Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Drugging America

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Drugging America

To Death

By Lynne Born

International Socialist Review

Issue 33, January-February 2004

2-2-4

Lynne Born is a longtime alternative health care activist, writer

and independent medical researcher.

The Bush administration's policies in the " war on terror " are

substantially enriching the pharmaceutical corporations while

subjecting the public to dangerously explosive consequences. The

pharmaceutical industry spent over $262 million to bring W.

Bush to power during the 2000 election cycle, investing more than

any other industry to solidify their power in both Congress and the

White House.1 The pharmaceuticals have recouped their investment

many times over as Bush has signed into law the Public Health

Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and

Project BioShield, 2 providing over $7 billion to develop and

warehouse millions of doses of new vaccines and drugs

as " countermeasures " to biological weapons such as ebola, plague,

anthrax and smallpox.

These new drugs and vaccines are exempt from the regular approval

process and can be fast tracked to market with no human testing at

all,3 an unprecedented step for an industry already responsible for

hundreds of thousands of deaths per year. The fact that the current

system that produces " standard " pharmaceutical drugs is the third

leading cause of death in the United States has been completely

overlooked in the rush to bring the pharmaceutical industry into the

biowarfare business.4

While the drug companies would like us to believe that these deaths

are the unfortunate side effects of a careful and caring industry,

they are actually the direct result of the ways in which

pharmaceuticals manipulate drug trials and skew research data to

produce the positive efficacy and safety results they need to bring

new products to market. Building a new class of drugs and vaccines

on the foundation of the current flawed and corrupt system, combined

with the fact that the pharmaceuticals will be working with ever

more infectious and lethal biowarfare agents, has the potential

to " fast track " the creation of catastrophic epidemics of the very

diseases they are attempting to prevent.

Pharmaceuticals profit from the Homeland Security Act

While the bioterrorism laws provide a new and guaranteed income

stream to the pharmaceuticals, Bush's Homeland Security Act of 2002

completes the giveaway by making any bioterror countermeasures

mandatory for the entire population of the United States at the sole

discretion of the president or the secretary of health and human

services.5 In combination with state laws titled Model Emergency

Health Powers Act (MEHPA), the government is authorized to

quarantine, isolate, imprison or fine anyone who refuses to take

these untested drugs and vaccines.6 Detailed plans have already been

drawn up by the Pentagon and Department of Defense to use the

military to enforce these compulsory injections and medical

treatments,7 and state public health departments have used portions

of their bioterrorism budget to identify large sites such as

stadiums, malls and cinemas to hold mass vaccinations.8

Despite the creation of a massive new market paid for with

guaranteed government subsidies and exempt from the usual approval

process, the pharmaceuticals pushed for and received even more

special treatment. The Homeland Security Act provides full liability

protection for the vaccine manufacturers in the first pilot program

to be sponsored by Bush under the legislation, the smallpox

vaccination program. This liability protection was clearly needed,

as the vaccine has caused a vastly higher rate of death and injury

than was officially anticipated. But with blanket liability

protection, what incentives remain for the pharmaceuticals to

develop biowarfare drugs and vaccines that are safe for human use?

Dangers of " standard " pharmaceutical drugs

The pharmaceutical industry already kills well over 100,000 people

every year from correctly prescribed drugs in hospitals alone.9 This

does not include deaths occurring outside the hospital or from

incorrectly prescribed medications, or the millions of disabilities

each year. To further put this in perspective, the death rate from

illegal drugs is 20,000 per year; the initial death rate from the

Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal, India was 20,000; and

58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War.

Contrary to what most people believe, drug companies, not the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) or independent researchers, finance

and control virtually the entire process of testing and bringing new

drugs to market. Because pharmaceutical companies finance the vast

majority of all drug trials, they design and structure the studies,

select and pay researchers, choose the patients, analyze the test

results, closely oversee the writing and publication of the final

studies and release the drugs through their massive sales network to

the medical profession. No independent source confirms or oversees

the research, analysis or final conclusions.10

The subjects of drug trials are generally young healthy men, even

though the target market for the drug may be women, children or the

elderly. Many of the paid subjects are " regulars " who supplement

their income by hiding their participation in multiple drug trials

when not enough time has passed for the previous drugs to fully

leave their systems. The fraud begins at the onset of the drug

trial, as drug companies will frequently drop large numbers of

subjects who show what the industry classifies as a " sensitivity "

or " bad reaction " to the drug. In other words, test subjects who

experience exactly the kind of toxic reaction the trial is supposed

to be tracking are dropped from the results simply because it occurs

early in the trial.

