Tetrahedron Publishing Group Health Science Communications for People Around the World 206 North 4th Avenue, Suite 147 ۰ Sandpoint, ID 83864 ۰ 208-265-2575 ۰ FAX: 208-265-2775

NEWS RELEASE
Release: No. XXXIV
Date Mailed: Oct 20, 2005

For Immediate Release

Contact: Jackie Lindenbach-208-265-8065; (e-mail: tetra@tetrahedron.org)

"CODE RED" VACCINE ALERT ANOTHER DEADLY DECEPTION

Road to Destruction Paved with Good Intentions

Sandpoint, ID: "This is incredibly serious," wrote Ingri Cassel, National Vaccination Liberation Organization (VacLib) director. "So serious that the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)," led by President, Barbara Loe Fisher, issued a red alert on the Senate HELP Committee's passage of the "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act
of 2005."

The bill, nicknamed "BioShield 2" is expected to pass in the Senate by year's end. In its technically accurate assessment, the NVIC warns the legislation will "strip Americans of the right to a trial by jury if harmed by an experimental or licensed drug or vaccine that they are
forced by government to take whenever federal health officials declare a public health emergency."

Ms. Cassel issued the "CODE RED alert" for health groups nationwide to launch a concerted effort to stop Richard Burr's Republican bill co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY), and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH). According to Cassel everyone should oppose this bill by calling and e-mailing their senators to make them aware. The bill: a) undermines drug safety laws; b) violates the constitutional right to a trial by jury in case a vaccine or drug causes injuries; c) keeps the public in the dark about every aspect of vaccine research, development, injuries, and deaths resulting from the partnership between government and the pharmaceutical lobby; and d) forces mandatory compliance with public health proclamations demanding vaccinations and/or drugs be taken by anyone declared at risk, not necessarily infected.

"This is the latest deception and distraction issued by government and grassroots activists espousing public protectionism," said Dr. Leonard Horowitz, author of 15 books including the national bestseller, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, Accident or Intentional?
(http://www.tetrahedron.org/). "There is nothing new in this legislation that hasn't already been politically dictated."

Technically, Dr. Horowitz is also correct. Drug safety laws have been violated since their inception. The constitutional right to a jury trial fell years ago in cases brought against all federal officials including those engaged in public health practice. The National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, co-sponsored by NVIC and initially promoted by Ms. Fisher, shielded drug companies from vaccine injury lawsuits. The public, even medical doctors, have always been in the dark about "proprietary" pharmaceutical intelligence, the nitty-gritty on drug testing for FDA
approval, and vaccine injury data. And following 9-11, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act passed by most states forced compliance with public health vaccination/intoxication mandates.

The only message worthy of social, not political, activism at this point is, "WAKE-UP! At least half of the world's population is targeted for elimination under the global elite's depopulation agenda," Dr. Horowitz insists. "Avian flu over the cuckoos nest. DO NOT, UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, GET VACCCINATED WITH ANYTHING!"

Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote the opening quote in the aforementioned bestseller. He claims, "To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good. . . . Ideology is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in
his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors."

This offers a great explanation of why "the road to destruction is paved with good intentions."

-End-

Note to journalists: For interviews on this topic, or copies of Dr. Horowitz's many books, please call Jackie Lindenbach at 208-265-8065.
(E-mail: tetra@tetrahedron.org)

See also:
http://www.drlenhorowitz.com/
http://www.healingcelebrations.com/
http://www.tetrahedron.org/
http://www.originofaids.com/

Dr. Len Horowitz's Avian Flu Fright Commentary

To: All grassroots activists, health and vaccination networkers.

Please forward this urgent message, to help save lives, to everyone in your network.

Avian Flu Fright: Politically Timed for Global "Iatrogenocide"

A Public Health Warning and Political Essay by a Harvard-trained Author of Fifteen Books Including the American bestseller, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional?

Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH

Abstract

If avian flu becomes more than a threatened pandemic, it will have done so by political and economic design. This thesis is supported by current massive media misrepresentations, profiteering on risky and valueless vaccines, gross neglect of data evidencing earlier similar man-made plaques including SARS, West Nile Virus, AIDS and more; continuance of
genetic studies breeding more mutant flu viruses likely to outbreak, inside trading scandals involving pandemic savvy White House and drug industry officials, curious immunity of these pharmaceutical entities over the past century to law enforcement and mainstream media scrutiny, and published official depopulation objectives. With the revelations and assertions advanced herein, the public is forewarned against this physician assisted mass murder best termed "iatrogenocide."* This genocidal imposition is expected to serve mainly economic and political depopulation objectives.

Background

In April, 2003, a social experiment called SARS, said to have arrived from Asia, heavily struck Toronto. I was there throughout most of this Asian flu-foreshadowing fright. This bizarre new pneumonia-like illness was named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It was said to be the
latest threat in an ongoing series of attacks on humanity by mysteriously mutating "supergerms."

A careful study of the scientific and medical-sociological correlates and antecedents of this "outbreak" revealed something amiss far more insidious than SARS. I critically considered Toronto's media reaction as any Harvard-trained public health expert in media persuasion behavioral science might. The scourge had all the earmarks of a novel social experiment conducted by white-collar bioterrorist.

It seemed clear to me that this unprecedented population manipulation effectively indoctrinated the mass mind in support of a grossly ineffective, albeit legislated, public health response in advance of the arrival of "the Big One." Throughout the "SARS Scam,"(1) repeated references
were made to biological agents that might facilitate decimation of approximately a third to half of the world's population. Having extensively reviewed political population control literature and contemporary objectives of leading global industrialists, I noted these predictions were
in close keeping with current official population reduction objectives.(2)

Canada's response to SARS in 2003 was, for the first time in history, directed by the United Nations and World Health Organization (WHO). Having reviewed the intimate financial and administrative ties between these organizations, the Rockefeller family, Carnegie Foundation, and the world's leading drug makers, "the fox," in essence, reigned over Canada's "chickens."

The truth about plagues includes the fact that "no grand pandemic ever evolved divorced from major socio-political upheaval." SARS advanced a political agenda more than a public health emergency. If public health officials earnestly intended to prevent these new emerging diseases, or successfully treat them at their roots, I repeated, they would study their obvious origins from the merged military-medical-biotechnology arena. A basic course in medical sociology simply justifies this utilitarian counsel.

"Experts" had been predicting the arrival of a super-plague for decades. What was HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS about the mysterious and terrifying arrival of SARS, however, was its timing. It synchronously arrived with the global war on terrorism, and the Anglo-American war with Iraq. It seemed a convenient distraction from the fact that the earlier Bush administration had shipped Saddam Hussein most of his deadly biological weapons arsenal including anthrax and West Nile Virus. SARS was pathognomonic (i.e., symptomatic and characteristic) of what I had predicted and explained in the book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare (Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 2001; http://www.healthyworlddistributing.com/), a prophetically-titled text that predated the 9-11 attacks on America by several months, and provided a contextual analysis of certain globalists' links to recent "outbreaks."

In essence, I provided insight into the broad application of a new form of institutionalized "bioterrorism" consistent with state sponsored biological warfare. Saddam Hussein was said to have exposed populations in his and adjacent lands with biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

SARS and the current avian flu fright is sanctioned by military-medical-pharmaceutical-petrochemical industrialists likewise operating above the law in many documented instances. Having testified before the U.S. Congress, I personally experienced how premiere pharmaceutical industrialists direct our political-economic representatives in government. Emerging diseases complement the political "War on Terrorism," and our bioterror-influenced culture. This agenda serves two primary objectives: profitability and population-reduction.

Political Reality Versus Mass-Mediated Myths

The ever increasing madness around us is eerily consistent with globalist think tank recommendations for the current "conflicts short of war." Beginning in the late 1960s, "economic substitutes for standard militarization" were sought and found by leading global industrialists. New biological threats, the "war on terrorism," and increasing numbers of "natural disasters" including space-based threats and superstorms were considered economically and politically expedient compared with the first and second world wars. These "conflicts short of war" were decidedly more manageable and economically viable. For this reason, especially their profitability, they were leading options among Anglo-American policy makers.

Nelson Rockefeller's protégé, Henry Kissinger, for instance, as National Security Advisor (NSA) under Richard Nixon, oversaw foreign policy while considering Third World population reduction "necessities" for the U.S., Britain, Germany, and other allies. This Bush nominee to direct the 9-11 conspiracy investigation, a reputed war criminal, then selected the option to have the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) develop biological weapons, according to the U.S. Congressional Record of 1975. Among these new man-made biological weapons were germs far deadlier than the avian flu.

