The Vaccine Program: Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption—Part 3 of 7 Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

The Vaccine Program: Betrayal of Public Trust & Institutional Corruption—Part 3 of 7

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.January 26, 2018

Note from the World Mercury Project Team:  Following is Part Three in Vera Sharav’s seven-part exposé of the complex and widespread corruption that exists in the vaccination program

including collusion of public health officials to deceive the public, the “willful blindness” by the medical community and the callous disregard for the plight of thousands of children who suffer irreversible harm. Sharav’s research is a must-read by those in our community.

advertisement - learn more

You can read part 1 here, and part 2 here.

The Brighton Collaboration Was Established To Lend an Air Of “Authority” To Centrally Controlled Vaccine Safety Assessments, Controlled Research, & “Knowledge Management”

The Brighton Collaboration — and the Brighton Collaboration Foundation (established in 2003) — is an integral part of an elaborate international network of institutions promoting high vaccine utilization.

This “authoritative” consortium exerts extraordinary influence on vaccination policies worldwide and ensures that vaccine safety assessments enhance vaccine utilization goals. Vaccine stakeholders effectively control the science, the research, and the reports that get published in medical and public health journals. The broad range of the Brighton Collaboration’s international projects, initiatives, and tools for vaccine safety assessments reflect the bias of its partners, all of who are stakeholders in the business of vaccines; their interest is in ensuring high utilization of vaccines.

The Brighton Collaboration laid the foundation for gaining control of vaccine-related information by establishing an infrastructure for developing universal vaccine risk assessment standards, prescribing vaccine research strategies and methods, forming expert advisory panels, influencing journal publication selection, generating propaganda campaigns to gain trust.

advertisement - learn more

One of its stated missions is to increase public confidence in the safety of vaccines.

“The Brighton Collaboration, together with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Vaccine Confidence Project, is promoting research on the determinants of trust and distrust in vaccines generally as well as on the drivers of vaccine «scares», [and vaccine hesitancy] the manner in which they develop and spread, and effective strategies to best address vaccine safety concerns.”

This collaborating partnership of vaccine stakeholders re-defined what qualifies as an adverse reaction to a vaccine. When newborn infants suddenly died within days following vaccination, the Brighton Collaboration re-defined sudden infant deaths within 10 days of vaccination, declaring the deaths “unrelated to the vaccine”. [See Appendix 8]

Their primary goal is to protect high vaccination rates with a stream of positive reports. Thus, grants are awarded only to those whose research proposals are designed to validate the safety of vaccines. A second goal is to prevent research that could document safety hazards that would undermine vaccination policies. The main objectives of the Brighton Collaboration:⁴⁰

• To raise global awareness of the availability of standardized case definitions and guidelines for data collection, analysis and presentation, and to educate about the benefit of and monitor their global use and to facilitate access,
• To develop single standardized case definitions for specific AEFIs,
• To prepare guidelines for data collection, analysis and presentation for global use,
• To develop and implement study protocols for evaluation of case definitions and guidelines in clinical trials and surveillance systems. (WHO. Vaccine Safety Basics)

This “authoritative” consortium exerts extraordinary influence on vaccination policies worldwide and ensures that vaccine safety assessments enhance vaccine utilization goals. Vaccine stakeholders effectively control the science, the research, and the reports that get published in medical and public health journals. The broad range of the Brighton Collaboration’s international projects, initiatives, and tools for vaccine safety assessments reflect the bias of its partners, all of who are stakeholders in the business of vaccines; their interest is in ensuring high utilization of vaccines.

Next to CDC, the most influential institutional entity in global vaccination policies is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (founded in 2000) with its staggering investment portfolio of $40 billion. The Foundation’s grants awards ensure that the Bill and Melinda Gates interests are furthered. The Foundation has given the WHO more than $1.5 billion. [Wikipedia]
The Brighton Foundation’s 2016 Annual Report credits the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for:

“[making] a lot of this possible through projects like the Global Alignment of Immunisation Safety Assessment in Pregnancy ( GAIA)”. “The aim of GAIA is to improve data to strengthen immunisation programs involving pregnant women by harmonizing maternal, foetal, and neonatal health outcome assessments, with a specific focus on low and middle income Countries (LMIC)”.