Drugs are frequently tested on much smaller numbers of people and

for shorter periods than is generally thought. Psychiatric drug

trials typically last only four to six weeks, and no psychiatric

drug has ever been shown (i.e., tested) to be safe for long-term

use. In many drug trials, only one or two dozen subjects actually

finish the trial. Doctors who regularly prescribe Prozac believed

that the drug had been tested on more than 10,000 patients before

they prescribed it to their patients, a figure they had read in Eli

Lilly marketing material. In fact, Dr. Breggin went to great

lengths to count the actual number of patients who had completed the

trials and found the total number to be 286, a far cry from the

thousands that the public had been led to believe.11

While most people believe that a drug that gains FDA approval has

gone through many successful drug trials that have proven it to be

substantially more effective than the placebo, in fact the entire

drug trial system works on a simple " pass/fail " basis. When the

company submits the trial results to the FDA and the FDA finds the

drug insufficient or even harmful and rejects it, the company can

simply drop and manipulate portions of data from the very same

trial, submitting different permutations of the numbers over and

over again until the FDA finally accepts the drug. It takes only two

successful trials, even with small numbers of patients, and includes

trials that had been previously rejected by the FDA but later passed

with reworked numbers, for the FDA to approve a drug. And the drug

does not have to show a substantial benefit over the placebo, only

that it is " marginally " better than the placebo.12

Drug companies also systematically obscure adverse drug reactions

and even deaths that occur during the trials by simply deleting or

mislabeling them in the data submitted to the FDA. Suicides that

occurred during the testing of Prozac were systematically mislabeled

as " no drug effect " or " depression, " so that when the FDA examined

the drug data, patient suicides could not be found and counted.13

Suicide was one of the first major problems encountered when Prozac

was released on the market, leading to multiple deaths and lawsuits.

Most of the very symptoms fueling the current debate about the

dangers of anti-depressant drugs were known and documented by the

drug companies during the trials, but the drugs were released

anyway.

Manipulating research results

Until 1991, 80 percent of drug testing was done by medical

university research departments, giving the pharmaceutical

companies " brand names " such as Harvard or Stanford Medical School

to associate with their research data. Since the 1990s, however, the

pharmaceutical companies are cutting costs by using commercial for-

profit centers to perform the majority of all drug testing.

It is well documented that if for-profit centers do not produce

positive results for pharmaceutical companies, the drug companies

take their lucrative contracts to another of the hundreds of

competing centers. An analysis of 70 studies of specific cardiac

drugs showed that 96 percent of authors with ties to the

pharmaceutical company produced favorable results, while only 37

percent of independently funded studies of the same drugs showed

favorable results.14 Additionally, many of these centers have been

found to have financial stakes in the outcome of their own trials,

standing to benefit financially from a drug's approval and

subsequent marketing. Many have been sued for deaths and injuries

that occurred during fraudulently structured drug trials after

producing poor quality data and using inadequately trained

investigators to test drugs on subjects who were not informed of the

drugs' known dangers or told of the financial conflicts of

interest.15

Drug companies retain the right to stop the publication of any study

that does not show favorable results, including studies that show

dangerous or deadly reactions. Should a company-funded study show

negative results, drug companies have been known to delay the

publication of the negative study, quickly fund a new study that

produces a favorable response and then publish only the positive

results.16 Dr. O. Kahn conducted a study that concluded an

AIDS vaccine didn't work and had a multimillion dollar lawsuit

initiated against him by the corporate funder of the study after it

tried unsuccessfully to block publication of the data.17 And since

both negative drug data studies and information on the frequency of

these heavy-handed tactics are suppressed, we have no way of knowing

how many drug studies with negative results have been censored by

the very pharmaceutical companies that sponsored them in the first

place, even if the drug's release ends up causing multiple injuries

and deaths.

Adverse reaction reporting system designed to fail

Most people don't know that the release of a new drug is actually

the final phase of the drug trial-Phase IV. After the drug has been

approved by the FDA, thousands and even millions of patients taking

the newly released drug are unknowingly participating in the

largest, most poorly controlled medical experiment in the world.

