What’s the Difference Between Companies Selling Cigarettes and Companies Selling Vaccines?

Original here: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2017/companies-selling-cigarettes-vaccines-difference.aspx

By Barbara Loe Fisher

Do you know the difference between companies that sell cigarettes and companies that sell vaccines in America?

When cigarettes injure or kill people, tobacco companies are financially liable in civil court. But when vaccines injure or kill people, drug companies are not.

That’s right.

cigarette factory

If you get lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, you can sue the tobacco company. 1 But if you or your child suffers brain damage or dies after getting a vaccine, the drug company cannot be sued. 2

And you can’t hold any person who licensed, recommended, gave or voted to mandate the vaccine accountable in a court of law, either. 3 4

Here is why:

In 1986, Congress gave drug companies a partial civil liability shield for vaccine injuries and deaths. 5

In 2011, the US Supreme Court effectively banned all vaccine injury lawsuits, ruling that vaccines are – quote – “unavoidably unsafe.” 6

Then, in 2016, Congress lowered licensing standards for experimental vaccines so that drug companies can fast track them to market without conducting large clinical trials. 7

Now, drug companies and their friends in medical trade are lobbying state legislatures to strip vaccine exemptions from state public health laws. 8 9

That’s right.

Even though drug companies and doctors have been given an unprecedented liability shield removing all responsibility for vaccine injuries and deaths, 10 they want more.

They want “no exceptions” vaccine laws forcing you and your children to use every dose of every government endorsed vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent. 11

Continues here: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2017/companies-selling-cigarettes-vaccines-difference.aspx

Shareholder lawsuit: delightful weapon against drug companies

Original here: 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/shareholder-lawsuit-delightful-weapon-against-drug-companies/

May 24, by Jon Rappoport

The company is NewLink. The vaccine, or drug, depending on how it is defined, is called algenpantucel-L. A clinical trial of the drug recently failed to produce benefits in cancer patients, and the stock price of the company took a major dive.

A shareholder in NewLink, Rickey Ely, decided to sue.

His reasons are interesting, to say the least.

Clinical trials of new drugs seeking FDA approval go through four phases. The lawsuit states that phase 2 produced no encouraging results, violated standard protocol (there was no control group), and yet the company hyped the outcome of phase 2, and launched phase 3 only a few months after starting phase 2. Phase 3 shouldn’t have been initiated at all.

Owing to the company’s PR machine, shareholders were encouraged, but when phase 3 turned out to be a bust, the company’s stock price collapsed—thus punishing those shareholders.

Not only that, the lawsuit charges, but during the PR hype about the drug’s promising outlook, some execs of the company actually sold their own personal shares—1,154,161 shares worth $39.9 million—turning a very nice profit for themselves, before the stock price crashed.

A shareholder-lawsuit like this can be quite a strategy against drug companies (or any publicly held company). The shareholder, a part-owner of the company, is “working from the inside.” He’s “trying to protect the company from the harmful actions of its bosses.” Even if he only owns one share, he can sue.

In this case, Rickey Ely is directly suing several NewLink executives. That always tends to get execs’ attention.

Continues here: 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/shareholder-lawsuit-delightful-weapon-against-drug-companies/

Millions of Americans Uneasy About Vaccine Safety are “Notorious”?

Original here:

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/05/millions-of-americans-uneasy-about-vaccine-safety-are-notorious/

by Marco Cáceres

The biased, vicious, and personal attacks against vaccine safety advocates by the mainstream media continue and seem to show no signs of abating.

This is an irresponsible and chilling use of a word at the outset of a news article by an experienced journalist for a major news organization.

Coming on the heels of a column published on May 8, 2017 by the editorial staff of the Boston Heraldcalling for those concerned about the safety of vaccines to be hung,1 2 and an opinion piece on March 3, 2017 in Scientific American by Peter Hotez, MD saying that steps should be taken to “snuff” out the antivaccine movement,2 3 senior health writer Maggie Fox of NBC Newshas now written an article describing vaccine skeptics as “notorious.”

Fox’s piece, “Vaccine Debate Vexes Vermont Ski Resort Town,”4 opens:

A planned symposium featuring notorious vaccine skeptics has set off a testy but polite debate in the Vermont ski resort town of Stowe.4

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word notorious as: “well-known or famous especially for something bad.”5 Examples of the word’s usage include: “a notorious gangster” or “a notorious mastermind of terrorist activities.”6 

So, Fox is characterizing as notorious anyone who has concerns about the safety of vaccines and believes it is their right to decide when or if they should vaccinate themselves and their children? She is likening to gangsters or terrorists Americans who maintain doubts and questions about this medical intervention and wish to exercise their informed consent right to refuse or delay the procedure?

This is an irresponsible and chilling use of a word at the outset of a news article by an experienced journalist for a major news organization. It directly plays into the narrative being crafted by the Boston Herald and other media outlets that people who hold dissenting views on vaccines and vaccination policy should be executed. After all, what should you do with gangsters and terrorists, right?

Continues here:

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/05/millions-of-americans-uneasy-about-vaccine-safety-are-notorious/

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm

Original here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccinated-spreading-measles-who-merck-cdc-documents-confirms

[GREENMEDINFO] Written by Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder

 

 20 years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. The manufacturer Merck’s own product warning links MMR to a potentially fatal form of brain inflammation caused by measles. Why is this evidence not being reported?

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles

The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known for decades. In fact, 20 years ago, scientists working at the CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.

Published in 1995 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and titled, “Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients,” researchers analyzed urine samples from newly MMR vaccinated 15-month-old children and young adults and reported their eye-opening results as following:

  • Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
  • In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
  • Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.

The authors of this study used a relatively new technology at that time, namely, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which they believed could help resolve growing challenges associated with measles detection in the shifting post-mass immunization epidemiological and clinical landscape. These challenges include:

  • A changing clinical presentation towards ‘milder’ or asymptomatic measles in previously vaccinated individuals.
  • A changing epidemiological distribution of measles (a shift toward children younger than 15 months, teenagers, and young adults)
  • Increasing difficulty distinguishing measles-like symptoms (exanthema) caused by a range of other pathogens from those caused by measles virus.
  • An increase in sporadic measles outbreaks in previously vaccinated individuals.

Twenty years later, PCR testing is widely acknowledged as highly sensitive and specific, and the only efficient way to distinguish vaccine-strain and wild-type measles infection, as their clinical presentation are indistinguishable.

Continues here:  http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccinated-spreading-measles-who-merck-cdc-documents-confirms