Vaccingate: Two Articles from Il Tempo
Below are two articles translated into English from Il Tempo regarding vaccine purity and reliability in manufacturing. Please refer to our article last week CORVELVA VACCINEGATE: GSK's Infanrix Hexa Exposed.
It is an interesting development that Dr Bolgan, a graduate of Harvard Medical School has associated herself with project. Meanwhile, Drs Montanari and Gatti make the important point that without hands-on, independent regulation - which is patently absent - there is no basis for trust in the products. It would be problematic enough if they were what was said on the packet, but if they are they are not the we are into another territory altogether.
About Corvelva: The CORVELVA association - Veneto Regional Coordination for the Freedom of Vaccinations - was founded in 1993 and its principle is the free choice of vaccinations. In recent years Corvelva has actively managed the vaccination objection regarding the scholastic aspect, the Juvenile Court and sanctions obtaining excellent results. These three areas, thanks to constant and continuous work, have been overcome by reaching the regional law that determines the suspension of the compulsory vaccination for all those born from 1 January 2008. Since then the Association's activity has focused on assisting those who have been injured due to mandatory and non-mandatory vaccines and on research related to the issue of vaccine damage. Today, there is a new battle for the right of therapeutic choice. We continue our work of supporting families in every aspect of freedom of choice and care.
From IlTempo.it:
From IlTempo.it:
The pharmacologist versus Aifa: "The vaccine investigation is correct". The validated methods required for a certifying body that deals with the release of batches
by Loretta Bolgan (pharmacologist and vaccine expert)
"I have to underline one important thing once and for all: Corvelva is not doing a batch release check and has not required the use of validated methods for batch analysis, as manufacturers, accredited laboratories and the ISS have to do. What you are conducting is a simple investigation that is done in the initial phase of the development of a vaccine, ie screening". Loretta Bolgan, pharmacologist expert in vaccines responds to Aifa, the Medicines Agency that, after the shocking revelations of IL Tempo on vaccines (where there is no rubella antigen in the product which should eradicate it, and there are human DNA and herbicides in the other) [READ THE ARTICLE] claimed that the "incriminated" lots were all in place after testing them [READ THE ARTICLE].
Dr. Bolgan, a graduate in Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Technology, reports to the Medicines Agency, which - after reporting the two lots indicted on the market - has replied that it has tested them. Bolgan obtained a PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences, is currently scientific consultant lg 210, ONB and Corvelva for the analysis of vaccines. She was also a consultant in the last parliamentary committee of inquiry on the military.
"I must stress one important thing once and for all: Corvelva is NOT doing a batch release check and has NOT requested the use of validated methods for batch analysis, as manufacturers, accredited laboratories and the ISS must do. What you are conducting is a simple investigation that is done in the initial phase of vaccine development, ie screening. AIFA cannot request accredited methods for the release of the lot, because it would take years to validate them, and outside our purpose, which is not to become a certification body for the release of lots, especially as they do not use the methods provided for in the European Pharmacopoeia for the analysis of vaccines, but methods of the latest generation, not yet acquired in the pharmacopoeia for this purpose.
"I believe that the very serious statement not to take into consideration the results presented because they have not been reviewed by the scientific community is completely evasive of our questions... the methods are already reported in the literature attached to the reports, and in any case here we are talking about non-conformities that go beyond the evaluation as scientific research because they have an impact on public health. Medicines are often withdrawn from the market because they do not comply and I do not know that any publication is required, samples are withdrawn and analysed. That is the point".
"As for the fact that the EMA answered in July 2018, I would like to point out that the EMA has stressed that it is the responsibility of AIFA to answer our questions regarding the Priorix tetra because of national registration. And AIFA does not respond with analytical data made on batches and safety studies in hand (since as they claimed the controls have already been carried out by manufacturers, by accredited laboratories, paid by manufacturers, and by the ISS I hope these are not also paid by manufacturers), but saying that the EMA has already answered us and that they will not take our data into account until we publish.
I would say that here the issue before the scientific one is health safety, and if on the one hand the publications are in progress and will follow the orthodox procedure for peer reviews, on the other hand it is not ethically correct to wait for the publication with peer review when there is even the only suspicion that a widely used drug, administered to healthy paediatric population and even sick at birth, can cause damage to health.
"We will also do the second level analysis with further standards of control on chemical and protein analysis, but it was still necessary to inform the recipients of the vaccinations also of the results of the first level analysis then preliminary, asking those who have the burden of proof on quality, safety and effectiveness to respond!
Stefano Montanari and Atonietta Gatti
"The law is the same for everyone". So it is written behind the judge's back in the courtroom. Perhaps this is not always the case in its application. Likewise, "Science" (written with a capital letter) is coldly objective but, in fact, sometimes its interpretation is not. This is even more so if it is not "Science" that should be interpreted but it is what results from its practical application, namely "Technology".
It is now a popular subject in the media that the National Order of Biologists is involved in analyses carried out on a couple of vaccines, investigations that should be the routine for the many public bodies funded at the international and national level for the purpose.