For example, by 1968, when Kissinger requested and received updated intelligence on useful "synthetic biological agents" for germ warfare and population control, mutant recombinant flu viruses had just been engineered by Special Virus Cancer Program researchers O'Conner, Stewart, Kinard, Rauscher and others.(3) During this program, influenza and parainfluenza viruses were recombined with quick acting leukemia viruses (acute lymphocytic leukemia) to deliver weapons that potentially spread cancer, like the flu, by sneezing. These researchers also amassed avian cancer (sarcoma) viruses and inoculated them into humans and monkeys to
determine their carcinogenicity. In related efforts, Raucher et al. used radiation to enhance avian virus's cancer-causing potential. These incredible scientific realities have been officially censored and generally neglected by the media's mainstream.

Similarly, the Institute of Science in Society (IoSS) in London raised the genetic engineering question in the origin of SARS. "Could genetic engineering have contributed inadvertently to creating the SARS virus?" they asked. "This point was not even considered by the expert
coronavirologists called in to help handle the crisis, now being feted and woed by pharmaceutical companies eager to develop vaccines." Those living in glass houses should not throw stones. The above emphasis is added to show IoSS they had "not even considered" intentional SARS deployment in their scientific, allegedly unbiased, purview.(4)

Conflicts short of war, like the "War on AIDS," "War on Drugs," "War on Terrorism," "War on Cancer," and now "War on the Avian Flu" require sophisticated propaganda programs employing fear campaigns for social acceptance and popular support of legislated policies. These psychological operations (officially termed PSYOPS) for "command and control warfare"
(technically called C2W), experts advise, best support the emerging "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA). The RMA's capabilities include "a form of human slavery" in which the world's captive populations would not know they are enslaved.(2)

The RMA undoubtedly incorporates the use of debilitating biologicals and chemical agents most generously on behalf of drug and vaccine makers. A classic example is the toxic carcinogenic organophosphate pesticides deployed against human populations, said to target "mosquitoes," in the "War Against the West Nile Virus." Such "non-lethal warfare" agents, as these are militarily termed, are indeed deadly, but mortality results slowly from toxic exposures allowing more profits to be made by allied pharmaceutical and medical industrialists. Victims of the "non-lethal" exposures die slowly from chronic debilitating diseases. Expensive hospitals and long-term care facilities are virtual concentration camps. The ailments generated for "iatrogenocide" include the plethora of autoimmune diseases and newer cancers virtually non-existent 50 years ago. This fact, alone, strongly suggests a genocidal socio-economic and political agenda.

Avian Flu for Profit

In response to SARS, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, Michael Fumento, published an economic thesis in Toronto related to the one I advance here. The "Super-bug or Super Scare," he wrote was published in Canada's National Post. Canadians were warned to "quarantine themselves," wear masks, and in some cases stay home. The Ontario Health Minister declared a "health emergency," as the media dubbed the "mysterious killer"
a "super-pneumonia." Recoiling from the hype, Fumento asked and answered a few "real questions . . . How lethal, how transmissible, and how treatable is this strain?" The answers, he concluded, "leave no grounds for excitement, much less panic." The same may be said for this new curse of avian flu.(1)

Lethal?

At this writing, the avian flu is said to have killed "about 65 people" in Southeast Asia during the past two years! Little to no data is available on these individuals who most commonly had immune-compromising medical conditions. Further, all deaths were in Asian countries with
questionable health services.

Conversely, other forms of flu kill more than 40,000 North Americans annually, generally the immune-compromised elderly.

Transmissibile?

According to USA Today (October 9, 2005), "European health officials are working to contain the [avian flu] virus, which so far has not infected anyone in the region." Although, allegedly "more than 140 million birds have died or been destroyed, . . . and financial losses to the
poultry sector have topped $10 billion." This propaganda actually admits, "the current virus, known as H5N1, has not yet mutated to the point at which it can easily spread from person to person." In fact, it is likely to have never spread from person to person other than during laboratory handling!(5)

Treatability?

"The U.S. Senate has already approved a $3.9 billion package to buy vaccines and antiviral medications, and the Administration is also preparing a request for an additional $6 billion to $10 billion," according to a current BusinessWeek report.( 6)

"Beam me up Scottie, there is no intelligent life on this planet." This largely explains why the public puts up with this deadly deception. Even USA Today bemons, "there is no human vaccine yet." So how come the U.S. Senate is rushing to spend all these billions for an avian flu vaccine?

I suppose we should overlook the fact that the current frightening strain of H5N1 avian flu virus has never readily jumped from human to human, and not commonly from birds to humans either. Thus, an effective vaccine can only be prepared by mutating this virus, thus creating what the world fears most. Let me explain. . . .

To make the human vaccine specific for the H5N1 mutant virus, you must start with the human virus which does not yet exist, except in perhaps military-biomedical-pharmaceutical laboratories. In fact, this is precisely what is being prepared based on news reports. To produce the human pathogen, the avian virus must be cultured for lengthy periods of time in human cell cultures, then injected into monkey and ultimately humans to see if these experimental subjects get the same feared flu. Thus, the flu virus the world currently fears most is either: 1) now being prepared in labs paid by industrialists with massive wealth-building incentives to "accidentally" release the virus; or 2) has already been prepared in such labs to take advantage of this current fright and future sales following the virus's release.

Remember, to be effective against a virus, a vaccine is said to require specificity. If authorities were to now have the main H5N1 avian flu strain feared to spread at some future date there's no assurance by the time they developed the vaccine the strain would remain sufficiently the
same for the vaccine to be effective anyway due to expected viral mutations. Viral mutations over time is a function of the agent's newness. New man-made viruses, laboratory creations, like the ones currently being prepared for vaccine trials, are less stable not having evolved over
the millennia.

Thus, the entire vaccine effort is largely, if not entirely, a sham with ulterior motives.

Remember too, that a vaccine's reliability requires years, or at least months, of testing in the targeted population. Vaccine injury data must, or should, be meticulously collected over this period to assure the vaccine is not killing and maiming more persons than it is helping or
saving. Can you seriously believe this assurance will be provided by government or pharmaceutical industry officials in this pandemic's wake? FEMA's failed Katrina response pails by comparison to this public health liability and vaccine-injury certainty.

I say "vaccine-injury certainty" because of the extensive list of newly developed vaccinations, highly touted when brought to market, that caused horrific results. This list includes the first swine flu vaccine, polio vaccines, smallpox vaccine, anthrax vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine,
and most recently Lyme disease vaccine that crippled approximately 750,000 people within months of its release and prior to its recall by the FDA.

Most people fail to realize all vaccines carry a list of ingredients that typically increase human disease and death (i.e., morbidity and mortality).

These include toxic elements and chemicals such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and formalin (used to preserve corpses), MSG, foreign genetic material, and risky proteins from various species of bacteria, viruses, and animals that have been scientifically associated with
triggering autoimmune disorders and certain cancers. A growing body of scientific evidence strongly suggests vaccines are largely responsible for increasing cases of autism and other learning disabilities, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, Lupus, MS, ALS, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, hay fever, allergies, chronic draining ear infections, type 1 autoimmune diabetes,
and many, many more pandemics. These chronic ailments are said to require long-term medical care for the patients' management causing toxic side effects resulting in America's leading killer--iatrogenic disease. That is, vaccines and other pharmaceutical industry inventions are
literally killing or disabling millions with little effort on the part of government officials and their drug industry cohorts to arrest this scourge.

For all we know, governments are ordering an avian flu vaccine that will precisely deliver this pandemic to the world to affect population control.

Absurd thesis? Read on.

BusinessWeek expects avian flu vaccine stockpiling by government officials will help the Sanofi-Pasteur company on behalf of Sanofi-Aventis and Chiron. "Tamiflu," it reported is an antiviral manufactured by Roche. . . . considered effective against avian flu. . . . The U.S. owns enough for 4.3 million people, with more on order." BusinessWeek failed to report: 1) Tamiflu's safety and effectiveness has not been determined in people with other chronic medical conditions--a significant percentage of the U.S. population-- and common side effects of this drug include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bronchitis, stomach pain, dizziness, headaches, and much, much more; 2) Roche (Hoffman-LaRoche) was found guilty of price fixing the world's supply of vitamins in 1999 as part of the global petrochemical/pharmaceutical cartel evolved from Nazi-Germany's I.G. Farben organization;(2)(6) and 3) Sanofi-Aventis's corporate colleagues
include Merck, a company that received a lion's share of the Nazi war chest at the end of WWII, whose earnings plunged after the withdrawal last year of its deadly Vioxx arthritis drug. According to recent news reports, Merck is partnering with Sanofi-Aventis to produce the world's first sexually-transmitted-cancer vaccine to be given to prepubescent boys and
girls.(7) Merck is infamous for having developed the first hepatitis B vaccines that triggered the international AIDS pandemic according to published scientific research and stunning documents reprinted in this author's national bestselling book.(3)(8)

In the weeks and months following the 9-11 attacks on America, I traced the widely publicized anthrax mailings "mystery" to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) commissioned biological weapons contractors with ties to Britain's MI6, Porton Down, and this same Anglo-American
pharmaceutical cartel.(9) The anthrax mailings fanned fears of bioterrorism throughout
America and economically served primarily vaccine and drug makers with administrative and financial links to these avian flu profiteers.(10)

People willingly relinquish their civil rights and personal freedoms in the wake of such engineered frights. The passage of the infamous "Homeland Security Act" in America, and its counterpart in Canada, are classic examples of this societal direction, forced legislation, and
egregious manipulation.