The fraudulent and deceptive practices of the pharmaceuticals

continue during Phase IV when adverse reactions of injury and death

are supposed to be tracked and reported to determine if the drug

should be pulled from the market. However, not only is the adverse

reporting system entirely voluntary, but 90-99 percent of all

adverse reactions are never reported, according to the head of the

FDA for most of the 1990s, Kessler.18 Imagine the true death

rate if this fact were taken into account. Forty percent of all

doctors don't know that an adverse reporting system even exists.

When a group of doctors was studied to determine how many adverse

reactions they reported, it was found that only 6 percent of all

reactions were reported-and these doctors knew that their rate of

reporting adverse reactions was being monitored. And no program or

oversight of any kind exists to ensure that reports made directly to

the pharmaceutical companies are then reported to the FDA-the

process is run entirely on the " honor system. "

On the rare occasions when adverse reactions are reported, as much

as 50 percent of the basic information, such age or sex, is simply

left blank. Additionally, the reporting system is divided into

thousands of highly delineated classifications, such

as " insomnia, " " restlessness, " " hyperactivity " -160 different terms

exist for central nervous system symptoms alone. While it may be

good science to have a record of all the various gradations of side

effects, this system artificially lowers the percentage of side

effect occurrences so the FDA or drug company can say that " less

than 1 percent " suffer from any given symptom, making the

probability of side effects seem very small. A more accurate use of

the classifications would be to tally related symptoms in a family

of side effects, for example, adding together " insomnia,

restlessness and hyperactivity " for a total percentage of nervous

system side effects that would result in higher but more accurate

numbers. Eli Lilly classified sexual side effects for Prozac

as " decreased libido 1.6 percent, ejaculatory problems 1.9 percent,

impotence 1.7 percent, " etc., but if you add the numbers of sexual

side effects together, the total is closer to 18 percent, a vastly

higher number. However, even those numbers are inaccurate, as

subsequent studies of Prozac have shown the real percentage of

sexual side effects is between 50 and 70 percent of all users.19

Although the number of dangerous effects and deaths are vastly

underreported by the drug companies, people notice the problems and

stop taking their medications. Fifty to 75 percent of patients quit

taking their blood-pressure and cholesterol-lowering medications

within one to two years, but the FDA and drug companies keep no

record of the vast numbers of patients who drop their medications

due to adverse effects.

Marketing department controls drug recalls

These problems are built into the system itself, as the

pharmaceutical companies have used their considerable financial

muscle to defang the FDA through their powerful congressional lobby,

reducing its role to a minimum. Because it works on an honor system,

the FDA simply assumes that the drug companies are giving it

accurate information. The FDA reviews only a small sample of data,

asks a few questions, rarely checks the original data from the

trials, accepts the drug label as written verbatim by drug company

executives, rarely issues warnings of dangerous effects and has to

be bullied and pushed by consumer groups into pulling a drug off the

market, even after multiple deaths have already occurred.

The obvious conclusion is that because drugs involve the health and

welfare of the public, reporting and tracking adverse drug reactions

should be mandatory and all data from the drug trials open to public

scrutiny. Currently, only the laborious process of a Freedom of

Information Act request will open the drug trial data to the public.

Even then, much of the information on adverse reactions or deaths is

blacked out by the drug companies as " proprietary trade secrets. "

In a profound conflict of interest, as the marketing department

attempts to bring sales of a new drug to " blockbuster " status for

potential billions of dollars per year, this same marketing

department is responsible for tracking and reporting any evidence of

harm or death that would take their multimillion-dollar investment

off the market. Clearly, this is a system designed to fail with no

incentive for change, since the end result has been to produce

massive profits for the pharmaceuticals, even at the expense of our

lives.

Homeland Security: forced vaccinations and drugs

The existing dangers of standard pharmaceutical medicines can only

increase exponentially with the lack of human testing and fast track

approval of the newly created class of bioterror drugs and vaccines.

Bush's Homeland Security Act allows any untested drug and vaccine to

be forced on the public, making refusal a crime. Along with the

MEHPA laws20 and already existing public health laws, the government

is then authorized to enforce the quarantine of individuals and

entire cities, confiscate property from anyone who resists and take

control of roads into and out of your city and state, in case anyone

might try to leave town to avoid being medicated or vaccinated. The

government can also confiscate all communication devices such as

telephones or computers, and can seize your house, car, food,

clothing and firearms.

