@BJ, here's a start:

http://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php

http://www.oatext.com/Preterm-birth-vaccination-and-neurodevelopmental-disorders-a-cross-sectional-study-of-6-to-12-year-old-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-children.php

CONSUMER ACCESS TO HOMOEOPATHIC
MEDICINES AT RISK!

Make a submission and ask your clients to do the same, to protect homoeopathy and safeguard consumer access to homoeopathic medicines in pharmacies.

There isn’t much time to speak out; responses need to be received by Sunday 23rd July.

On 22 June 2017, a government report - Review of Pharmacy Remuneration & Regulation Interim Report (The King Review) - was released for public consultation. It is recommending that homoeopathic products (e.g. hayfever drops, teething and colic formulas) should not be sold in pharmacies. The report bases this on the flawed National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Homeopathy Review, which concluded homoeopathic medicines are ineffective. If the King report is approved, it could mean all homoeopathic medicines would be removed from pharmacies around Australia.

This report is the latest in an ongoing agenda to remove homoeopathy as a healthcare choice for Australians. There is real concern that homoeopathy could be the first in a long line of other natural therapies due for this kind of legislation, resulting in the community’s choice of, and access to, other natural therapies becoming difficult in the future. It also means that the manufacture of homoeopathic medicines in Australia is under threat – homoeopaths themselves may not be able to access homoeopathic medicines either.

The Report is open to public submissions
until 11.59pm, 23rd July 2017

How you can object:
Write a submission or answer an online questionnaire - just follow the prompts below.
Share this letter to as many people as you can.

How to make a submission:
Interested parties are invited to make a submission in relation to the reform options outlined in the Interim Report by either:

1. Uploading a written submission to the Review: go to the Department of Health webpage (http://www.health.gov.au/pharmacyreview#Members) and upload your submission via the ‘Department’s Consultation Hub’ (https://consultations.health.gov.au/pbd-pharma…/submissions/), towards the bottom of the page.

OR

2. Providing a short response to one or more of the reform options through an online questionnaire - which also includes a field to add your own comments (see below).
If filling out the questionnaire, you do not need to answer all the questions - just the option relating to homoeopathic products:
(Chapter 3.4: “The Role of Community Pharmacy in Medicine Supply, OPTION 3-4: SALE OF HOMEOPATHIC PRODUCTS”).
you can use these answers with this part of the questionnaire:
https://app.box.com/s/p3ux9d0tcru7qbnmprrj12sk4tvh0r28

Alternatively, if you wish to make a submission, a sample letter is provided below that you can base yours on.

Sample letter here... https://app.box.com/s/1i49tygzbfotq60w99o5825dwr6n7fiq

Points you can use in your own submission at this link... https://app.box.com/s/p3ux9d0tcru7qbnmprrj12sk4tvh0r28

Feel free to forward this information to any of your clients who may be interested in getting involved.
NATIONAL OFFICE: 07 4636 5081, PO BOX 7108, TOOWOOMBA SOUTH, QLD 4350

ASBRM
Phone: 08 8338 2144
Email: [email protected]
Address: PO BOX 209, Glen Osmond SA http://www.health.gov.au/pharmacyreview#Members

Francis,

I'm so very sorry to learn of your loss.

Worth repeating a comment I made in these columns a couple of weeks ago:

Recently I came upon a book given to me years ago when I was too busy to look at it (or thought I was) by the founder of the UK yellow card adverse drug reporting scheme, Bill Inman 'Don't Tell The Patient' published in 1999. The book is almost too laconic but there is a key chapter about how the author in the 1970s had detected a rate of serious adverse reactions to pertussis vaccination above ten times the rate officially admitted, more than 1 in 30,000 cases (something which would have been compounded c.1990 when the accelerated DPT schedule was introduced). Already in the UK in the 1970s there was a huge infra-structure of time-serving committees ready to over-rule and intimidate anyone who called policy on any matter into question. At the end of the chapter, with Inman retiring from the Department of Health in 1980 he is told "You know Bill, you've blown your K", i.e. knighthood, for rocking the boat on pertussis vaccination and for associating early versions of the contraceptive pill with thrombosis. One person ,of course, who didn't blow their "K" in the end was Sir Michael Rutter.