Why Asia?

How convenient that Asia is said to be the origin, as with SARS, of this latest plague when Chinese-Anglo-American relations are strained to say the least.

In the days preceding the emergence of the first SARS cases, America raced to the Pacific Rim to impact escalating aggressions on the Korean peninsula. Communist China--a "most favored" trading partner with America--is politically allied with several American enemies, including those said to possess weapons of mass destruction, including Iraq. Coincidental? Not likely when viewing the larger political picture involving the Ango-American oligarchy's RMA, its global enterprises, and instigated planet-wide "conflicts short of war."

Consider also the fact the media's mainstream has been heavily influenced, if not entirely controlled, by multi-national corporate sponsors protecting and advancing the interests of a relatively small number of global entities. Also recall that the focus of news providers, on any
given day or hour, results from intelligence agency directives, according to reputable authorities including myriad retired news officials and intelligence officers. So ask and answer the following intelligent questions:

• Why have American military officials, beginning with Secretary of Defense William Cohen during the Clinton years, publicized America's greatest vulnerability lies in the realm of biological weapons wielded by terrorists? Is this not a form of treason against the United States to relay such sensitive intelligence to potential enemies through the mainstream press?
  
  
• Why does the mainstream media continue to foretell of the expected arrival of the "Big One"-an influenza virus that will produce a super
  
  
• Why was the "Spanish flu" influenza virus called the "Spanish flu" when it originated, by historic accounts, in Tibet in 1917? It is said that Spanish newspapers were the only ones reporting on the great plague due to their neutrality over World War I politics. However, Spain was as dear to America then as Communist China is to the United States today. The "Spanish flu" was named such following two decades of disputes between America and Spain over colonization of the Caribbean Islands, Hawaii and the Philippines beginning with the Spanish American war that ended in the Philippines in 1902. In fact, the grand Spanish flu began in military camps. Does this history appear to be repeating?
  
  
• Doesn't it make sense that America is being manipulated, if not targeted, for the purpose of advancing globalistic agendas, central among them is population reduction?

The "Big One"

As mentioned above, during the 1960s and early 1970s, military biological weapons contractors with intimate ties to leading drug industrialists prepared mutants of influenza and para-influenza viruses recombined with acute lymphocytic leukemia viruses. In other words, they stockpiled a quick spreading cancer virus which may also be deployed.(3)

Alternatively, many infectious disease experts and government health officials oblivious to this scientific reality say this avian flu might be the 'Big One." Several days ago, the United Nations released a report that stated as many as 150 million people worldwide might die from this
avian flu.

Emma Ross of the Associated Press reported on SARS as the World Health Organization (WHO) launched its "crisis plan to attack" the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. WHO, as you may recall, is a U.N. sponsored organization that is rumored to have helped spread AIDS to Africa by way of contaminated hepatitis B and/or polio vaccinations. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to support this contention.(1)

More disconcerting, the U.N. is known to be heavily influenced by Rockefeller family members and their petrochemical-pharmaceutical interests. History shows Rockefeller fortunes built the U.N. building in New York City. During WWII, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil
Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies according to court records. One federal judge ruled Rockefeller committed "treason" against the United States. Following WWII, according to attorney John Loftus-an official Nazi war crimes investigator-Nelson Rockefeller persuaded the U.N.'s South American voting block to favor Israel's creation only to
assure secrecy regarding his support for the Nazis. Earlier that century, John D. Rockefeller joined Prescott Bush and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler's racial hygiene programs. During the same period the Rockefeller family
virtually monopolized American medicine, American pharmaceutics, and the cancer and genetics industries.(2, 3)

Today, the Rockefeller family, its foundation, U.N. and WHO remain at the forefront of administering "population programs" designed to reduce world populations to more manageable levels. As per an advertisement in Foreign Affairs--a prestigious political periodical published by the David Rockefeller directed Council on Foreign Relations--the U.S. population is being targeted for a 50% reduction.(2)

"We've never faced anything on this scale with such a global reach," said Dr. David Heymann, of the WHO, not regarding the avian flu, but SARS.

"This is the first time that a global network of [Rockefeller-directed infectious disease 'surveillance' outposts and] laboratories are sharing information, samples, blood, pictures," added Dr. Klaus Stohr, a WHO virologist coordinating labs internationally. "Basically overnight,
there are no secrets, there is no jealousy, there is no competition in the face of a global health emergency. This is a phenomenal network."(1)
____________________
* The term "iatrogenocide" is derived from the combination of words "iatrogenesis," meaning physician induced illness, and "genocide," defined as the mass killing and/or enslaving of people for economics, politics, and/or ideology.

About the Author Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H., is an internationally known authority in the overlapping fields of public health, behavioral science, emerging diseases, and bioterrorism. He received his doctorate in medical dentistry from Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1977, was awarded a post-doctoral fellowship in behavioral science at University of Rochester, earned a Master of Public Health degree from Harvard University, and another Master of Arts degree in health education from Beacon College, all before joining the research faculty at Harvard. Dr. Horowitz is best known for his national bestselling book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola - Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-888-508-4787) which recently resulted in the United States General Accounting Office investigating the man-made origin of AIDS theory. (See: http://www.healingcelebrations.com/gao.htm)

Dr. Horowitz's work in the field of vaccination risk awareness has prompted
at least three Third World nations to change their vaccination policies. His stunning testimony before the United States Congress' Government Reform Committee, literally brought the hearing to a halt. (See: healingcelebrations.com) Dr. Horowitz questioned government health
officials regarding a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) secreted report showing a definitive link between the mercury ingredient (i.e., Thimerosal), common to most vaccinations, and the skyrocketing rates of autism and behavioral disorders affecting our children and the
future of our nation.

Incredibly, Dr. Horowitz alerted the FBI, in writing and in person, one week before the first anthrax mailing was announced in the press, that a "major anthrax fright" was in the process of unfolding that demanded the FBI's urgent attention. Needless to say they did not heed Dr. Horowitz's warning.

Moreover, three months before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Dr. Horowitz released his thirteenth book, prophetically titled Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare. The book focuses on the West Nile Virus as an act of Bioterrorism, and considers what and who is really behind this and other recent outbreaks. Dr. Horowtiz argues that his disclosures expose the roots of global terrorism, along with the individuals and organizations at the heart of what he calls "the petrochemical-pharmaceutical cartel". He believes this "multi-national corporate beast" is in the process of committing
global genocide, profiting from engineered frights, and at the same time, most efficiently culling targeted populations considered excessive.

As you may have heard, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for an investigation into the links between recent West Nile Virus outbreaks and bioterrorism. Dr. Horowitz is among the leading pioneers of this theory.

Dr. Horowitz's most recent book is DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral, a reference text on the electro-genetics of biology, disease therapy, and human spirituality. This work also details links between the anthrax mailings and human genome project heist, and leading intelligence agency, genetics industry, and pharmaceutical company officials.

For more information about Dr. Horowitz's books, videos, CDs and DVDs link to www.healthyworlddistributing.com and www.tetrahedron.org, or by calling 1-888-508-4787.
His official website is www.drlenhorowitz.com.

This article was provided courtesy of Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz and Tetrahedron Publishing Group. It's copyright is relinquished for widespread distribution.

References:

1. Horowitz LG. SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome): A Great Global Scam. Available at: http://www.healingcelebrations.com/SARS.htm
   
2. Horowitz LG. Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare. Sandpoint, ID: Tetrahedron Publishing Group, (Spring) 2001.
   
3. Horowitz LG. Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional? Sandpoint, ID: Tetrahedron Publishing Group, (Spring) 2001.
   
4. The Institute of Science in Society. SARS and Genetic Engineering? London, England. Article available at: http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/health_risks/sars_engineering.html
   
5. Knox N. Europe braces for avian flu. USA TODAY, October 9, 2005; Manning A.Government to stock up on avian flu shots. USA Today, Oct 8, 2005.
   
