(viewable with subscription only)
FOLLOW THE MONEY: PART ONE
By Hilary Butler
On 31 January 2001, New Zealand Doctor ran an article on page 9 by Penny St
John, called Mandatory Jabs Short Cut To Increasing Rates. This was a
"briefing", sponsored by the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, Merck and
Co, for journalists in the Asia/Pacific regions.
Why just journalists?
Because, as a 1997 World Health Organization publication clearly spells
out, (14) an "on-side" media is vital to them. WHO was planning the first
of many regular summits on vaccination at the time of publication, and they
see the role of WHO and the vaccine manufacturers to undertake:
Pg 90: "the recruitment of those people who are able to back scientific
declarations with political commitment for action: heads of state, or other
high-level government officials such as prime ministers, governors or
senators; national policy-makers from both the health and finance sectors;
directors of international organizations; and directors of agencies from
the donor assistance community. A third group of participants in the
meeting would be media representatives from as broad a spectrum as
possible. It is essential that the public be informed, and continually
reminded, that vaccines and immunization are one of the most cost-effective
health interventions to day, and that they save the lives of millions of
children every year."
Why is it essential that the public be informed and continually reminded….?
Pg 16: "2.3 To create and expand demand for vaccines:
inform the public and decision makers on the value of disease prevention
and the role of vaccination as a cost-effective health intervention."
Pg 43: "The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integrated
into the "health consciousness" of people and thus, to their daily lives.
Media, local leaders and other partners need to be used to reach this
objective." (emphasis in this article is usually mine))
So, they need to:
"4.2.5 develop active information campaigns for the public on immunization
programmes, vaccines and the risks of infectious diseases." (Page 46)
Pg 75 summarises earlier information on pg 20 under a heading "Fostering a
culture of prevention through advocacy for vaccines" which discusses action
to maintain local and political commitment to vaccines:
"This can be done only through active efforts which inform the public of
the benefits and risks of vaccination, the real risks of infectious
diseases in their community and the impact of these problems on society as
well as the individual. Similar efforts must also be directed at opinion
leaders and those who provide resources so that support to immunization
efforts can be dramatically expanded to provide better protection."
And how does WHO propose to do this?
Firstly, they want to do: "Social and behaviour research on attitudes and
access to immunization… to guide the process of expanding protection.")
In other words, it is all about how we change perceptions, so that people
will willingly allow us to inject whatever we like into them. To do that,
we have to study those who don't vaccinate and change their attitudes and
behaviour, ..and the media is where it is at….
(Sure enough, about four years ago, the CDC in America starting doing a
study, and were appealing to parents who didn't vaccinate to contact them
and tell them why. I have a copy of the fax sent out. The interesting
thing, as far as I know, is that some parents smelled a rat.)
WHO also needs to "Help countries identify where to acquire vaccines; how
to acquire them; how to assure their quality; and how to finance vaccines
as costs rise and resources diminish" (Pg 59)
Note the above: "AS COSTS RISE AND RESOURCES DIMINISH" How do they know
that costs will rise and resources diminish? What "resources" might they be?
Is there something else they aren't telling us?
Costs can only rise if countries choose to diminish their resources by
making vaccine companies a big money extractor from their health budget.
WHO could succeed,- if they get enough media on side, to spew out free
fear-mongering information often enough to make people scared enough, so
that they want everything WHO has to offer. And WHO has identified just the
way to do this:
"Promote the use of mass media sources, such as internet, to address the
value of immunization and vaccines
Identify community leaders to act as advocates for immunization programmes
and vaccines"
And these four aims, scattered in different places of the book:
"establish a clear agenda of action for decision makers including
ascertaining that vaccine supplies, immunization infrastructure finance and
support systems (such as training; education and communication materials;
and monitoring systems) are adequate …"
"develop recommendations that encourage all countries to implement the
widest practical range of vaccination activities…."
"create , or strengthen National Control Authorities responsible for
vaccines;"
"inform decision makers on the benefits of immunization and vaccines to
their communities."
But never mind the risks. After all, there aren't any, are there.