Surprisingly, those analyses reveal how the samples analysed contain substances whose presence in vaccines is at least to be demonstrated: from DNA obviously foreign to those who will have to suffer the administration of the product up to pesticides, herbicides, active ingredients to say the least bizarre in that area (for example Sildenafil which is the active ingredient of Viagra), compounds passing through the synthesis of various drugs or something that comes no less than from helminths (!). It may be curious to see how in the vaccine, which should also be an anti-rosolia, there has not been detected trace of that antigen. This is related to that vaccine, but, in general, appear antibiotics, sometimes not really suitable for infants such as, for example, Neomycin, Polysorbate80 that opens the blood-brain barrier, pork gelatin, aluminum and many other substances on which more than one doubt regarding tolerability and safety seems legitimate.
It may be curious to note that the two batches of the same vaccine have given results that are not entirely identical, something that also happens to us, that those products we have been analyzing for more or less 16 years with a completely different method. Our results concern the content of inorganic micro and nanoparticles, i.e. something that cannot be contained even in the slightest trace in any injectable preparation. However, we find those particles regularly and we have duly warned the competent authorities about this several times since 2011, showing the results accompanied by unmistakable photographs of electron microscopy and elemental analysis performed with the spectroscopy system EDS.
As was the case in the past with asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, tobacco, tetraethyl lead, doubtful vaccines, objections and questions are also unwelcome, and even more so are the investigations into their composition. It should be noted that the investigations carried out on vaccines do not concern their effectiveness but their composition, and on an analytical result there can be no opinions. What should surprise even more than the result of the analysis, however, is the reaction from some sources. Without knowing anything else but a few bits of preliminary information, there are those who said that those tests have no value, indeed, are false, indeed, are ridiculous.
We do not want to argue with anyone. As scientists by now of long experience, however, we allow ourselves to emphasize that anyone who deals with science does not risk statements, especially if so damaging, without having all the details relating to the investigation they intend to dispute. The next step is to redo the analysis yourself and compare the results.
Now, those two steps, though elementary or obvious, have not been taken and, therefore, it is impossible for us not to ask ourselves on the basis of which the reaction was triggered. But there is another obvious point to add. Not a few of the protests concern a sort of blasphemy claim committed against those who dare to analyse vaccines, which, if you are certain of their purity, should instead be welcome. The reaction, disjointed and outside the simplest rules of science as it has been, indicates the fear that something will emerge that should not emerge, which in a drug, moreover in a vaccine, is at least disconcerting. And, then, the only honest thing to do is to repeat the analysis in the presence of the institutions because, as is commonly said, the rest is idle chatter.
In conclusion, the Manichean juxtaposition of being in favour of vaccines or opposed to them appears totally out of place. Here it is very plainly a question of controlling what is in vaccines".
"It’s the same old story of uncontrolled analytical methods yet again: "
*****************
Before you too high on your horse there, just want to remind you that this imagined legion 'pedigreed' scientists that you so like to defend.... are the same idiots responsible for current multiple vaccine schedule, that's never been tested at all.
Did your mother not tell you that those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones?
Posted by: Barry | December 31, 2018 at 08:01 PM
Black spots found in vaccine being pulled from use, "unclear whether the black spots affect the safety of the vaccine." I suppose they're suppose to study it for a while, rather than pull it and then, hopefully, also study it, according to some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OrC1hOsHc
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 31, 2018 at 06:48 PM
"It’s the same old story of uncontrolled analytical methods yet again: "
...Only applicable when not controlled by a biased pharma sponsor..the truth hurts Eindecker -nothing to crow about still.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3/abstract
Background
Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical‐industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.
Authors' conclusions
Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | December 31, 2018 at 10:22 AM
Eindecker
I didn’t notice any feet rapidly retreating. While it’s up to CORVELVA to defend their methods I am not sure that they need any approval from bodies not likely to be independent from manufacturers, government agencies etc. who are also not independent from manufacturers. All the regulating bodies are owned and we cannot trust them - meanwhile they want to stuff their products into us and our children compulsorily and at our expense.
I suggest to our governments that if they want to be trusted they do things differently.
Posted by: John Stone | December 31, 2018 at 09:44 AM
Oh the sound of feet rapidly retreating…
Corvelva is NOT doing a batch release check and has NOT requested the use of validated methods for batch analysis…...
What you are conducting is a simple investigation…. ie screening…….
the results presented because they have not been reviewed by the scientific community is completely evasive of our questions……
So in other words these so called results were obtained with a non-validated method (in plain English no-one’s proved that the test method used gives reliable and accurate results with the type of sample material being tested) and even Corvelva refers to them as preliminary screening data
The one review of the nucleic acid analysis technique used rejected the method as unsuitable
It’s the same old story of uncontrolled analytical methods yet again: hCG in vaccines using a method only validated for clinical material, eg blood, urine….glyphosate in vaccines using a screening method only validated for water samples known to produce false positives
The Italian regulatory authorities can have full access to the in-house QC results if required.
Posted by: Eindeker | December 31, 2018 at 08:49 AM