ozoneranger 4,303 Views
Joined Nov 18, '02.
Posts: 379 (45% Liked)
Ponder this. The CDC owns a patent on this variant of Ebola, and any other viral variant within 30% of this specific genomic sequence.
Patent holders for intellectual property waltz from industry to regulatory agency then back to industry unimpeded, a practice I find deplorable. For all practical intents & purposes they are married.
The vaccine currently in clinical trial is being “fast tracked” by the FDA, meaning industry PAID the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) to get this off the ground, sans standard safety protocols.
(In fact, half of the FDA’s budget comes from fees paid by manufacturers to facilitate accelerated approval for new drugs and medical devices).
It’s worth noting, the virus in the before mentioned patent is not the same variant currently believed to be circulating in West Africa and that may very well be why American Ebola victims have been brought to the United States in the first place.
From the patent description on the EboBun virus, we know that the U.S. government:
1) Extracts Ebola viruses from patients.
2) Claims to have “invented” that virus.
3) Files for monopoly patent protection on the virus.
To understand why this is happening, you have to first understand what a patent really is and why it exists. A patent is a government-enforced monopoly that is exclusively granted to persons or organizations. It allows that person or organization to exclusively profit from the “invention” or deny others the ability to exploit the invention for their own profit.
On one hand, it’s worth pointing out that the CDC’s patent on Ebola is at least partially focused on methods for screening for Ebola and treating Ebola victims with drugs or vaccines. This seems like a worthwhile precaution against an infectious disease that clearly threatens lives.
On the other hand, why the patent? Patenting Ebola seems as odd as trying to patent cancer or diabetes. Why would a government organization claim to have “invented” this infectious disease and then claim a monopoly over its exploitation for commercial use?
Make no mistake that billions of dollars in profits (and zero liability) are at stake in all this. Vaccines are the ONLY product with this unique marketing advantage.
1. The patent for this sub-variant of Ebola was acquired in 2007 for a vaccine that has proven disastrously elusive for decades.
Long Quest for Ebola Vaccine Slowed by Science, Ethics, Politics
"Slowed by ethics" Yes, ethics got in the way.
2. Safety steps are abandoned because the virus, which has never posed a threat beyond isolated outbreaks in Africa, is suddenly a possible pandemic of epic proportions.
3. Bring patients to America & show the world we have this under control, “see, we saved those heroic doctors”…
4. Sell us a scantly tested vaccine during a “crisis” (remember, you can't sue the manufacturer for a vaccine injury).
5. Nurses & 1st. responders will be the first to see the pointy end of the syringe.
There are 5 individuals listed on the patent, where are they now?
This is how Ebola is seen in the eyes of the investor.
Because all pharma companies are publicly traded, their 1st. bound legal duty is to the investor.
Fiduciary obligation, look it up.
Ebola stocks: 2 to sell, and 5 to consider buying - MarketWatch
Why Ebola Vaccine Makers' Stocks Soared (NLNK, TKMR)
This blog is usually on the money when it comes to news in the development end of vaccines.
Vaccine News | Vaccine Market | Vaccine Research | Fierce Vaccines
I laughed at the swine flu panic, and was suitably horrified at the number of narcolepsy cases following vaccination in certain genetic phenotypes.
Bringing Ebola patients to our shores?
Well, either SKB is closer to an answer than thought, or we're in deep doo.
My money on the former, literally.
I had the opportunity many years ago to meet one of the scientists who helped develop the vaccine. When the vaccine was released, it was only approved for women up to age 26. The reason for this is because that is who Merck included in their clinical trial. When I left my job as an STD nurse (2009) they were currently holding clinical trials for men and older women.
Part of the argument against vaccinating is that by vaccinating women, the population will develop "herd immunity." Obviously, the major flaw here is men who have sex with men would have no protection, but some politicians seem to be okay with that.
Anyway, HPV strains 16 and 18 are known to cause cervical, oral, esophageal, and anal cancer. Women and men should receive the vaccine regardless of their prior sexual activity. Even if the pt is already infected with one strain of HPV, the vaccine will still protect them from other strains. Even people who are not sexually active should be vaccinated - obviously it's more effective when given before the pt has been exposed to HPV. Even though sexual contact is the most common form of transmission, there have been cases of babies being exposed d/t improper hand washing of their caregiver before diaper changes.