6. Wang P. Avian Flu: Inoculate Your Portfolio. BusinessWeek. Online edition. Available at:
   http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/oct2005/pi2005110_4988_pi015.htm
   
7. CNNMoney. Merck shares jump on cancer drug vaccine. October 6, 2005. Available at:
   http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fortune500/merck.reut/
   
8. For more scientific background on the link between the hepatitis B vaccine and the AIDS pandemic link to http://www.originofaids.com/.
   
9. Horowitz LG. The CIA's Role in the Anthrax Mailings: Could Our Spies be Agents for Military-Industrial Sabotage, Terrorism, and Even Population Control? A Special Report. Article available at: http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/anthrax_espionage.html
   
10. Horowitz LG. DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral. Sandpoint, ID: Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 2004.

Listen to this article | Posted by Becca

By DAN OLMSTED
UPI Senior Editor

A specter is haunting the medical and journalism establishments of the United States: Where are the unvaccinated people with autism?

That is just about the only way to explain what now appears to be a collective resistance to considering that question. And like all unanswered questions, this raises another one: Why?

What is the problem with quickly and firmly establishing that the autism rate is about the same everywhere and for everybody in the United States, vaccinated or unvaccinated? Wouldn't that stop all the scientifically illiterate chatter by parents who believe vaccinations made their children autistic? Wouldn't it put to rest concerns that -- despite the removal of a mercury-containing preservative in most U.S. vaccines -- hundreds of millions of children in the developing world are possibly at risk if that preservative is in fact linked to autism?

Calling this issue The Amish Elephant reflects reporting earlier this year in Age of Autism that the largely unvaccinated Amish may have a relatively low rate of autism. That apparent dissimilarity is, in effect, a proverbial elephant in the living room -- studiously ignored by people who don't want to deal with it and don't believe they will have to.

Here are a few cases in point.

Earlier this month the National Consumers League conference in Washington held a session on communicating issues around vaccine safety. I was on the panel and talked about the Amish and autism. In the Q&A session that followed, the first question was for me.

"Is this a proper role for a journalist, or is this just a straw dog set up there with a preliminary answer? It not only showed up where you wrote it. It was all over the place. You did very, very well for UPI (at which point I said, 'Thank you -- please tell my bosses that!') but the question is, did you do very, very well for America?

"Is it appropriate for a journalist -- you weren't reporting, you were investigating. And I just wonder if you think it's an appropriate role for you to play."

My answer: "There's different roles for the press. That's certainly a reasonable question. That is investigative reporting. This idea is something that's already been discarded -- that there's any reason why you would want to look in an unvaccinated population.

"One of my favorite comments about journalism is that it's the wild card of American democracy. The First Amendment says we can do (in the sense of reporting about) whatever we want. So one of our privileges is to get an idea in our head and go look at it."

My questioner was not finished. "I wasn't questioning whether you have a First Amendment right to do it. I think this is more of a question of the ethics, of what value we are bringing to the debate."

My response: "That's probably not a good one for me to answer. Obviously I thought it was ethical."

At that point a fellow panelist, Dr. Louis Cooper, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a staunch vaccine defender, spoke up. "I would jump in and say I thought it was ethical and I think it was useful," said Cooper, a courtly and unfailingly courteous Manhattan pediatrician.

"As you've learned, it was annoying to many people. I wasn't annoyed by it because I thought you kept the process and the debate and the discussion going forward. And we have to do that for one another."

That did not end the discussion. A few minutes later a public-health professor from -- where else? Harvard -- did her own version of Jeopardy!, offering the correct "answer" in the form of a question.

"This question is for Dan. Did you mention the outbreak of polio that happened in the Amish community in the Netherlands that caused widespread problems there, and also the fact that there'd been some context with respect to history in our country in trying to reach out to the Amish to actually encourage them to try to benefit from some of the vaccine technology to the extent that we could?

"So there's been a long history in this country of the CDC trying to reach out to them to the extent that they could. Also with respect to polio, I think what's really amazing is it's such a great story, this is such an exciting time, in the sense that we are very close to global eradication. What that means is we've gone from 1988 when we had 350,000 estimated paralytic polio cases in the world every year to roughly a thousand. It's very exciting that in fact we don't have the terror or the hysteria and all of the fear that surrounded disease.

"I just want to remind everyone that one thing that's very important in the context of reporting these stories is making sure that people do remember and also realize with infectious disease is these things can come back, and until they are eradicated they can come back and devastate us just as much as they did before, except now there are a lot more people.

"There's some related news that people might find interesting. A headline in the Washington Post today, 'Polio outbreak occurs among Amish families.' So I thought people might be interested in that."

At that point the moderator, Dr. Roger Bernier of the Centers for Disease Control, said time was getting short -- why was I not surprised? -- and asked for the next "question."

One thing I've noticed is the more that people want to lecture instead of learn, the more they speak in breathless run-on sentences that are hard to stop, slow down or even diagram. They leave one with the unspoken idea that dialogue -- opening the door to new information -- is somehow dangerous.

These exchanges reminded me of the response I got from Dr. Julie Gerberding, the CDC director, when I asked her this summer, verbatim: "Has the government ever looked at the autism rate in an unvaccinated U.S. population, and if not, why not?"

Her answer, verbatim:

--

In this country, we have very high levels of vaccination as you probably know, and I think this year we have record immunization levels among all of our children, so to (select an unvaccinated group) that on a population basis would be representative to look at incidence in that population compared to the other population would be something that could be done.

But as we're learning, just trying to look at autism in a community the size of Atlanta, it's very, very difficult to get an effective numerator and denominator to get a reliable diagnosis.

I think those kind of studies could be done and should be done. You'd have to adjust for the strong genetic component that also distinguishes, for example, people in Amish communities who may elect not to be immunized (and) also have genetic connectivity that would make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the United States. So drawing some conclusions from them would be very difficult.

I think with reference to the timing of all of this, good science does take time, and it's part of one of the messages I feel like I've learned from the feedback that we've gotten from parents groups this summer (in) struggling with developing a more robust and a faster research agenda, is let's speed this up. Let's look for the early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as quickly as we can.

So we are committed to doing that, and as I mentioned, in terms of just measuring the frequency of autism in the population some pretty big steps have been taken. We're careful not to jump ahead of our data, but we think we will be able to provide more accurate information in the next year or so than we've been able to do up to this point. And I know that is our responsibility.

We've also benefited from some increased investments in these areas that have allowed us to do this, and so we thank Congress and we thank the administration for supporting those investments, not just at CDC but also at NIH and FDA.

--

The latest response to my pesky persistence comes not from academia or government but from my own profession. Last week the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review published an article whose main thrust -- with which I concur -- was that a vigorous debate over a possible link between vaccines and autism was being thwarted by the self-induced timidity of the press.

Some reporters told the author, Daniel Schulman, that they have basically given up on the story because the criticism -- some of it from their own editors -- was so fierce, and the story was so complicated.

Schulman described Age of Autism's efforts to come at the issue "sideways," looking for possible clues to the cause of the disorder in the natural history of autism. And he mentioned our reporting on the Amish:

"Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing, Olmsted's reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply reflect genetic differences among an isolated gene pool. ... Both reporters believed that Olmsted has made up his mind on the question and is reporting the facts that support his conclusions."

Ouch. Being slammed by one's peers is never enjoyable, although reporters need to have thick skins and realize they dish this kind of thing out every day. (And those anonymous sources really are annoying, especially when I am happy to be quoted by name about everything.)

What's interesting about the reporters' "private" remarks is the degree of presumed expertise they suggest -- that looking at the Amish is misguided "since it may simply reflect genetic differences among an isolated gene pool." Really? Where did these guys get their doctorate in genetics, Harvard?

This assertion -- that the Amish gene pool could explain everything, based on no data that I'm aware of -- is the kind of self-interested speculation masquerading as expertise that has beset the autism-vaccines discussion for far too long. The term I learned for it long ago is "convenient reasoning," and it does not always have to be conscious.

The Amish have all kinds of standard genetic mental and developmental disorders -- from bipolar to retardation -- and a lot more genetic issues to boot from this supposedly protective "isolated gene pool." The doctors who actually know something about the Amish have never suggested to me that genes have anything to do with a low rate of autism. They seem perplexed.

In upcoming columns, we'll put that question to the right people -- geneticists -- and tell you what we find. It's called reporting.

--

This ongoing series on the roots and rise of autism welcomes reader response. E-mail: dolmsted@upi.com

Listen to this article | Posted by Becca

By Red Flags Columnist, F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
(tlautstudy@aol.com)

Original Article: http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_oct28.html

Many parents believe that one or more of their children regressed after receiving the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. No one knows exactly the number of these children, but they probably constitute 10 to15 percent of children with regressive autism. The majority of children appear not to react unfavorably to the triple vaccine. Obviously, for a couple whose only son is fascinated with garage doors, or makes strange whirling noises all day, or hits his head against the wall to keep entertained or answers by pointing to pictures in a book, the percentage jumps to 100 percent.

