Did Pharma Financial Interests Contribute to Decision to Pull Plug on National Children's Study?
By Ginger Taylor
So here's the thing. Just as CDC has the CDC Foundation, a private non-profit that supports its work, NIH has the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.
"Foundation for the National Institutes Of Health Established by the United States Congress to support the mission of the NIH—improving health through scientific discovery in the search for cures—the Foundation for NIH is a leader in identifying and addressing complex scientific and health issues. The foundation is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) charitable organization that raises private-sector funds for a broad portfolio of unique programs that complement and enhance NIH priorities and activities.
Mission Statement: To support the NIH in its mission to improve health, by forming and facilitating public-private partnerships for biomedical research, education and training."
Francis Collins, head of NIH, is a non-voting member of their board.
So who funds the foundation that supports NIH? From their 2011 tax filing:
Merck - $15,051,035
Pfizer - $53,800,710
Eli Lilly - $9,452,484
Novartis - $11,435,208
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – a staggering $278,541,858
So I have to ask. With these vaccine interests, funding them to the tune of 386 million dollars per year, is it any surprise that the National Child Study did not include data on the overall health outcomes of vaccinated children?
I think it is fair to ask, since the study was designed to look at the impact of chemicals on children's health, did the data being collected present a picture that might be harmful to the bottom line of these pharmaceutical interests? And, did early study results have have any impact on the decision to pull the plug? And, will the raw data that was collected be open for us to view and process?
HT: Jennifer Stella of the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice for the bringing to light the FNIH 990.
Ginger Taylor is the Media Director for HealthChoice.org
Bay area mom:
For some reason I'm reminded of that saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It implies accidental bad results from good intentions. But there are times when I think good intentions are used falsely to achieve other ends. You catch more flies with honey, right?
I don't know if anyone has read back through the Science reporter's article links yet. Before the plug was pulled on the CHS, there had already been 2 scientists that quit the project. In one resignation, Jonas Ellenberg said mentioned changes in the study design being changed and that it "does not reflect the parameters of the study design reviewed and endorsed by the IOM in 2008." Ellen Silbergeld, an environmental health scientist resigned, also with concerns over study parameters that would "no longer provide representative information of value to its practitioners, researchers, and the public."
The study moved from a national probability sample to instead recruit from physicians and other healthcare providers and hospitals. Originally it was door to door recruiting in geographical areas to get a really good representative sample of the general public.
Sounds like a move right of the playbooks of Poul Thorson and the folks at the CDC that whistleblower William Thompson
disclosed - manipulating the sample.
And it must have still looked so bad that they had to cancel it.
There are mentions of funding issues, but it seems at least one researcher said that they could have dealt with that. Apparently under the Bush administration multiple attempts were made to cancel it, but congress reauthorized funding.
Some of the environmental issues being examined were dust, and pesticide residue, but then further talk of really needing to do water and air testing also, as well as access to medical care. (Which would have been really revealing) but if the sample was changed to only going through health providers, instead of door to door sampling, the results would have been biased.
I wonder if deliberately "underfunding" it as a method to scuttle the progress and create "problems" that would force changes, and those changes could then lead to so-called "legitimate" reasons for cancellation was part of the play here. Along the way, the university research locations were disenfranchised and the Vanguard pilot study information was handed over to a single contractor (I don't know who).
Posted by: Jenny | December 17, 2014 at 11:52 AM
"It would be expected that immigrants to the United States from developing countries, where infectious stimuli are more prevalent, would have a lower risk of allergic disease."
What? Adjuvanted vaccines administered starting at birth and then every couple of months during the first year isn't considered "infectious stimuli"? Add to that the replacement of human milk with pharmaceutical feeding and exposure to environmental pollution and you have plenty of "stimuli" that nature never intended during the first year of life.
Posted by: Linda1 | December 17, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Children born outside the United States had significantly lower odds of any atopic disorders than those born in the United States (logistic regression OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.61), including ever-asthma (0.53; 0.39-0.72), current-asthma (0.34; 0.23-0.51), eczema (0.43; 0.30-0.61), hay fever (0.39; 0.27-0.55), and food allergies (0.60; 0.37-0.99).