The Gates Foundation’s focus on underdeveloped, poor countries is not viewed by the local population as an example of beneficence, but rather as abominable human exploitation. Professor Patrick Bond, a political economist  (University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, SA, who had been in Nelson Mandella’s new South African government), describes Gates’  unseemly business-philanthropic practices and agenda of the Gates Foundation are viewed as ruthless and immoral in an article in CounterPunch  (2016).^[34] Those tactics have garnered Bill and Melinda Gates $80 billion. The foundation’s pervasive influence in international development is through its aggressive promotion of both vaccines and genetically modified food. The Gates Foundation deploys international consortiums – such as GAVI– to influence public vaccination policy and to spread propaganda. Prof. Bond noted that:

“Gates’ “influence is so pervasive that many actors in international development, which would otherwise critique the policy and practice of the foundation, are unable to speak out independently as a result of its funding and patronage… Privatised health and education are Gates’ speciality. But in India, a Gates-funded trial on the genital cancer-causing disease Human papilloma virus was cancelled by the government because thousands of girls aged 10-14 were victims of ethics violations such as forged consent forms and lack of health insurance; seven died. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.”

“the most damage done within South Africa was Gates’ promotion of intellectual property (IP) rights. Long-term monopoly patents were granted not only to Gates for his Microsoft software, but for life-saving medicines. IP became a fatal barrier to millions of HIV+ people who, thanks to Big Pharma’s profiteering, were denied AIDS medicines which [resulted] in at least 330,000 avoidable AIDS deaths.”

The following excerpt from a report by Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE), a registered public trust organization in India provides a hint of the magnitude of moral corruption:^[35]

“In the mid-2000s] Africa [sic] experienced an “unprecedented increase in health research involving humans” who were typically “poverty-stricken and poorly educated”; the results were predictably lethal. 

In 2010 the Gates Foundation funded a Phase III trial of a malaria vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), administering the experimental treatment to thousands of infants across seven African countries. Eager to secure the WHO approval necessary to license the vaccine for global distribution, GSK and BMGF declared the trials a smashing success, and the popular press uncritically reproduced the publicity.

Few bothered to look closely at the study’s fine print, which revealed that the trials resulted in 151 deaths and caused “serious adverse effects” (e.g., paralysis, seizures, febrile convulsions) in 1048 of 5949 children aged 5-17 months.

Similar stories emerged in the wake of the Gates-funded MenAfriVac campaign in Chad, where unconfirmed reports alleged that 50 of 500 children forcibly vaccinated for meningitis later developed paralysis. Citing additional abuses, a South African newspaper declared: “We are guinea pigs for the drugmakers.”

Evolve Your Inbox & Stay Conscious Daily

Inspiration and all our best content, straight to your inbox.

It was in India, however, that the implications of BMGF’s collaboration with Big Pharma first rose to widespread public attention.  In 2010 seven adolescent tribal girls in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh died after receiving injections of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccines as part of a large-scale “demonstrational study” funded by the Gates Foundation and administered by PATH. The vaccines, developed by GSK and Merck, were given to approximately 23,000 girls between 10 and 14 years of age, ostensibly to guard against cervical cancers they might develop in old age.

Extrapolating from trial data, Indian physicians later estimated that at least 1,200 girls experienced severe side effects or developed auto-immune disorders as a result of the injections. No follow-up examinations or medical care were offered to the victims.Further investigations revealed pervasive violations of ethical norms: vulnerable village girls were virtually press-ganged into the trials, their parents bullied into signing consent forms they could not read by PATH representatives who made false claims about the safety and efficacy of the drugs.  In many cases signatures were simply forged”.

Research Grants Awarded By the WHO Are Funded By CDC.

Needless to say, those who control the funding sources set the agenda as well as the parameters of vaccine safety research. Thus, the vaccine research literature is similarly corrupted by conflicts of interests and [as will be demonstrated below] fraudulent, CDC- sponsored studies that were methodically skewed to promote high vaccination rates.

The same year that the IOM issued its dubious thimerosal report, a review of aluminum-containing DTP vaccines was published in The Lancet (2004). ^[36] The review was commissioned by the WHO; the principal author was Dr. Tom Jefferson. The reviewers acknowledged the following serious scientific flaws in the studies they reviewed:

“poor reporting led to substantial loss of data, which was only partly obviated by statistical manipulation of the confidence intervals around the estimates of effect for one outcome”;

“Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was low. Few reports gave details of the randomization process, allocation concealment, reason for withdrawals, or strategies to deal with them in analysis. Inconsistencies in reporting, lack of clarity on numerators and denominators, variability of outcome definitions, and lack of outcome definitions to much loss of data.”