I just adore people who site sources, yet have never taken a course in the subject. I believe before we read something from a website and twist what it has to say to fit our personal beliefs we should educate ourselves on the subject matter.
I encourage everyone who believes that viruses are bad and have not in fact helped humanity to take courses in immunology and virology.
There is a problem with the logic that somehow vaccines and autism are related and that problem is that NO STUDY HAS BEEN ABLE TO DUPLICATE THE ORIGINAL.
In science we follow the scientific method and if a study is done correctly the results should be duplicated and that has not been the case, yet we have people blindly believing that which has been proven false. That which has been forcibly retracted from the original journal and if I am not mistake the man was stripped of his medical license for unethical behavior.
While I agree that autism is a serious condition that has been a failure of modern medicine, vaccines are not the evil, instead they are saviors that help fight disease in an era of close human interaction that could lead to massive pandemics.
*off my soap box*
One case-control study of patients with end-stage renal disease suggested that long term consumption of acetaminophen may significantly increase the risk of ESRD particularly in patients taking more than two pills per day.
This research was conducted on 1,700 women, and spanned 11 years. Overall, it showed that 10% of the women experienced a decline in their kidney function, indicating that their kidneys were being harmed by acetaminophen .
Women who took between 1,500 and 9,000 tablets over their lifetimes raised their risk of kidney impairment by 64%, and women who took more than 9,000 tablets increased their risk even further.
It is estimated that over-the-counter painkillers are responsible for killing over 40,000 Americans each year -- that includes aspirin, acetaminophen, and other painkillers.
Chronic pain patients, especially the elderly with RA are prescribed vicoden for years on end are finding themselves in chronic renal failure.
Codeine itself has a weak binding affinity to mu-opioid receptors, 5% to 10% of codeine is converted into morphine, which has a high binding affinity to mu-opioid receptors. Conversion of codeine to morphine occurs in the liver via cytochrome P450, some drugs may interfere with the effectiveness of codeine (ie) certain SSRIs (also converted via cytochrome P450) decrease the analgesic effect of codeine.
While codeine alone is not as effective, especially went taken with SSRI's, combining acetaminophen with codeine appears to have long term detrimental effects which, in part, could be avoided by removing acetaminophen from the equation.
Though the folks at Johnson & Johnson don't want to hear that....
I don't think most individuals appreciate the advances which have been made in pathogen detection by the use of advanced micro-arrays.
As an example I pointed out the finding (in a previous post) made about a year ago of an unexpected pig circovirus found in the rotarix vaccine. The levels of this unexpected virus were more than ten times the level of the target virus for which the vaccine had been developed. While the decision to certify that virus as "safe" was in my opinion unconscionable, the fact remains that detection of the unexpected virus was made and its amount quantified with amazing accuracy.
I believe that scientific advances are proceeding at a rate which will allow us to ask and answer some very disturbing questions about vaccine safety.
The idea that there's "data" about which we should all agree, but that some of the biggest fights are over "interpretation" and the meaning of that data. For example, the finding of an unexpected pig virus in a vaccine at a rate ten times higher than that of the target virus is something which all parties seem to agree upon, yet it's glossed over & the vaccine remains on the shelf.
If the health care provider holding that syringe told you, the parent of a new born, about that virus, the one we know little of nothing about, that may be cancer causing, & so on...... being in concentration 10X that of the target virus....about to be injected into your baby, how would you respond?
A vaccine with this level of contamination would probably never receive initial approval. This finding begs the question, why do we allow an already approved vaccine to have this level of contamination, just because we've only recently developed the tools to test its composition? Even to the average person who doesn't think much about vaccine safety this reasoning is a little bit like saying you'll continue to allow your teenage son to drink and drive because he's done it before and he never got into an accident.
In the document Investigating Viruses in Cells Used to make Vaccines; and Evaluating the Potential Threat Posed by Transmission of Viruses to Humans. XMRV is prominently featured as a virus about which they are concerned. Please feel free to read the entire document at http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvac.../ucm127327.htm
For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the question of XMRV and autism, please allow me to give a brief recap. The xenotropic murine leukemia related virus (XMRV) was discovered in 2006 by scientists working for the University of California at San Francisco and the Cleveland Clinic.
