global economy,” and to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” And this is supposed to be a health agency?

It would help explain why the agency hyped avian flu, why in the 1980s it exaggerated HIV infections by as much as 12-fold and why it spread hysteria over severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003. SARS ultimately killed a day’s worth of seasonal flu victims (and no Americans) before vanishing.

Yet with one cry of “wolf!” after another, says Europe’s Wodarg, the WHO is merely destroying “much of the credibility” we’ll need if there does appear “a killer on a large scale.”

Sadly, with the swine flu debacle, that credibility may already have vanished”

Canada Free Press http://www.canadafreepress.com…icle/22189

 H1N1-vaccine adverse reactions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR201004...