Children born outside the United States who lived in the United States for longer than 10 years when compared with those who resided for only 0 to 2 years had significantly higher odds of developing any allergic disorders (adjusted OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.08-8.60), including eczema (4.93; 1.18-20.62; P = .03) and hay fever (6.25; 1.70-22.96) but not asthma or food allergies (P ≥ .06).
...and
Different environmental and infectious exposures in developing countries may also have a role as part of the broader “hygiene hypothesis.”9 That is, certain infections and exposures can help guide the immature immune system away from a pro-allergic or inflammatory state, thereby decreasing the risk of developing asthma and AD. Lack of infectious stimuli may lead to upregulation of allergic responses. We previously reported that exposure to varicella zoster virus in early childhood was associated with lower odds of developing AD,10 asthma, and hay fever, as well as decreased serum IgE, allergic sensitization, and persistent alterations of leukocyte subsets.11 It would be expected that immigrants to the United States from developing countries, where infectious stimuli are more prevalent, would have a lower risk of allergic disease.
Posted by: Well not quite ... | December 17, 2014 at 07:25 AM
Study Suggests U.S. Children Born Outside The United States Have Lower Risk of Allergic Disease
A study by Jonathan I. Silverberg, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., of St. Luke’s—Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, and colleagues suggests children living the in the United States but born outside the U.S. have a lower prevalence of allergic disease that increases after residing in the United States for one decade. (Online First)
The cross-sectional questionnaire used for the study was distributed to 91,642 children aged 0 to 17 years enrolled in the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children’s Health. The main outcomes measured were prevalence of allergic disease, including asthma, eczema, hay fever, and food allergies.
According to the study results, children born outside the United States had significantly lower odds of any atopic disorders than those born in the United States, including ever-asthma, current-asthma, eczema, hay fever, and food allergies. Children born outside of the United States whose parents were also born outside the United States had significantly lower odds of any atopic disorders than those whose parents were born in the United States. Children born outside the United States who lived in the United States for longer than 10 years when compared with those who resided for only 0 to 2 years had significantly higher odds of developing any allergic disorders, including eczema and hay fever, but not asthma or food allergies.
“In conclusion, foreign-born Americans have significantly lower risk of allergic disease than US-born Americans. However, foreign-born Americans develop increased risk for allergic disease with prolonged residence in the United States,” the study concludes.
Posted by: Tha's all that's needs to be said | December 17, 2014 at 07:20 AM
We're only four years into Bill Gates' "Decade of Vaccines" (hoping to make sure the whole world gets the same "benefit" of vaccination our children get)... which I believe he announced in early 2011...not sure if that means anything...
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 17, 2014 at 01:01 AM
"It would appear that eliminating any economic threat to the top 1%, that maintaining those lines between power and subservience, is cheaper to do by disabling the population through pharmaceutical warfare than through military warfare. It accomplishes the same end, while at the same time putting money back into the elite's pocket, without the appearance of having blood on one's hands.."
Wow, Jenny. When I read your statement it literally sent chills down my spine. My husband and I were having a conversation awhile back along these lines. He was wondering if, this is indeed the 'elite agenda,' it didn't seem too viable to him. But the key is the use of discretion to achieve the means, here. And of course, appearances would equal deception at every turn. Because that's the name of the game...deception.
Deception disguised as benevolence...
I don't know why your words had such a huge impact on me, but they did.
Posted by: Bayareamom | December 16, 2014 at 05:22 PM
"I think it is fair to ask, since the study was designed to look at the impact of chemicals on children's health, did the data being collected present a picture that might be harmful to the bottom line of these pharmaceutical interests? And, did early study results have have any impact on the decision to pull the plug? And, will the raw data that was collected be open for us to view and process?"