Bear in mind, while considering these objectives, that there must be
another reason. Can the following bit of humour floating around offer a
clue? "Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. But
what is concealed is crucial"
As so it is with the Vaccine Agenda. It isn't actually about disease
prevention. That's just the make-up on the face, to make it look
altruistic, and caring.
It's about a "delicate fabric of cooperation".
It's about money. Now, and in the future.
Consider this,… WHO stated that Global expenditure on vaccines in 1994,
with only the more basic vaccines was a "mere" estimate of $ USA 10 billion
dollars (pg 48). In the context of what it might be today, let us not
forget that SmithKlineBeecham's Engerix B vaccine sales alone, exceeded $1
billion dollars in 1995(15). The figures now are staggering with sums you
can't even imagine. As Dr Hilleman is quoted as saying (21): "this is the
golden Era of vaccine research." In the very next breath Duke University's
Dr Samuel Katz enthuses:
"Spell it "b-o-o-m". Protection from frivolous lawsuits has given large
companies increased freedom to stay in the vaccine business, which biotech
companies are turning out wonderful new scientific advances."
The key issue is how to get the most dollars with the least risk to
shareholders.
Unfortunately, that is not by developing the older type vaccines. As
Signals Magazine put it:
"A killed virus yields little hope for broad patent protection, but
identifying a critical subunit protein to use in a vaccine offers
prophylaxis, patentability and the promise of fatter profits."
"Some of these new products with be plenty pricey."
A good example was the Hepatitis B vaccine, which when first introduced was
made from pooled human blood from American homosexuals, because this
contained huge amounts of antigen. But it ran into both professional and
consumer resistance. In 1986, the first recombinant viral subunit vaccine
by Merck came out, and like Smith Kline's version, is, according to Signals
Magazine, "a billion-dollar-a-year item".
The other way to do it is proprietary vaccine combinations, which Merck has
right up its sleeve….
A conclusion in the WHO book on pg 42 puts this in a larger context as they
see it:
"There have been significant new developments at the early stages of the
vaccine continuum. Much of this has, however, only been applied in
industrialized countries, and even there incompletely. The pace of
innovation is increasing. This highlights the need for concerted action so
that the potential for public health benefits in all areas of the world is
accelerated and maximized."
But to continue with WHO's adoption of the media as the key to success:
Pg 91 To increase advocacy for vaccines and immunization through widespread
inclusion of the media in the summit, preparations for the Summit, and
follow-up activities.
A fourth group of participants in such forums are:
" 4) consumers of vaccines, including doctors and national immunization
program managers."
And when you read this book, you cannot help but notice, that NOWHERE does
this book mentions the concerns of the real consumers who are the lay
people to whom vaccines are given. Because "we", the uninvited, are their
means to their end. Therefore, this whole strategy is aimed at us. We must
not know that this is all so masterfully manipulated.
And in their eyes, what would we know, and so why should we be consulted?
They only want to involve those critical to the success of the fulfillment
of the stated goals:
Pg 91 "Participants critical to the success of the meeting will be selected
by the Summit Steering Committee and will be financially supported."
This document was written around the time that a medical journal (16)
described what they call "United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate Fabric
of Public and Private Collaboration." On pages 1015 — 1016 the article read:
"To achieve the full promise of modern science and technology …America's
cooperative and collaborative relationships in vaccine research and
development are interwoven into a fabric of innovation. This must be
maintained and strengthened. It is important to understand the nature of
these relationships to prevent inadvertent damage to this delicate fabric."
More about this "delicate fabric" a little later… but on page 1018 the
article continues:
"This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmental
changes, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze on
funding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery and
development across the board…. Reductions in federal funding for vaccine
research and development will have a secondary effect in academia and
thereby on the United States capacity to engage in vaccine research."
"If the regulatory climate becomes cumbersome, regulation itself can become
a hurdle, making it more difficult for new companies to enter the vaccine
research and development area."
"Price controls are a source of concern… because investors fear the
potential profits will be compromised."
"Collaboration and cooperation of government agencies, such as NIH, CDC,
FDA, USAID, DOD, large vaccine companies, small research companies and
academia are essential to continue success and fulfill the promise of
recent advances in science and technology."