We note also that before journalist Brian Deer got his teeth into Andy Wakefield he had published a smear job on a successful Irish DPT claimant Margaret Best when the British government machine knew perfectly well that there were potentially hundreds of perfectly valid cases pending and children still being injured. It is also a matter of history that when Deer launched his attack on Wakefield he did it with support of Chief Medical Officer, the Prime Minister http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7438/528/rapid-responses and the unrestrained glee of the Department of Health https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/. National Health Service websites linked to Deer's.

One of the things to be learnt from Inman's book is that the systems become ever more adept at suppressing anything that conflicts with policy, and therefore the danger to real public interest gets ever greater. Fifty years ago Inman was able to blow the whistle on the early contraceptive pill and thrombosis from within the system: it seems very unlikely today. No matter how bad things gets the machine can deflect controversy and demands more and more sacrifice.

Of course, the great game is pursued by government and the state differently on either side of the pond but with same goals of suppressing knowledge, dissent and above all legal liability.

From above article:-
"Puliyel notes that these deaths are completely unnecessary as the vaccines could have been given separately, and separately they have a long track record of safety."

How absurd and dishonest is "they have a long track record of safety."(!)

My generation born 1940 -1950 did not even have "SIDS" or "SUDS" as a death category, though indeed some very rare deaths did occur but had identified causes, usually from infections or birth defects or congenital causes.

The only true analysis or conclusion(s) of SIDS/SUDS deaths can come from vaxed versus unvaccinated - not from this so-called Study

The bottom line is that it looks like GSK, Pfizer, the European Medicines Agency, the CDC, other national drug regulatory agencies and health officials in a large number of countries have been sentencing children to death by injection.

The evidence is also clear that the probability is vanishingly small those children would have suffered serious effects of the childhood diseases their parents were assured these "safe" killer vaccines were meant to protect them from.

Another good one on mercury in vaccines by Dr. Puliyel:

http://jacob.puliyel.com/paper.php?id=338

Bob, we need effective treatments for well-known long existing childhood diseases.

*********

We already have one. It's called the immune systems they were born with.

See below - GlaxoSmithKline Table 36 - column 1, 2 and 4 show how close all the deaths are to vaccination. The deaths are clustered close to vaccination with much fewer the further in time from vaccination. So showing these are not numbers of deaths normally to be expected in the normal course of events.

But GSK disguised the relationship by listing the cumulative number of deaths.

So where it says 2 days since vaccination GSK instead put the number of deaths 2 days after vaccination, plus the number 1 day and 0 days after vaccination.

So three days after is the number who died three days after vaccination plus all those who died, 0, 1 and 2 days after.

If GSK just published the bare numbers the relationship is much clearer. For infants [column 2]:

16 died the day of vaccination
13 died one day after vaccination
13 died two days after vaccination
8 died three days after vaccination
7 died four days after vaccination
3 died five days after vaccination
0 died six days after vaccination
2 died seven days after vaccination
1 died eight days after vaccination
2 died nine days after vaccination
0 died ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen days after vaccination
1 died 15 days after vaccination
1 died 16 days after vaccination
0 died 17, 18 and 19 days after vaccination

This shows just how appalling it is that people hiding behind fake names like Eindeker publish the misinformation they do all over the internet.

@Bob Moffitt
"instead of providing the citizens of the world SAFE AND EFFICIENT VACCINES."

Bob, we need effective treatments for well-known long existing childhood diseases. The science exists to do it and then children and their parents would not be forced to play Russian Roulette with vaccines pushed by systemically corrupt health departments and organisations, financially supported by the drug industry.