The military is authorized to enforce the law, presumably holding

down anyone who resists vaccination and escorting resisters or those

too ill to take the shots to jail or the quarantine area for

isolation, with the length of time to be determined by the state.

An " actual " event of bioterrorism isn't even necessary;

a " potential " emergency will suffice, and the power to declare this

emergency resides entirely with the secretary of health and human

services and the president.

Bush's smallpox debacle

The first program deployed through the draconian Homeland Security

Act was Bush's smallpox vaccination program. While not mandatory for

civilians, vaccination was mandatory for military personnel under

threat of court martial, dishonorable discharge or jail. With great

fanfare, Bush announced that 500,000 health-care workers would be

vaccinated beginning in January 2003, to be followed shortly by 10

million emergency personnel. Right from the start, hundreds of

hospitals and health-care unions across the nation refused to

participate, citing concerns about adverse effects and compensation

problems. By summer 2003, the program had ground to a halt. Numerous

states had suspended it due to the high number of deaths and

injuries and a lack of volunteers willing to subject themselves to

the very real danger of the vaccine with no credible threat of an

actual smallpox attack.

While the public was repeatedly told that the expected death rate

from the vaccine would be one to two per million, in fact, there

have been three deaths among the approximately 36,000 civilians

vaccinated (including the few hundred embedded reporters). This

makes the actual death rate 80 times higher than what the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the public to expect.

Serious adverse reactions such as brain swelling, heart

inflammation, heart attacks, uncontrolled ulceration of the skin and

more, are one in 583, seven times higher than the CDC's original

guesstimate of one in 4,000. It is virtually certain that even these

numbers are vastly underreported since, once again, the adverse

reporting system for the program was not mandatory, mirroring the

same shoddy and incomplete tracking system that benefits the

pharmaceutical industry.

Before the program began, many health-care professionals expressed

grave misgivings about reintroducing the live virus in the smallpox

vaccine back into the population and accurately predicted the higher

rates of death and injury. The National Institute of Allergy and

Infectious Diseases has called the smallpox vaccine the most

dangerous of all vaccines ever produced, because it contains a live

virus of unknown origin. In fact, while the virus in the vaccine is

supposed to be cowpox, even the CDC admits that it is not. Several

independent labs have analyzed the vaccine and cannot identify the

virus, a terrifying fact that is actually verified by the CDC while

simultaneously ignored by mainstream medicine.21

Historically, the smallpox vaccine was responsible for so many side

effects and deaths during its use that a medical

diagnosis " Vaccination Disease " was actually created during the

1800s. Vaccination Disease was diagnosed when the vaccinated patient

exhibited exactly the same kinds of skin, heart and lung problems

that we see today in Bush's vaccination program. These historical

facts are readily uncovered from 200 years of medical literature and

were cited by the many voices expressing concern about reintroducing

the smallpox vaccine into the public body before the program began.

Bush and the CDC continue to deny the extent of deaths and injuries

even at the expense of people's lives, and the media began to

minimize and censor the actual death and injury rates only weeks

after they occurred. As the deaths followed one after another in

March and April 2003, headlines read " First death: Nurse dies after

smallpox vaccination " ; " Second worker dies of heart attack after

smallpox vaccination " ; and " Coroner rules [smallpox] vaccinations

contributed to reservist's death. " Yet, by June 2003, mainstream

media articles were not only ignoring the earlier deaths, they

continue to use the old, inaccurate figure of one or two deaths per

million rather than the newly updated, more truthful numbers.

Even if the program were to end, it is clear that the pharmaceutical

industry and the White House have invested considerable political

capital in the future of smallpox vaccinations. The first

countermeasure, Project BioShield, calls for is the development of

millions more doses of yet another smallpox vaccine. Mysteriously,

the National Institutes of Health is also investing millions of

dollars in eight to 10 additional treatments for smallpox itself,

money that increases pharmaceutical profits at the expense of the

real, pressing and urgent health-care needs the public faces today.