The retrovirus was originally found in the tumors of men with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, in 2009 the virus was found in high numbers in people with chronic fatigue syndrome, and there have been some preliminary findings of its presence in children with autism.
Chronic fatigue syndrome & autism share many common clinical features including immune dysregulation, increased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, mitochondrial abnormalities, and chronic active microbial infections. In my own investigations I've been surprised how many of the mothers of children with autism say they have either been formally diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, or believe they have subclinical indications of the disorder.
Onto the FDA release of July 24, 2011. After first describing the need for new vaccines and that the virus-based vaccines require the use of living cells for a substrate, there's this paragraph.
"In some cases the cell lines that are used might be tumorigenic, that it, they form tumors when injected into rodents. Some of these tumor-forming cell lines may contain cancer-causing viruses that are not actively reproducing. Such viruses are hard to detect using standard methods. These latent or "quiet" viruses pose a potential threat, since they might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions. Therefore, to ensure the safety of vaccines, our laboratory is investigating ways to activate latent viruses in cell lines and to detect the activated viruses, as well as other unknown viruses, using new technologies. We are also trying to identify specific biological processes that reflect virus activity."
Translation for the average reader - Hey, the cell lines in which we grow the viruses we want in vaccines, may contain some viruses we don't want, as in the case of Rotarix & RotaTeq, including those which may cause cancer.
Further on in the article was this paragraph:
"Similarly, we are investigating the transmission and infectious processes of a new human retrovirus, xenotropuic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV). We are pursuing this work both in vitro ("test tube studies) as well as in the monkey model, in order to assess potential safety concerns in vaccine cell substrates and in blood products."
Translation - We're really worried about XMRV. We're so worried that we're going to test in both test tubes, and in monkeys (very expensive!) We are spending major dollars on this question.
The article ends with the following paragraph, which makes me think it's XMRV (XMRVs/HGRVs) that has the scientists at the FDA worried.
"Xentoropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is a recently discovered human retrovirus that has been found in both chronic fatigue syndrome and prostate cancer patients. Although the findings need further confrimation, there is a potential safety concern regarding XMRV in cell substrates used in vaccines and in transmission by blood transfusion and blood products. We are developing sensitive detection assays for XMRV to evaluate cell substrates and investigate virus transmission by blood transfusion in a monkey model."
In the mean time, we are still going to inject your kid with it....ok?
I have seen docs write discharge notes and the patient has not been discharged and are to be the next day. I have seen docs go into a room and spend about 30 seconds, and write up a two page history/physical and assessment all info from the other docs who have assessed the patient.!!
"And in other striking news, it was reported today that gravity has been identified as the force keeping everything on earth from flying off into space . . . "
I have never see an MD read my notes. I watch them round in the morning. They just look at labs, vitals and test reports after that they are off to see the pt. I have also never seen them read pt/ot notes either.
I'm not sure I understand your point ozone. So have vaccinations been a bad idea throughout the years? Which diseases are worth vaccinating against and which are not?
Any time hosts build up an immunity to a viral strain they then become more susceptible to other strains. Whether you become immune to one strain of flu virus by contracting the virus or immunization, you are now a more susceptible host to variations of the flu virus.
You seem intent on proving there are potential adverse affects to immunizations. I don't think anyone denies that is the case. Are you suggesting that the potential adverse effects outweigh the benefits of immunization? If you can show me that more people are injured, hospitalized, or killed by vaccinations than the disease they prevent then I'll take your side.
The effects of giving immunizations in combination has been very well studied. Immunizations have been given in combination for decades, the CDC tracks adverse reactions to all immunizations, that's a huge sample group for any data gathering project, so it's hardly accurate to say there's no evidence on the topic.
I think you've mis-read that. There have been outbreaks of pertussis variations that are different from the pertussis targeted by the standard vaccination, but I don't see that anyone has suggested these strains are a result of vaccinations. Vaccinations aren't antiobiotics, they don't present the virus with something to kill it that the virus could then adapt to, vaccines present the body with the virus itself.
seriously...please focus on original writing instead of copy and pasting from other sources.
Advertise With Us