Dr Puliyel sites a near 10 year old German study in his PubMed response:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602672/
von Kries R1, Toschke AM, Strassburger K, Kundi M, Kalies H, Nennstiel U, Jorch G, Rosenbauer J, Giani G.
From the Abstract:-
"......Standardised mortality ratios (SMR) for deaths within 1 to 28 days after administration of either of the two hexavalent vaccines in the 1st and 2nd year of life were determined using the respective annual rates for sudden unexpected deaths (SUDs) from the national vital statistics........
For one of the vaccines, Vaccine B, all SMRs were well below one. For the other, Vaccine A, SMRs exceeded one insignificantly on the 1st day after vaccination in the 1st year of life......
CONCLUSION:
These findings based on spontaneous reporting do not prove a causal relationship between vaccination and sudden unexpected deaths. However, they constitute a signal for one of the two hexavalent vaccines which should prompt intensified surveillance for unexpected deaths after vaccination."

This, far more rational study than the Italian one, threw up a 'signal' over one of the hexa vaccines apparently causing larger than expected deaths from SIDS immediately after vaccination. That 'signal' appears to have been ignored by those whose job it is to investigate and act on such concerns.

Sorry I did not realise Whyser's graph was cumulative, not daily totals of deaths following Infantrix, but the same arguments apply. I assume the 'expected daily 55 infant deaths' were calculated from child death records, and included both vaccinated and unvaccinated children and deaths from all causes.

The fact that most deaths following Infantrix took place in the first few days following vaccination IS a matter for concern, and should not be suppressed and dismissed by those vested interests concerned with protecting vaccines, rather than protecting children.

Just to give a detailed and I hope HONEST analysis of Eindeker's arguments using the Whyser graph:-
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Yb4JRzWGTXM/VLbezw9nVUI/AAAAAAAAsMg/1cFzbYbPyRE/w680-h500-no/Culmulative%2Bnumber%2Bof%2Bobserved%2Band%2Bexpected%2Bcases%2Bof%2BSudden%

Whyser omitted to include the baseline of expected deaths, but this is easy. Just go to the number 55 on the vertical axis and draw a straight horizontal line across the graph.

This reveals Eindeker's correct observations. For the first 3 days, deaths following Infantrix were BELOW the base line of 55 expected deaths. There were 16 deaths recorded immediately following vaccination, on the first day 20, on the second 40, and the third 50. Eindeker suggests this proves the Infantrix vaccine actually saves lives by protecting from infections, in the few days following vaccinations. Since this is exactly what vaccines are supposed to do, then Eindeker is probably correct in this assumption.

But what are we to make of the 4-20 days following vaccinations, where deaths exceeded the 55 base line? Would Eindeker, and those other persons who dismiss vaccine concerns as nonsense and pseudoscience, be happy for their own children to be protected for a few days from an infection, only to die or be damaged later from adverse effects due to the vaccine? This argument is absolutely CENTRAL to the whole vaccine controversy.

"If the rate of deaths is not associated to the vaccine, we should observe that the amount of deaths in the first 10 days post vaccination should be about the same number of deaths in the next 10 days..."

Why wouldn't it be possible for a vaccine to weaken a child so that death occurs after 10 days instead of only within the first 10 days? What is the scientific basis for the 10 day window?

@Eindeker

I think you're misunderstanding the table that he used to come to those conclusions.

The expected sudden deaths column is a linear rate of expected deaths that they expect to see, REGARDLESS of cause. They used a rate of 55 deaths per day.

The observed sudden deaths during the observation period was performed post vaccination. What Dr Puliyel is stating is that GlaxoSmithKline observed 69 deaths post vaccination, and that you should pay attention to the number of deaths in the first 10 days post vaccination, and compare it to the next 10 days.