The poor parents of affected children, particularly those living in England, woke up on Oct. 18 to the news that yet another “definitive” epidemiological study — the most thorough survey of MMR vaccination data — had concluded that there is no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccine. The news had been carefully leaked with an impressive notice that it should be “strictly” embargoed until 00:01 hours (BST), Oct. 19, 2005. This was the most effective way to guarantee that it would spread like a California wild fire on Tuesday the 18th. After all, with everything happening around the world, from earthquakes to hurricanes, wars, elections and bird flu, it was not safe to take a chance that some new calamity would distract people on Wednesday from appreciating the important findings of the study.

It was Tuesday when I received the embargoed press release. It started, “There was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination. This is the conclusion drawn by the Cochrane Review Authors, an international team of researchers, after carefully drawing together all of the evidence found in 31 high quality studies from around the world.”

The lead author of the study, Vittorio Demicheli, MD, of the Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy, promptly tempered the initial sweeping statement by adding, “In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence.”

He then was quoted as saying, “Public health decisions need to be based on sound evidence. If this principle had been applied in the case of the MMR dispute, then we would have avoided all the fuss.”

The fuss!
Is that what it was all about?
Is that what regressive autism is? A fuss!
Now Demicheli had my attention.

What was not mentioned in the widely circulated embargoed press release was the actual first conclusion listed by the authors in their abstract: “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”

I have to say in fairness that I have always admired the work done by the Cochrane group. In fact, I quoted their excellent pediatric influenza vaccination review in “Influenza vaccination of infants: A useless risk” on Red Flags less than a month ago. (1) The lead author for that review was Tom Jefferson, MD, who is a Cochrane researcher based in England; Demicheli was one of the co-authors. Of the most recent 15 reviews listed in MEDLINE, which they have co-authored with others, Jefferson was the lead author in eight and Demicheli, the lead author in four. Most studies were related to influenza vaccination.

It is well known that the Italians have never had much amore for the MMR vaccination. In 2002, a measles epidemic was attributed to “inadequate” vaccination coverage (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Oct. 31, 2003). Actually “inadequate” was a charitable way to describe a seven-percent vaccination rate in the area with the most cases that year — 3,750 cases per 100,000 children under the age of 15. (2)

To see Demicheli listed as the lead author of this recent MMR review (3) was, therefore, intriguing to say the least. The MMR-autism issue had created much “fuss” — indeed, more of an obsession — in the United Kingdom for years and Jefferson has been connected with it since 1999. So, why was the apparent expert on the subject not the lead author, while his Italian colleague was? We’ll get to that later.

Details of the Release

“Aware of the controversy surrounding the use of MMR, members of The Cochrane Collaboration set out to review the evidence for effectiveness of the vaccine and also to review evidence of adverse events. In a process of ‘systematic reviewing’ researchers searched international databases and found 139 articles about MMR use. Because many of them referred to studies that had been conducted in a way that could not rule out bias or error, the researchers discarded all but 31 of them. Using rigorously established methods, the researchers then synthesized the findings from these pieces of higher-quality research to create the most authoritative assessment yet available.”

The above would suggest that 108 of 139 studies on MMR did not meet the Cochrane criteria. In fact, the authors reviewed some 5,000 MMR-related articles and found only 31 that could "possibly” fulfill their inclusion criteria.

According to the embargoed information, the authors concluded that:

1. There is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and any long-term disability, including Crohn’s disease and autism.
2. MMR is an important vaccine, which has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications where the vaccine is not used consistently.
3. The lack of confidence in MMR has caused great damage to public health.
4. People arguing for or against the use of any therapy need to make sure that they base their conclusions on carefully collected evidence, not just on biased opinion, speculation or suspicion.

From here on, my comments will be limited to regressive autism.

Conclusion 1

The fact that a review of the 31 studies suggested that no link exists between the MMR vaccine and autism does not mean that, indeed, no link exists. We have seen each one of those epidemiological studies make a splash, get some applause and then fade away while the so-called study of 12 by Andrew Wakefield, MD, has endured. Indeed, if one of the adversarial studies had been strong enough to stand on its merits, we would not have needed another and another and another to follow. We would not have needed 5,000 of them and we would not have needed the Cochrane review.

In 2002, K. M. Madsen, MD, stated that preceding studies lacked sufficient statistical power to detect an association and did not have a population-based cohort design. In time, his own study was proved deficient by G. S. Goldman, PhD, and myself. (4) The 2004 Smeeth study only survived a few weeks and now the Cochrane reviewers suggest that it, too, is lacking something.

In addition, the impartiality of some authors and the significance of their findings came into question. The research group led by Heikki Peltola, MD, received financial support from Merck. The U.K. Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) commissioned the studies by Brent Taylor, PhD, and friends. Madsen’s study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MCA and PHLS. And those are only three of many.

Conclusion 2

The authors are expressing a personal MMR-favorable opinion although they know or should know, as everyone else does, that measles mortality had decreased drastically in the Western world before the advent of vaccination because of improved hygiene and nutrition. In Third World countries today, improved nutrition and hygiene are the top priorities.

Conclusion 3

The lack of confidence in the MMR vaccine was the result of the inability of its promoters to instill confidence and maintain it. The so-called, and so-far theoretical, “damage to public health” would have been nil if the U.K. Department of Health had not outlawed the monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in 1999 — just to force people to their knees. This should be remembered as the worst public health decision ever: vaccination’s Day of Infamy.

Conclusion 4

No one ever said that MMR vaccination should be withdrawn. In fact, Wakefield’s biggest troubles started when he warned the U.K. health department to get ready and have some single vaccines available in case there was a further drop in MMR vaccination rates — following the publication of his article — as the rates had been falling since 1996. (5)

***

MMR and Autism

The evidence supporting an MMR-autism link was carefully collected and duplicated and is rock solid. It is certainly not “biased opinion, speculation or suspicion.”

In hundreds of children with post-MMR regressive autism, a specific type of enterocolitis has been identified by many investigators in several countries. Some of the affected children have evidence of measles virus genomic RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid, some in the gut wall and some in both sites. In many, the sequences obtained were consistent with being vaccine strains and, in these children, there was no history of exposure to wild measles.
Many affected children have specific patterns of urinary polypeptides, high serum measles and MMR antibody titers and elevated myelin basic protein auto-antibody levels.
In fact, it will be safe to say that it is impossible to find one normal child who has evidence of both MMR antibody and myelin basic protein auto-antibodies in his serum or his cerebrospinal fluid or one child, who regressed after MMR vaccination, who does not have at least one of the following: the typical enterocolitis of autism, a suggestive pattern of urinary polypeptides, evidence of measles virus genomic RNA, elevated serum measles virus antibody, MMR antibody or myelin basic protein auto-antibodies.

These are not suspicions. These are facts — rock-solid facts.
In many children, two regressions have been clearly documented by health-care providers, photographs and videos. The first regression occurred shortly after the first MMR vaccination and the second, much more severe, after the MMR booster at age 4 or 5, following a period of relative improvement. This biphasic course, or challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge, has been accepted as evidence of causation by the courts and by a special committee of the Institute of Medicine.

In a May 2005 presentation to the American Gastroenterological Association of a study titled “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients,” Frederico Balzola, MD, of Turin, Italy, and associates described in detail the many gastrointestinal (GI) findings in nine consecutive patients with autism who had long-standing and serious GI symptomatology including abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and/or diarrhea.

The authors concluded, “These preliminary data are strongly consistent with previous descriptions of autistic enterocolitis and supported a not-coincidental occurrence. Moreover, they showed for the first time a small intestinal involvement, suggesting a panenteric localization of this new IBD. The treatment to gain clinical remission has still to be tried and it will be extremely important to ameliorate the quality of life of such patients who are likely to be overlooked because of their long-life problems in the communication of symptoms.”

Now this is the kind of study that Demicheli and his colleagues should have looked at, instead of reviewing epidemiological studies of dubious quality financed by the vaccine manufacturer or vaccine agencies.

Conflict or Bias

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust has competing personal, professional and/or financial interests.
Bias is an inclination that inhibits impartial judgment.

Jefferson, the real MMR expert of the Cochrane team, did disclose that he had a “potential” conflict of interest: In 1999, he acted as an ad hoc consultant for a legal team advising MMR manufacturers.