Despite the serious invalidating the studies reviewed and the absence of scientifically valid evidence to support “reassuring” conclusions about the safety of vaccine adjuvants — specifically thimerosal and aluminum — Dr. Jefferson and his Cochrane colleagues delivered a conclusion crafted to protect government vaccination policies and industry profits (of course) – just as the politicized IOM panel had done.

It is disheartening that a scientist of Dr. Jefferson’s stature recommended that no further research on the possible hazards of aluminum in vaccines should be undertaken:

“We found no evidence that aluminum salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”

“No obvious candidates to replace aluminum are available, so withdrawal for safety reasons would severely affect the immunogenicity and protective effect of some currently licensed vaccines and threaten immunization progammes worldwide.”[Highlight added]

This is a government/ industry position; one that regards safety as an impediment, rather than a primary objective. This attitude explains why independent vaccine research that is designed to examine whether there are vaccine safety hazards, is effectively blocked by interconnected institutional vaccine stakeholders who control mainstream vaccine “science” and channels of information. This has resulted in a lack of adequate data on the toxicology of vaccine ingredients.

“There is [sic] a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”^[37] (Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic and Dr. Christopher Shaw (University of British Columbia)

Several recent examples [discussed below] show how independent studies demonstrating evidence of harm following vaccination are rejected for publication in influential (“high impact”) journals with wide readerships. In the case of research confirming aluminum’s toxicity in vaccines, editors used underhanded tactics to delay, withhold, retract, and attempt to suppress such articles – even when co-authored by an internationally recognized authority.

[A PubMed search “aluminum toxicity vaccines” retrieved 153 citations. Another search: “autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants” resulted in 66 citations. Appendix 11 of L’Affaire Wakefield is a partial bibliography that includes at least 6 scientific research reports that found aluminum to cause brain damage.]

The Brighton Collaboration Science Board of advisers are closely tied to vaccine manufacturers: for example, Dr. Daniel Salmon serves on Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board and is a strong advocate of compulsory vaccination. He is the lead author of Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, (NEJM, 2009).

Dr. Heidi Larson, of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) where she heads the Vaccine Confidence Project.

Dr. Larson is a member of the Vaccine Confidence Project (CSIS)^[36] and Merck’s Vaccine Strategic Advisory Board; she is a consultant on vaccine confidence to GSK, and receives research funds from Wyeth and Berna; lecture fees from Sanofi and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases. Dr. Larson serves on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

She co-authored a Merck-commissioned report (2015)^[37] for the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC. The report provides insight into the prevailing culture of industry-supported vaccine promoters who are absolutely determined to drive home their vaccine agenda at any cost. Reports of severe, chronic, generalized pain suffered by girls and young women are pouring into regulatory agencies,^[38] but those regulatory agencies –e.g, CDC, EMA, JCVI, Brighton Collaboration, GAVCS, WHO – resolutely deny that a serious problem exists. In Japan, there were more than 2,000 HPV-vaccine adverse event reports of which 358 vaccine injuries were judged to be serious by 2014.

Independent research findings that report evidence of vaccine safety hazards are prevented from reaching the public. Such reports are suppressed, denigrated, and retracted for either unstated or spurious reasons;³⁹ the scientists are pilloried.⁴⁰ The recent case of an orchestrated assault allegedly led by the Chairman of the WHO – Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety against pathologist Sin Hang Lee, MD is an example.

WMP NOTE:  This concludes Part Three. Part Four of the seven-part series will be entitled: The HVP Debacle: How the Global Network of Government/Academic and Industry Stakeholders Suppress Information. 

Previously published articles: Sharov’s Introduction outlined her well-researched and documented belief that, “Public health officials and the medical profession have abrogated their professional, public, and human responsibility, by failing to honestly examine the iatrogenic harm caused by expansive, indiscriminate, and increasingly aggressive vaccination policies.” Part One focused on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the vaccine industry controlled vaccine safety assessments, the science of vaccines and the scientific and mass channels of information about vaccines. In Part Two Ms. Sharav interpreted the complex web of internal CDC documents, revealing how key CDC studies and CDC-commissioned studies were shaped by use of illegitimate methods.

More about the author: Vera Sharav is a Holocaust survivor and a fierce critic of the medical establishment. This article was originally published at www.ahrp.org. Stat news recently published an article about her and her work.