Bad drugs on steroids

The deadly manipulation and fraud so prevalent in the current

pharmaceutical system could lead to explosive consequences when

fewer safeguards, less testing and the intentionally fraudulent

adverse tracking system are combined with the terrible power of

deadly pathogens such as ebola, plague and anthrax. One of the many

hazardous provisions of Project BioShield calls for a massive

expansion of America's biological and chemical warfare production by

building a network of several dozen new bioweapons laboratories all

over the United States. This would turn pharmaceuticals into

bioweapons factories, but without the government oversight and

safety regulations normally accorded these dangerous pathogens.

Because the pharmaceuticals will have to create and store these

infectious agents, it is the drug companies in partnership with the

U.S. government that are endangering the public, and a groundswell

of resistance from the cities where the new labs are to be built has

already begun.22

It is an unfortunate fact that the pharmaceutical companies cannot

protect us from chemical and biological warfare attacks. Any number

of agents could be used, from simple small releases of readily

available chemicals to complex, genetically engineered viruses

against which no vaccine could ever be created and mass produced in

time, even if the vaccines worked. The only effective way to reduce

or end the threat of biological and chemical attacks against the

United States is to develop " right relations " with other nations

around the world by stopping America's ceaseless march toward

imperialist domination.

The next phase of the pharmaceutical " war on terror " will take place

in the media and the minds of the public, where more and

more " emerging diseases " will be sensationalized in an atmosphere of

hysteria and fear, justifying the giveaway of billions of dollars to

the drug companies. From the recommendation of the smallpox vaccine

for the monkey pox outbreak when the vaccine has never been proven

to stop monkey pox infection, or the quarantine of individuals who

had only a cough and a mild fever out of fear of SARS, every new

cough can be classified as a deadly disease, and every new fever

will create fear of an unknown illness to move the public one step

closer to acceptance of total vaccination or force feeding of drugs

never before tested on humans.

For Bush to purchase millions of doses of a 30-year-old, untested,

ineffective and deadly smallpox vaccine without even a threat of a

smallpox attack, jeopardizing the lives of uninformed citizens, is a

criminal act of biowarfare directed against the American public.

Unfortunately, the next round of " protection from biowarfare agents "

may not be voluntary, and the newly created pharmaceutical war

machine will needlessly drug the American public to death for

corporate profits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

1 Public Citizen's Congress Watch, The Other Drug War: Big Pharma's

625 Washington Lobbyists (Washington, DC: Public Citizen, July

2001), p. i. The full report is available online at

http://www.Citizen.org/congress/ " campaign/ " special_interest/reports_d

a te/articles.cfm?ID=6537. The pharmaceutical industry spent $177

million on lobbying, $65 million on issue ads and $20 million on

campaign contributions. Of the contributions directly to political

parties, the majority (68 percent) went to Republicans.

2 The $5.6 billion for the Project BioShield was included in the

Homeland Security Appropriations bill signed by Bush on October 1,

2003. See the http://www.whitehouse.gov press release of October 1,

2003.

3 Marc Kaufman, " FDA acts to speed bioterror medicines, " Washington

Post, May 31, 2002.

4 After a definitive review and close study of medical peer-review

journals and government health statistics, these authors found that

the American medical system is responsible for hundreds of thousands

of deaths and millions of adverse events each year. By Null

PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy

PhD, available online at

http://www.mercola.com/2003/nov/26/death_by_medicine.htm.

5 " The secretary shall specify in such [bioterror emergency]

declaration the substance or substances that shall be considered

covered countermeasures. . . " Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section

304©(p)(2)(A)(ii).

6 Model Emergency Health Powers Act (commonly referred to as MEHPA).

See Center for Public Law and the Public's Health for State

Legislative Activity Table available online at

http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Resources/ " Modellaws.htm; see also

http://www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/ " what_you_need_to_know.htm for

updates on which states have passed these draconian laws.

7 Ellen M. Grossman, " U.S. officials mull a military role in

enforcing smallpox quarantine, " Inside the Pentagon, December 19,

2002; Pamela Hess, " Pentagon plans for smallpox outbreak, " United

Press International, December 13, 2002.

8 Hillman, " Smallpox program may be sick, " Metro West Daily

News, May 17, 2003.

9 Lazarou, Bruce H. Pomeranz and N. Corey, " Incidence of

adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta analysis of

prospective studies, " Journal of American Medical Association, April

15, 1998, 279(15): 1200-05. This study found more than 100,000

deaths per year and 2,000,000 severe side effects in U.S. hospitals

alone. However, this study did not include deaths from

pharmaceutical drugs that occur outside the hospital, or deaths from

prescription errors by doctors or pharmacists. Additionally, because

90-99 percent of all adverse drug reactions are never reported (see

footnote 18), this figure should be adjusted substantially upwards.