The Cochrane publication also carried the following acknowledgements: “Drs Harald Heijbel, Carlo DiPietrantonj, Paddy Farrington, Ms Sally Hopewell,
Melanie Rudin, Anne Lusher, Letizia Sampaolo and Valeria Wenzel. The authors wish to thank the following for commenting on this review draft: Bruce Arroll, Lize van der Merwe, Janet Wale and Leonard Leibovici.”

***

If the lawyers for the MMR manufacturer(s) in the U.K. hired Tom Jefferson as a consultant in 1999, while they were preparing for the looming MMR autism case, they must have been certain that he would be ready to testify under oath that MMR did not and could not cause autism — in anyone.

In June 2000, Jefferson wrote an editorial in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Online, titled“Real or perceived adverse effects of vaccines and the media — a tale of our times.” In it, he stated, “Since the publication of the Wakefield study on 28 February 1998, public concern fueled by extensive media coverage caused a steady decline in MMR coverage in parts of the United Kingdom, with a subsequent risk of a decline in herd immunity and resurgence in morbidity.

“A swift reaction by the U.K. government and the subsequent publication of studies by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and by Taylor et al, showing no evidence of a causal link, partly redressed the balance. As usual with vaccine "scare stories," there was a delay between publication of the initial case series and that of population-based causal assessment study. During this time, declining coverage took place.” (6)

Jefferson acknowledged that he received help in the preparation of the editorial from Robert Chen, Ulrich Heininger, Elisabeth Loupi and Harald Heijbel.

Since 1998, and until a short while ago, Chen, an epidemiologist with the National Immunization Program (NIP), had been the CDC’s point man for all MMR matters arising from the Wakefield publication. He wrote frequent anti-Wakefield articles and gave many interviews. He was also always in close contact with Elizabeth Miller of the U.K. Department of Health, who co-authored the Taylor studies and who led the charge against Wakefield in England.

Ulrich Heininger was the European editor of the Archives of Disease in Childhood. In 2002, he wrote, “However, safety questions raised about certain vaccines — whether true (intussusception associated with rotavirus vaccine) or false (autism due to MMR) — have challenged pediatricians.” (7)

Elizabeth Loupi was senior director of Pharmacovigilance, Sanofi Pasteur SA, Lyon, France. Sanofi Pasteur MSD is the only European company dedicated exclusively to vaccines and was founded in 1994, as a joint venture between Sanofi Pasteur and Merck & Co., Inc.

Lastly, Harald Heijbel was the coordinator, Immunization Registry Project, Swedish Institute of Infectious Disease Control, Stockholm, Sweden

Jefferson was obviously a big booster of MMR vaccination and a firm believer in its safety — no matter what. He also had to be anti-Wakefield.

Even if he only had a “potential” financial conflict of interest, he certainly had a major personal conflict and bias and he should have declared them. A father who regularly contributes comments on the autism situation to the electronic British Medical Journal has always added “father of an autistic child.” And I certainly have always declared that I had a grandson who regressed after MMR vaccination. I thought it was only fair that readers know.

As stated earlier, the Cochrane researchers who designed the present study, evaluated the 31 “chosen epidemiological works” and wrote the present report received assistance and scientific support from Harald Heijbel, Carlo DiPietrantonj, Paddy Farrington, Sally Hopewell, Melanie Rudin, Anne Lusher, Letizia Sampaolo and Valeria Wenzel.

Information about Harald Heijbel was reported earlier.

Paddy Farrington co-authored Brent Taylor’s and Elizabeth Miller’s first article “Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association” (The Lancet, June 12, 1999). Having him help review that study and others like it is strange — to say the least.

Farrington’s statistical contribution to the first Taylor study was criticized by James H. Roger, PhD, at a meeting of the Royal Statistical Society in London. In a letter to the editor of The Lancet (July 8, 2000), Roger wrote, “Sir — Rather than clarify the measles, MMR, and autism confusion with your editorial, you perpetuated the myth that good scientific evidence rejects a link between MMR vaccination and autism.
You quote Taylor and colleagues as publishing "epidemiological evidence contradicting this alleged association." On March 28, 2000, I presented a talk to the Royal Statistical Society, in which I showed how the currently published data, including that from this study, are consistent with an appreciable number of autism cases being triggered by MMR vaccination. In short, Taylor and colleagues used the wrong study design to detect an association between immunization and a disease with chronic onset, such as autism.”

Sally Hopewell, Melanie Rudin and Ann Lusher are employed at the U.K. Cochrane Centre.

Scientists Valeria Wenzel and Letizia Sampaolo work at the Istituto superiore di sanità in Rome, the main Italian Institute of technical-scientific research, control and advice in public health.

Because the listing of personal bias is not required, Jefferson’s past association with the Brighton Collaboration was also not disclosed.

No wonder Vittorio Demicheli of the Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy, became the lead author of the Cochrane MMR review.

The Brighton Collaboration

On its Web site (8), The Brighton Collaboration reports:

“[It] was founded by Robert Chen, Harald Heijbel, Tom Jefferson, Ulrich Heininger, and Elisabeth Loupi in 1999 at a meeting in Brighton, England. It was officially launched in autumn 2000. The Collaboration consists of volunteers from patient care, public health, scientific, pharmaceutical, regulatory and professional organizations coming from developed and developing countries. They are experienced and knowledgeable in the field of immunization safety and corresponding medical specialties.”

It says its objectives are:

“A. Global Collaboration
To establish a global collaboration of professionals and organizations concerned with immunization safety.
B. Development
To develop a single standardized case definition per AEFI and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation for global use.
C. Evaluation
To develop and implement study protocols for evaluation of case definitions and guidelines in clinical trials and surveillance systems.
D. Implementation
To raise global awareness of the availability, educate about the benefit of use, facilitate access to and monitor worldwide use of standardized case definitions and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation.”

It reports the following about its sources of support:

“The work of the Brighton Collaboration is based on a large number of volunteers worldwide. It obtained its first funding in 1999. The Brighton Collaboration is presently supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). From 2000 until 2003, the Collaboration also received funding through the European Research Program for Improved Vaccine Safety Surveillance (EUSAFEVAC).

“In December 2003, the Brighton Collaboration Foundation was established by the University Children's Hospital Basel, Switzerland. The purpose of the Foundation is to protect and preserve public health by promoting immunization safety. The Foundation promotes the development and availability of globally accepted, high quality scientific standards for research on and communication of immunization safety. The Foundation may also conduct immunization safety research itself or support such research projects.”

It is well known that U.S. Congressman Dave Weldon, MD, of Florida has been watching health matters carefully as a member of the committee on government reform of the House of Representatives.

In one particular address to the House of Representatives in 2004, Weldon discussed autism, MMR research and the Brighton Collaboration among other things. The address (9) is now part of the Congressional Record, June 18, 2004, beginning on page H4564 and can be seen in its entirety at
http://weldon.house.gov/UploadedFiles/RepWeldonMDonIOM.pdf

The following segment is relevant to this discussion:

“Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on one more additional issue, and that is something called the Brighton Collaboration. I am very concerned about the development of the Brighton Collaboration, which began in the year 2000. This is an international group comprised of public health officials from the CDC, Europe, and world health agencies like WHO and vaccine manufacturers.

The first task of the Brighton Collaboration, created several years ago, was to define what constitutes an adverse reaction to a vaccine. They have established committees to work on various adverse reactions to vaccines. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that serving on these panels defining what constitutes an adverse reaction to a vaccine are the vaccine manufacturers. What is even worse is the fact that some of these committees are chaired by vaccine manufacturers.

It is inappropriate for a manufacturer of vaccines to be put in the position of determining what is and what is not, an adverse reaction to its product. Do we allow GM, Ford and Chrysler to define the safety of their automobiles? Do we let airlines set the safety standards for their airlines and determine the cause of an airline accident? Do we allow food processors to determine whether or not their food is contaminated or causing harm? Then, I ask, why we are allowing vaccine manufacturers to define what constitutes an adverse reaction to a vaccine?

This collaboration is fraught with pitfalls, and merges regulators and the regulated into an indistinguishable group. It is critical that the American public look at what is going on here and how this entity may further erode the ability for us to fully understand the true relationship between various vaccines and some adverse reactions in some subsets of our population. I plan to devote additional attention to this effort in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with you and others in this body to address the problem that we face today.

As I stated at the outset of my comments this afternoon, autism was once in America a rare and infrequently seen condition. I went through four years of medical school, internship, residency, and years of private practice and practice within the military and had not seen one single case. I have seen case after case in my Congressional District over the last seven years, a disease that I had never seen before.

The disease incidence was previously thought to be one in 10,000. It is now thought to be as high as possibly one in 167, an almost 100-fold increase in the incidence.