The answer to these question (sequentially):
Yes
Yes
No
Posted by: Ted | December 16, 2014 at 04:53 PM
Wow Twyla. Thank you. I had not seen these before.
Facinating that the questions were drafted NOT to find an association, rather than, "Is there an association."
Posted by: Ginger Taylor | December 16, 2014 at 02:08 PM
There must be a good # for this - get creative & let's think of one.
Posted by: An educator | December 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Proposed Core Hypothesis: The receipt of childhood routine vaccination is not linked to Autism or other developmental disabilities identified during childhood and adolescence"
I. Proposed core hypothesis question
The National Children’s Study (NCS) plans to collect data for a large cohort of infants followed into young adulthood. To be adequately tested, the proposed hypothesis requires the full length and breadth of this prospective study, including active ascertainment of vaccine adverse events.
This proposed core hypothesis for the vaccine/infectious disease section:
The receipt of childhood routine vaccination is not linked to Autism or other developmental disabilities identified during childhood and adolescence. Also, and linked to these concerns, childhood vaccination is not linked to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn’s disease.
The hypothesis is stated in the negative, as we do not believe this to be the case. For example, most studies agree that the purpoted association between receipt of MMR vaccine and the onset of autism in infancy/childhood is most likely coincidental. However, because of high publicity of a handful of studies suggesting such links between MMR and autism and IBD, this possibility remain a major reason for parents opting to avoid MMR vaccination for their infants, there is a critical need for a definitive study to settle this question.
https://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/about/organization/advisorycommittee/2003Sep/Pages/vaccines-document-7.pdf
IIV Working Group: National Children’s Study
Proposed Core Hypothesis: Altered timing of early childhood immunizations will lead to no increased rate or severity of disease later in life
I. Proposed core hypothesis question
The National Children’s Study (NCS) plans to collect data for a large cohort of very young children followed into adulthood. To be adequately tested, the proposed hypothesis requires the full length and breadth of this prospective study.
The hypothesis is stated as a null hypothesis because the direction of the anticipated effect is not known a priori. The general hypothesis is postulated as:
Ho: Altered timing of early childhood immunizations will lead to no increased rate or severity of disease later in life.
https://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/about/organization/advisorycommittee/2003Sep/Pages/vaccines-document-4.pdf
Autoimmunity Hypotheses for The National Children’s Study
Lisa G Rider, MD, NIEHS, NIH for the
Vaccine, Immunity and Infectious Disease Working Group
Possible Hypothesis 3: Vaccinations are not associated with the development of autoimmune diseases.
https://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/about/organization/advisorycommittee/2003Sep/Pages/vaccines-1.pdf
Presentation on the need for collecting accurate vaccine histories
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/pastmeetings/salmon_0609.pdf
If the above hypotheses were being studied, no wonder they decided to end this study. Will $1.2 billion worth of data now be buried?
Posted by: Twyla | December 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM
It would appear that eliminating any economic threat to the top 1%, that maintaining those lines between power and subservience, is cheaper to do by disabling the population through pharmaceutical warfare than through military warfare. It accomplishes the same end, while at the same time putting money back into the elite's pocket, without the appearance of having blood on one's hands. But red is red, whether it's splayed across the pavement, or flowing through an skin enclosed chemically-based pharmaceutical soup of toxins. It starts to look like military action in far away places is the distraction in the corner meant to draw attention away from an even worse depravity on every corner in our very own neighborhoods.
Posted by: Jenny | December 16, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Whenever something dark and underhanded happens Big Pharma always seems to be lurking in the background. I see pharmaceutical industry heads as CIA -like puppet masters and government officials are the puppets whose strings are being pulled. I have no doubt the put the pressure onto NIH to kill this study. I also think they influence the direction of autism research to focus heavily on genetics vs. environmental triggers.
Just last night I was reading about the Sandy Hook massacre and an angle that has been down played is Adam Lanzas medical records. Was Lanza on any prescription drugs as many school shooters over the last 20 years have been?