"Threats to any part of the delicate vaccine research and development
network jeopardize the rapid development and supply of new… vaccines for
the American people….These National Vaccine Advisory Committee
recommendations will help to ensure that public policies take into
consideration this research and development network, and foster and sustain
it to facilitate the timely introduction and supply of new vaccines."
In other words: we want to do what we want, when we want, unregulated, with
no price cap, and with the NIH, CDC, FDA, USAID and DOD in our back pocket.
So, how do we best get what we want?
One way, was for vaccine manufacturers to fund Bush's inauguration (17) to
the tune of $1.7 million US dollars. Not only that, Public Citizen, a
congress watchdog group published in November 2000, that in the lead up to
the election:
"The prescription drug industry is spending approximately $230 million this
election cycle on lobbying, campaign contributions and issue ads as it
tries to shape public policy in the face of increasing public hostility to
its price-gouging and profiteering."
Which included:
$170 million for lobbying,
$15 million in direct campaign contributions
at least $35 million in campaign ads
at least $10 million to the US Chamber of Commerce for pro-drug industry
campaign ads.
A delicate fabric indeed.
What goes around, is expected to come around.
And clearly a plan which the WHO is delighted to participate in, judging by
a 1998 comment in one of their newsletters in which Dr Jong Wook Lee,
Executive Secretary of the Children's Vaccine Initiative talks about the
fact that:
"…to people outside the international vaccine community… new syndromes….
like prion diseases, viral haemorrhagic fevers like Ebola, Marburg,
hantavirus, Lassa, dengue or tick-borne diseases, or a new kind of flu, not
to speak of Aids … are bad news."
He goes on to say B-U-T:
"To people like me and my GPV colleagues, its good news. All right, we have
a daunting task. And maybe we won't win in the end. Maybe as vaccine
researcher and developer Stanley Plotkin said, prevention by vaccination is
"the El Dorado of research in infectious diseases.".
"Maybe. But for me it's good news mainly because, unlike El Dorado,
vaccines are for real….they are already preventing more than 3 million
deaths every year and could prevent another 9 million if we make new and
better vaccines and find ways of ensuring they are fully used. And there's
no reason why we shouldn't succeed: Just 3 years ago, there were "only"
about 150 vaccine candidates in development; today, only 4 years after GPV
was created, there are about 240."
"Yes, indeed, the news for us in the vaccine business is good."
"And yes, we're human beings and have got to eat, and the continual
emergence of new diseases means our jobs aren't likely to disappear in the
near future."
The promise of vaccines, however, in the late 80s was under threat, as
court cases swept the USA and UK, threatening to cause all vaccine
companies to fold. So they said. Fortunately for these booming
money-makers, with considerable help from the medical professionals and
other misguided individuals, the USA government passed legislation which
shielded vaccine producers from all liability not related to manufacturing
error (20).
But the funny thing is, that publicly, people associated with vaccine argue
that vaccines are such a small part of their inventory, that making them
really isn't worth their while. Unless, that is, there are no impediments.
Funny how that wasn't the story when the USA DPT supply fiasco was front
page headlines.
Years later, the publicity machine that has been so carefully orchestrated,
that delicate fabric of partnership between vested interests, is now in
full swing. Just about every other day, you can turn to the New Zealand
Herald and see the next, newest, greatest pharmaceutical magic bullet,
uncritically paraded to continue the subtle sheeple conditioning process so
carefully conceived by WHO and their consorts.
So the enthusiastic "reportage" which flowed from St John's pen was to be
expected. It probably never occurred to her that "investigative
journalism", or "balanced journalism" was even a possibility. She most
likely saw her job simply to "report", uncritically, what happened there.
And I'm glad she did, because to those who know, it does the drug company
no favours.
It will come as no surprise to you, that Dr Thomas Vernon, the vice
president of public health and vaccine medical affairs for Merck Vaccine
Division's opening shot in the article was:
"New Zealand should consider mandatory vaccination for children as a way of
quickly raising the country's low immunization rates."
He goes on to say that vaccine preventable deaths are not justifiable in
New Zealand and that:
"New Zealand has laws requiring children to wear seatbelts and questions
why this form of protection is not extended to include vaccination."