We need to get answers to these questions. We need to restore public confidence and safety in our vaccine program. Our vaccine program saves millions of lives, it saves millions of kids from a life of disability, and the best way for us to ensure public confidence and make sure that all the kids get vaccinated properly is to get answers to these questions. The way the CDC and the Institute of Medicine and the industry is going about trying to answer these questions is highly flawed.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to begin to look at this issue. I know that many of them are coming to me saying they have parents coming in their offices now with autistic kids, saying something needs to be done. Something needs to be done.”

Discussion:

• Epidemiological and statistical studies — even the best — cannot prove that the MMR vaccination does not cause regressive autism in a small percentage of genetically predisposed children.
• So far, we have not seen one unbiased, well-done and convincing epidemiological study.
• Hundreds of weak studies have come and gone after they made a little noise.
• The Wakefield study of 12 certainly seems to have endured.
• Reliable histories with documentation have clearly shown regression occurs following vaccination and specifically MMR vaccination.
• Accurate clinical studies have revealed the presence of typical and similar intestinal findings in children with post MMR regressive autism.
• Reproducible laboratory investigations have confirmed the relationship of the findings with the measles component of the MMR.
• Challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge has been documented repeatedly.
• Diet and therapeutic management of the gastrointestinal component of the disease has improved behavior and speech.
• Though technically impressive, the recent MMR review by the Cochrane group will please those who are already “on board” and convince only those who know little about the subject.
• For everyone else, the huge effort did fall short.
• The hierarchy of the Cochrane Institution should examine the impartiality of all involved.
• For an institution of that caliber, even the appearance of bias is unacceptable.
• The authors of the Cochrane review revealed their partiality when they endorsed the MMR vaccine without reservation and declared that it could not cause harm. Multiple reports to VAERS and a review of the vaccine compensation programs in the U.S., the U.K., Japan and other countries show otherwise.

Something Is Not Right When:

• Epidemiological studies about MMR and autism are financed by the CDC, the U.K. Department of Health, the vaccine manufacturers or someone supporting them.
• Those studies — even the worst of them — are easily published in the best medical journals, while their criticism is not.
• The same studies are applauded after publication by the CDC, the U.K. DOH and friends who made them happen.
• The studies are then reviewed by friends.
• And they are re-reviewed by sympathizers who minimize their problems and attest that “there is no credible link,” while not looking at all the evidence contradicting them.

Something Is Certainly Not Right When:

All this is happening and the only one accused of conflict of interest is Andy Wakefield because his hospital received a grant of £55,000 to support GI research.

Conclusion:

The recent Cochrane Review of the MMR vaccine epidemiological research is not convincing.

References:

1. Influenza vaccination of infants: A useless risk
   http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_sep30.php
2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5243a4.htm
3. Review Paper: Demicheli et al: Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4.
4. Goldman GS, Yazbak FE: An Investigation of the Association between MMR Vaccination and Autism in Denmark. JAmPhysSurg 2004; 9(3):70-75 http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/goldman.pdf
5. MMR Vaccination rates were down before Wakefield
   http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/autism/2003_dec22.html
6. http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/54/6/402
7. http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/extract/87/1/9
8. http://www.brightoncollaboration.org/internet/en/index/about.html
9. http://weldon.house.gov/UploadedFiles/RepWeldonMDonIOM.pdf

Listen to this article | Posted by Becca

Look at genetics, environment to include not-yet-born Utahns

Listen to this article | Posted by Becca

Opinions & Letters
Watertown TAB online

The article [about] Watertown 12th most toxic city in state, points to an association between toxic chemicals and autism. While consciousness of environmental toxins is growing, there is an area of serious exposure that goes unnoticed. For over 70 years, vaccine makers have used mercury (thimerosal) as a cheap preservative in vaccines.
Six years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the EPA, the CDC and the FDA all recommended that vaccine makers eliminate mercury because of the "potential for neurological damage." Amazingly, it is still used in the flu vaccine, and the AAP recommends it for babies whose delicate brains are still developing. There is a mercury-free flu shot available, but the pharmaceutical industry tells us that they make most flu vaccines with mercury because there is no demand for the mercury-free ones. However, most people are unaware of the mercury in these vaccines.
Starting in the late 1980s, more and more mercury-containing vaccines were added to the required list for children and coincidentally, the autism rate exploded. Twenty years ago, autism affected one in 10,000 children, and today it's one in 166. Furthermore, one in every six children has a diagnosis of attention deficit or some other neurological disorder. The government says it's due to better diagnosing.
The CDC points to easily flawed and manipulated population studies to show no link between mercury and neurological disorders. Introduced by Eli Lilly in 1930, thimerosal was tested only once, on 22 adult patients suffering from meningitis. There was no chance for follow-up as all of the patients in this study died. Thimerosal was pronounced safe and later grandfathered in when the FDA was created. The first 11 cases of autism ever documented in 1943, were in children who were among the first to be vaccinated with mercury. The government has never conducted tests on the neurotoxicity of thimerosal, although hundreds of studies show its extreme toxicity.
Recently, many angry parents from national autism organizations came to Washington to ask Congress why the federal government has failed to take action in the face of this epidemic increase in autism. Participants at the Capitol listened to legislators who believe the pharmaceutical industry has undue influence in Congress, making some Congressmen more concerned with the interests of the vaccine makers than in protecting our children against unsafe vaccines.

Anne McElroy Dachel
Media Relations Coordinator
National Autism Association
Chippewa Falls, Wisc.

Listen to this article | Posted by Becca

By Joe Baker, Sr Editor
Rockford's Rock River Times

Dr. Leonard Horowitz is an internationally known expert in the fields of public health, behavioral science, emerging diseases, and bioterrorism. His testimony before the Government Reform Committee of the U.S. Congress brought the hearing to a screeching halt. He forced the committee to acknowledge that a secret report showed a link between mercury [Thimerosal], found in many vaccines, and the spiraling rate of autism and behavioral disorders in American children.

Dr. Horowitz believes the current avian flu scare is highly suspicious. In a recent article, he said: “If avian flu becomes more than a threatened pandemic, it will have done so by political and economic design. This thesis is supported by current massive media misrepresentations, profiteering on risky and valueless vaccines, gross neglect of data evidencing earlier similar man-made plagues including SARS, West Nile virus, AIDS and more; continuance of genetic studies breeding more mutant flu viruses likely to outbreak, inside trading scandals involving pandemic-savvy White House and drug industry officials, curious immunity of these pharmaceutical entities over the past century to law enforcement and mainstream media scrutiny, and published official depopulation objectives.”

Dr. Horowitz has dubbed what he calls this “physician-assisted mass murder” as “iatrogenocide.” The term is a combination of iatrogenesis [physician-caused illness] and genocide, meaning the mass killing or enslaving of people for reasons of economics, politics and/ or ideology.

He recalled the period in which SARS, [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] first appeared. For the first time, Horowitz said, Canadian response to the alleged threat was directed by the U.N. and the World Health Organization. He noted these organizations are tied administratively and financially to the Rockefeller family, Carnegie Foundation, and leading drug makers here and abroad.

“The truth about plagues,” said Horowitz, “includes the fact that no grand pandemic ever evolved divorced from major socio-political upheaval. ‘Experts’ had been predicting the arrival of a super-plague for decades. What was highly suspicious about the mysterious and terrifying arrival of SARS, however, was its timing.”

It arrived with the launch of the “War on Terror” and the invasion of Iraq. This provided a good distraction from the fact that the Bush I administration had furnished Saddam Hussein with the majority of his deadly biological weapons, including anthrax and West Nile virus. “SARS, and the current avian flu fright,” said Horowitz, “is sanctioned by military-medical-pharmaceutical-petrochemical industrialists likewise operating above the law in many documented instances.”

Richard Nixon’s National Security adviser and protégé of Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, directed foreign policy while weighing Third World population reduction, which he viewed as “necessities” for the U.S., Britain, Germany and other allies.

Kissinger chose the option to have the CIA develop biological weapons, or so states the U.S. Congressional Record for 1975. These weapons included some organisms far deadlier than avian flu.

Horowitz said conflicts like the “War on AIDS,” the “War on Drugs,” and the “War on Terror,” need sophisticated propaganda campaigns to generate fear to gain social acceptance and public support for the legislated programs. These psychological operations, experts say, best support the new “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA). RMA’s capabilities include a form of slavery in which the globe’s captive populations would not even know they are enslaved.

Ailments generated for “iatrogenocide” include the many autoimmune diseases and newer cancers that were almost non-existent 50 years ago, Dr. Horowitz said. He added, “This fact alone strongly suggests a genocidal socio-economic and political agenda.”

Pointed questions about the avian flu do not seem to be advanced. For instance, has anyone asked how lethal, how transmissible, and how treatable is this strain? Did you know that avian flu has killed “about 65 people” in Southeast Asia in the past two years? Most of these victims had compromised immune systems, and all the deaths were in Asia in countries with dubious health services.