10 Bodenheimer, " Uneasy alliance-clinical investigators and

the pharmaceutical industry, " New England Journal of Medicine, May

18, 2000, 342(20):1539-44.

11 Dr. Breggin, The Anti-Depressant Fact Book: What Your

Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox

(Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing, 2001), p. 148.

12 Dr. Ginsberg, The Investigators Guide to Clinical Research,

CenterWatch, Inc.; 3rd edition (January 2002); Dr. Jay Cohen,

Overdose, P. Tarcher/Putnam (2001); Fried, Bitter

Pills, Bantam (April 1998).

13 Breggin, p. 6.

14 Henry Stelfox, Grace Chua, O'Rourke and Allan S.

Detsky, " Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel

antagonists, " New England Journal of Medicine, January 8, 1998, 338

(2):101-06.

15 Bodenheimer and , " The ethical dilemmas of

drugs, money, medicine, " Seattle Times, March 15, 2001.

16 Bodenheimer, " Uneasy alliance. "

17 Bodenheimer and , " Ethical dilemmas. "

18 Kessler, " Introducing MedWatch: A new approach to

reporting medication and device adverse effect and product

problems, " Journal of American Medical Association, July 2, 1993, 269

(21): 2765-68.

19 M.J. Gitlin " Psychotropic medications and their effects on sexual

function: diagnosis, biology and treatment approaches. " Journal of

Clinical Psychiatry, September 1994, 55(9):406-13.; J.G. Modell,

C.R. Katholi, J.D Modell and R.I DePalma, " Comparative sexual side

effects of bupropion, fluoxetine, paraxetine and sertraline, "

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, April 1997, 61(4):476-87;

A.L. Montejo-, G. Llorca, J.A. Izquierdo, A. Ledesma, M.

Bousona, A. Calcedo, J.L. Carrasco, J. Ciudad, E. , J. De la

Gandara, et al; " SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction: fluoxetine,

paroxetine, sertraline and fluvoxamine in a prospective, multicenter

and descriptive clinical study of 344 patients, " Journal of Sex and

Marital Therapy, Fall 1997, 23(3):176-94; " Dutch study attempts to

quality sexual dysfunction profiles among SSRIs, " Primary

Psychiatry, 1997, 4(7):22-3; M.D. Waldinger, M.W. Hengeveld, A.H.

Zwinderman and B. Oliver, " Effects of SSRI antidepressants on

ejaculation: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

with fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline, " Journal

of Clinical Psychopharmacology, August 1998, 18(4):274-81; M.H.

Pollack, S. Reiter and P. Hammerness, " Genitourinary and sexual

adverse effects of psychotropic medication, " International Journal

of Psychiatry in Medicine, 1992, 22(4):305 27; K.J. Bender, " New

antidepressants: a practical update, " Psychiatric Times, February

1995, 12(1):2; and R.M. Hirschfeld, " Management of sexual side

effects of antidepressant therapy, " Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,

1999, 60 Suppl 14:27-30, discussion 31-5.

20 See

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/Model_health_feature.html for

an analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union of the repressive

MEHPA laws.

21 B. Tucker, Scourge (Grove Press, New York, 2001), p.

37. " The vaccine strain being employed around the world was not

cowpox virus that Jenner had used, but an entirely different

orthopoxvirus that did not exist in nature and became known

as " vaccinia. " In 1939, Allan Downie of the University of Liverpool

in England determined that vaccinia was genetically distinct from

both variola and cowpox. Where vaccinia virus had come from, and

when it had become the primary virus used to vaccinate against

smallpox, remained a mystery. " And " Public Forum on Smallpox "

meeting held by the CDC on June 8, 2002 in St. Louis, Missouri in

which Dr. Harold Margolis, CDC senior adviser for smallpox

preparedness, stated that vaccinia is not cowpox, but rather a

completely different virus.

22 Mark , " Bioweapons proposal worries neighbors, " San

Francisco Chronicle, February 5, 2003.

Back to top http://www.isreview.org/issues/33/druggingtodeath.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...