He also said:
"the UK system of assigning each child to a GP and giving financial
incentives for GPs who achieve high rates of vaccination has resulted in
high levels of vaccination without mandate."
Let's look at what this meant, for GPs in England. In a magazine called
Financial Pulse, dated 8/2/97, there were two articles about this. The
first was by a GP in Radlett, Herts, called "The Problem" In this, Dr Jan
Gold tells us that they analysed their accounts, and found their earnings
from vaccinations and immunizations were well below the national average,
and "should represent between 5 — 10% of item-of-service income…It is
therefore an important source of earnings."
She goes on to detail the two levels of target payments — one at 70%
vaccination rates (5,790 pounds), and a higher one at 90% coverage (at the
lower level plus 11,580 pounds). She considers that improving her income by
17,370 pounds is worth the effort, and sets out how to do this. Some
memorable quotes are:
"There is no item-of-service fee for some public policy immunizations, for
example influenza, pneumococcus and hepatitis B. It is still worth
generating income from these through the reimbursement scheme. This
practice could generate up to 3,700 pounds from an effective annual
influenza vaccination campaign if it immunized 10% of the practice"
"and immunizing 5% of "targeted" patients would bring in 3,000 pounds."
"Many practices are finding this (foreign travel) a growth area, so it
could be costly to ignore… the GPs in this practice should consider
starting a travel clinic, run by the practice nurse. They should first
direct this at their own patients, but there might be scope later to expand
it to a private service for patients registered with other practices."
"Good marketing is the secret of increasing uptake in this area…."
Why only 10%, or 5%? I mean, if it matter so much about people protection,
why not everyone?
Or, when you look at those projected figures, would that just look a bit
too greedy?
The other article is by Dr Mike Townsend, and is entitled "Travel vaccines
— broaden your earnings," where he explains how GPs can take advantage of
patients' trips to exotic destinations….
As you can see, the interweaving web of who can make more money, and how,
just gets bigger and bigger.
Back to the New Zealand Doctor article.
Does Dr Vernon have a limited appreciation of the difference between his
money making products which go INSIDE a body, and an inert restraint which
goes around part of a body in a car — or like helmets, on the head? Or
steel-capped boots on the feet, which prevent foresters from chain-sawing
their toes off?
None of these external restraints or barriers require a changing of the
vital inside defence workings of the body.
When the New Zealand doctors are offered a gold mine similar to that of
their English counterparts, I am sure that any serious tolerance for the
concept of informed choice will fade, and we will see a huge increase in
the stridency of call for Mandatory Medical Regulation. For our own good,
of course.
(All references will be published at the end of Part Two)
TO BE CONTINUED (hasn't come out yet)
(I'll check with her on this!)
"Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. __._,_.___
***NEW: DESI TALK!! The Shout box in the group home page***
Comments, suggestions or just plain chatting... you can do it right here!
Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dilsedesigroup
***DIL SE DESI GROUP***
You can join the group by clicking the below link or by copying and pasting it in the browser bar and then pressing 'Enter'.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dilsedesigroup/join
OWNER/MODERATOR : rajeshkainth003@gmail.com; {Rajesh Kainth}
MODERATOR : a.amitkumar13@gmail.com; {Amit Kumar}
MODERATOR : manisha.hatkar@gmail.com; {Manisha Hatkar}
MODERATOR : preeti.hande@gmail.com; {Preeti Hande}
MODERATOR : immortally69@yahoo.com {Rahul Joshi}
MODERATOR : kaustubh.basu@gmail.com {Kaustubhshobhan Basu}
MODERATOR : planetofprince@yahoo.com (Prem)
MODERATOR : abhijeet-bhurke@bridgestone.co.in (Abhijeet)
To modify your list subscription, please send a blank email to:
SUBSCRIBE : dilsedesigroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE : dilsedesigroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
INDIVIDUAL MAILS : dilsedesigroup-normal@yahoogroups.com
DAILY DIGEST : dilsedesigroup-digest@yahoogroups.com
VACATION HOLD : dilsedesigroup-nomail@yahoogroups.com
FOR POSTING MESSAGES : dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com
SPONSORED LINKS
| Desi arnaz | Lucy desi |
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___