Other forms of flu kill more than 40,000 North Americans yearly, mostly among the elderly.

Earlier this month, USA Today reported more than 140 million birds have died or been destroyed in an effort to contain the virus, but the significant statement was “The current virus, known as H5N1, has not yet mutated to the point at which it can easily spread from person to person.” In fact, Dr. Horowitz said, it is likely it has never spread from person to person except when being handled in a laboratory.

Despite that fact, the U.S. Senate has authorized a $3.9 billion package to obtain vaccines and antiviral medications, and the Bush administration is readying a request for an additional $6 billion to $10 billion,” according to an article in Business Week.

No human vaccine exists, so why is the Senate eager to spend all that money for an avian flu vaccine? Avian flu has never spread from person to person, nor has it spread from birds to humans. To get a human vaccine specific for this virus, it is necessary to culture the avian virus in human cell cultures and then inject the result into monkeys and, eventually, humans. Then, these guinea pigs are watched to see if they develop avian flu.

That virus is being either produced now in labs financed by industrialists with huge profit-incentives to “accidentally” release the virus, or it is already prepared and awaiting release to take the maximum advantage of the present fear and future sales when the virus is released.

The track record on vaccines is not encouraging. Many have led to horrific results. Remember swine flu vaccine? Then there was polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, anthrax vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine and, more recently, Lyme disease vaccine that crippled close to 750,000 people within months after it was released and before its recall by the FDA.

Dr. Horowitz said vaccines contain ingredients that can increase human disease and death. Growing scientific evidence, he said, suggests vaccines are chiefly responsible for spawning cases of autism and learning disorders, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, lupus, MS, ALS, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, allergies, type 1 diabetes, and many other pandemics. Dr. Horowitz added: “Vaccines and other pharmaceutical industry inventions are literally killing or disabling millions with little effort on the part of government officials and their drug industry cohorts to arrest this scourge.”

More information on this situation can be found at www.globalresearch.ca.

Listen to this article | Posted by Becca

Would Shield Manufacturers

By THOMAS D. WILLIAMS
Courant.com

Congress is considering a bill that would allow the government to order that vaccines be given to every U.S. citizen in a national emergency, even if a vaccine has previously harmed some people.

The bill would also make it almost impossible for anyone harmed by these substances to sue the manufacturer or drug researchers.

Supporters say protecting producers from potential liability would bring more drug makers to the table. Opponents warn the proposal would render everyone little more than a "guinea pig" for the drug industry.

"[This new] legislation provides liability protection for individuals and entities who engage in countermeasure or pandemic/epidemic technology development, manufacturing or administration," said Michael B. Enzi He is an official with the Biotechnology Industry Organization that represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions and related organizations.

"Current law," he said, "provides inadequate protections; thus companies have been reluctant to enter the bio-defense market."

"This is a drug company stockholder's dream and a consumer's worst nightmare," said Barbara Loe Fisher, director of the National Vaccine Information Center. "It is a sad day for this nation when Congress is frightened and bullied into allowing one profit-making industry to destroy the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing citizens their day in court in front of a jury of their peers."

These contrasting views are helping to shape the next phase of the nation's bio-defense program in which seven federal agencies appropriated or spent nearly $25 million between 2003 and 2005.

The measure would give the secretary of health and human services power over what information, if any, the public can know about what drugs people could be made to take against their will. It would also shield manufacturers, universities and other drug research institutions against liability when drug products lead to illness, disability or death.

Had this proposed bill been in place, the six deaths linked to BioThrax, the controversial vaccine the Defense Department bought to protect soldiers against an attack by anyone using airborne anthrax spores, and ordered them to take, might never have been disclosed publicly. The HHS secretary could have decided that the information could harm national security.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been reviewing the deaths of five other service members to determine whether their deaths were also linked to the vaccine.

Information about the drugs' effectiveness or its potential to do harm could not be obtained through normal federal Freedom of Information channels. Manufacturers would be immune from lawsuits arising out of negligence claims in cases where people have been made sick or have died.

Since the public would have trouble obtaining documents proving a drug is causing adverse reactions, Fisher said, there is little chance of challenging a drug company in court.

"The last resort for ordinary Americans who are victims of corporate negligence, is the civil justice system. So, we are against any proposal that leaves people without a just remedy [like this one]," said Erin Mayton, deputy director and counsel of communications for the American Trial Lawyers of America.

The new bill's controversial provisions were discussed over several days inside and outside the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, which approved the bill.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Richard Burr [R-N.C.], the bill's sponsor, said initial language that would have barred all public access to information has been eliminated. The newer version allows the secretary of HHS to block the release of any information that would hurt national security, he said.

"We must ensure the federal government acts as a partner with the private sector, providing the incentives and protections necessary to bring more and better drugs and vaccines to market faster," Burr said.

If the bill passes in the Senate, it goes to the House for further action, and if approved there, would need President Bush's signature.

"We feel it is very important to have liability protection for the companies as part of any bio-defense bill," said Allen Abney, a Bush spokesman, who declined to comment on the bill's public information restrictions.

Despite this presidential approval, some doctors believe this bill would turn U.S. citizens into guinea pigs.

"The concept of streamlining product development is left very loose, potentially allowing for any safety requirement to be bypassed," said Dr. Meryl Nass, a Maine physician who has studied experimental vaccines and testified before Congress and in the courts about them.

"This [bill] ignores the Nuremberg Code," said Nass, "in essence requiring American civilians to become guinea pigs for untested products for which their manufacturers have little incentive to assure optimal safety."

Nass said she sees a conflict in the HHS secretary's reviewing of complaints about drugs whose use the secretary authorized by declaring a national emergency. Furthermore, if a drug company disagrees with the secretary's ruling, it could immediately appeal to the federal court.

Connecticut's two Democratic senators have differing opinions on the proposal.

Rob Sawicki, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Lieberman supports Burr's bill and its restrictions on the release of information to protect national security.

Last spring, Lieberman favored passage of legislation giving drug companies protection from lawsuits, tax incentives, drug patent protections and fast track government drug licensing approvals.

"There is no market for these [drugs and vaccines]," said Lieberman, "unless there is a national disaster, so there is no normal market to encourage drug development in this bio-threat area."

The state's other Democratic senator, Chris Dodd, said although the new legislation is sound in attempting to prepare the public for a biological attack, he will not support it in its present form.

"Sadly," Dodd said, "the need for legislation to protect people from biological threats has in crucial respects been placed as a secondary priority behind special protections for special interests in the drug and health care industries. Some limited liability protection is reasonable, but it must be done in a way that doesn't unfairly hurt people affected by potential health crises - or by potential treatments for those crises.

"The bill also gives drug companies exclusive rights to manufacture drugs and vaccines that could increase prices just when people need these drugs most," he said.

Already former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson has used his emergency powers, created by initial Bioshield legislation, to force voluntary use of BioThrax vaccine for service members. He did so after a federal judge enjoined its mandatory use last April. The vaccine supposedly protects soldiers from enemy attacks by airborne anthrax spores.

BioThraxis manufactured by BioPort Corp. of Lansing Mich. Federal inquiries of its adverse effects show the vaccine can cause lymphoma, lupus, multiple sclerosis, seizures and even death.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, acting on complaints that the vaccine was not properly licensed, said the law requires that service members give their consent to be vaccinated.

But Sullivan said he did not have the power to overrule Thompson's emergency vaccine use authorization even though it was issued following Sullivan's ruling. Defense Department lawyers would not tell Sullivan the factual details about the department's basis for asking for Thompson's emergency order saying the details are classified secret. They were, however, able to convince Thompson there is an imminent threat of a biological anthrax spore attack.

In 1998, former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen ordered forced anthrax vaccine inoculations of all 2.4 million service members. Since then, disputes over its licensing, its safety and the need for its use have been a constant source of public debate.

BioPort's vaccine is utilized almost exclusively for soldiers, has already demonstrated an adverse reaction rate 100 times the figure initially stated on the label. Adverse reactions include immune disorders, muscle and joint pain, headaches, rashes, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, chills and fever. At least half a dozen deaths and a number of birth defects have been attributed to its use. BioPort is shielded from lawsuits over adverse reactions through a defense department authorization.

Now the HHS is stockpiling the vaccine and other developing drug products, not yet approved, to use on civilians in the event of a terrorist anthrax spore attack. Under initial Bioshield acts passed by Congress in the past two years, HHS and other federal agencies are working on still other new unlicensed drugs and vaccines that in theory will protect the public in the event of a biological attack.

Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant

Listen to this article | Posted by Becca