Columbine school shooter Eric Harris for example was taking Luvox when he went on his killing spree with Dylan Kelbold. Harris was absolutely psychotic. Mark Taylor, one of his victims who was injured but survived the school shooting, went on the crusade against the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. He has since been silenced. Taylor's story is unbelievable too.
Here is his story:
Mark Taylor's crusade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7m-YNApU4
Mark Taylor's state today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ8zRjswZyk
Posted by: Autism mom | December 16, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations 672.9 billion
Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid 940.9 billion (Well that does include medicare and medicaid but it is still going back into the medical profession - just saying.)
Department of Education 71.9 billion
Department of Veterans Affairs 139.7 billion
Department of Housing and Urban Development 46.3 billion (We got into trouble with this one - a bubble and Wal street and bundleing up of debts and Franny Mae and Freddy Max and all now didn't we. )
Department of State and Other International Programs 59.5 billion.
Department of Homeland Security 55.4 Billion Is this a redundant federal agency or is it really needed??? I don't know but with that budget it is here to stay.
Department of Energy 35.billion
Department of Justice 36.5 billion (would the vaccine court get it funding from here?)
Department of Agriculture 154.5 billion
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 17.8 billion
National Intelligence Program 52.6 billion
Posted by: Benedetta | December 16, 2014 at 10:49 AM
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/12/within-nih-s-flat-2015-budget-few-favorites This article says the NIH flat budget it receives from Congress is 29.9 billion.
Congress did tack on an additional 150 million dollars though.
This article says that NIH has a budget of 30.1 billion. http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm
Well the article says this much is spent for research.
Not much of a number change in numbers - I know -- but we are talking BILLIONS with a B here so yeah, those numbers matter.
Boy, Gates is in it up to his eye balls. What makes him so passionate with his pocket book? He picked the most bloated federal agency that has ever existed and gave more than all the pharma companies together.
What is he up too???
Posted by: Benedetta | December 16, 2014 at 10:29 AM
I believe it's a fair assumption that early data DID "present a picture that might be harmful to the bottom line of these pharmaceutical interests". That seems to be the pattern these days, doesn't it (and they are so bold and confident about their ability to get away with it, they don't even try to hide it anymore!).
I'm all for researchers having to make ALL results transparent and easily accessed by others (not just cherry picking the results that are "convenient" for them and show positive results for the industry they represent). As a taxpayer, I'm furious with the way they waste our money, and as a parent of vaccine injured children, I'm devastated by the lack of scientific integrity.
Who are these people who can actually sleep at night, knowing they're condemning thousands of innocent children to a life of pain and suffering, and not even care? How can any kind of "payoff" justify that? It's sick! What has happened to true science?! It's definitely a very sad state of affairs.
Thank all of you who continue to expose this blatant corruption that is destroying the lives of thousands of innocent children and their families.
It makes absolutely no sense for a government to allow the maiming of it's own children (but they are doing it anyway, which makes their greed even more criminal). Just who do they think is going to be around and actually healthy enough to work to support all those retirees and disabled? When we have 1 in 2 children with ASD in the near future, and the vast majority of others with some other devastating chronic health problem, what then?! That's the obvious nightmare scenario we are headed for at full speed. This needs to end!
Posted by: Anne J. | December 16, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Given the state of our children's health this is shameful. This should e headline news on all media.
Posted by: jen | December 16, 2014 at 10:19 AM
In 2009 I responded to an IACC request for information (RFI), and in response to Strategic Plan Question 6 wrote the following:
My first two sons and I participated in the Collaborative Perinatal Study (CPS) which was to have been a prospective study of perinatal health and outcomes. The National Children's Study looks like a re-invention of this idea. The IACC should try to find the data collected in the CPS and find children who developed autism, and try to locate these individuals now. If these data are now thought to be out of date, why is there such a clamor for prospective versus retrospective studies?
See more at the following link:
http://iacc.hhs.gov/public-comment/2009/rfi_comments/q6/index.shtml
Posted by: Eileen Nicole Simon | December 16, 2014 at 07:18 AM