The GSK chart shows that there were 65 deaths observed in the first 10 days post vaccination, and in the following 10 days, only two more deaths occurred. If the rate of deaths is not associated to the vaccine, we should observe that the amount of deaths in the first 10 days post vaccination should be about the same number of deaths in the next 10 days, but this was not the case.

97% of the deaths occurred in the first 10 days post-vaccination over a 20 day observation window. To say that there is not a strong possibility of correlation that the vaccine may be the cause of this would be rather unscientific and should demand investigation.

Here is a quick chart that I made showing the culmulative number of deaths following administration of Infanrix (I don't know if you can post images in the comment section

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Yb4JRzWGTXM/VLbezw9nVUI/AAAAAAAAsMg/1cFzbYbPyRE/w680-h500-no/Culmulative%2Bnumber%2Bof%2Bobserved%2Band%2Bexpected%2Bcases%2Bof%2BSudden%2BDeath%2Bfollowing%2BInfanrix%2Bhexa%2Bin%2Bchildren.jpg

The validity of Dr. Puliyel's findings regarding post-marketing surveillance depend on the assumption that a death very soon after vaccination will be as likely to be reported as a possible vaccine-related adverse event as a death that did not so closely follow vaccination. How did he support that?

Many thanks to Dr. Puliyel for doing this critical analysis and to Age of Autism for making the work available. It is remarkable that a GSK report itself confirms the validity of vaccine-induced Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccine-induced autism. I hope the GSK 1200-page report and Dr. Puliyel's analysis of its data will gain the public attention that they deserve.
Mary Holland

Cia Parker says:-"But we should remember that one of the Lancet Twelve had reacted with autism to just the single measles vaccine."

Not quite Cia -From the 1998 Wakefield et al paper:-

"One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4•5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation."

The Wakefield paper "investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder". 'Autism spectrum disorders' are mentioned in the discussion part of the paper, but mostly the language is about regression and the loss of previous skills. It is stated P Harvey, a neurologist, did the neurological assessments of the children, and presumably diagnosed autism in some cases. The children were initially referred to the Royal Free for their bowel problems. Paediatric gastroenterologist Professor Walker-Smith was the clinician in charge at the time.

So Offit could be construed as correct, the immune system can handle 100,000 vaccines - it handles it by a process of neo-natal self-abortion.

But we should remember that one of the Lancet Twelve had reacted with autism to just the single measles vaccine. It is not that it is safe to give them separately, just that it is less dangerous. But it is still much more dangerous than it would have been just to let the child get the three different diseases naturally.

One can only hope and pray Dr Puliyel is going to achieve a better result than Dr. Wakefield .. who also called for the MMR vaccine to be given in "single doses" rather than combined .. which he found was a contributing factor of serious gastrointestinal problems in children with autism.

Unfortunately, we all know to well .. how big a price that Dr. Wakefield paid for making the very same "common sense" observation that Dr. Puliyel has made.

One also hopes and prays that Dr. Purliyel's "common sense" question asking why "safety data has to be kept confidential" .. observing that had the GSK report dated 16 December 2011 been made public at that time .. a large number of unnecessary deaths in 2012, 2013 and 2014 could have been avoided .. WILL BE ANSWERED .. NOT IN THE SECRETIVE COURT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCIES AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES .. BUT .. IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION .. WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES WHY THIS INFORMATION MUST REMAIN SECRET.

In any event .. this type of malicious practice by a global corporation ought not be treated as a simple "mistake" .. because .. it is a deliberate act constituting a CRIME by those involved .. and .. those responsible should pay a heavy price .. including lengthy time in the worst prisons possible.

When is this maddness going to end? It will only end when global regulatory agencies like WHO .. including our own CDC, FDA, HHS, .. are held responsible for their PERSONAL failure to prevent this very type of corporate crime .. instead of providing the citizens of the world SAFE AND EFFICIENT VACCINES.

Until they are all held responsible .. THE BAND PLAYS ON...