MEADOW WORKING ON ADVERSE REACTIONS TO VACCINES FROM 1987
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: MEADOW WORKING ON ADVERSE REACTIONS TO VACCINES FROM 1987
jessie j
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 1208
Location: UK
ROY MEADOW WORKING ON ADVERSE REACTIONS TO VACCINES
FROM 1987
This is for the disbelievers here! Well you did want proof.
"Well, well, well, what a surprise, here is our Great Professor Sir Roy Meadow
with his colleagues in meetings entitled "Adverse Reactions to Vaccinations and
Immunisations" openly discussing adverse reactions to vaccines, and running
vaccine trials on 5000 British kids. Where was the ethical approval? Were the
parents told?
Read the discussions about dead babies, dying after vaccines, about convulsions,
about neurological impairments, about anaphylaxis etc etc etc .
Read how they talk about "100%" certainty that the adverse reactions they were
looking at were caused by vaccines.
It is utterly unconscionable that with the high adverse event rates (including
with the Urabe strain mumps virus - withdrawn around the world) they are
discussing, that these people (are they people? ) would wave a hand over all
this to carry on using the vaccines and brain damage millions of children
worldwide.
"Presumably the idea to use MSbP to cover up the vaccine damage began when the
epidemic started -after the accelerated programme in the eighties when masses of
Mercury hit younger children with lowered immune systems. It was then when they
started to give the DTP with Mercury containing Thiomersal in it to younger and
younger children and they gave it more frequently.
SO WHY DOES MEADOW NEVER MENTION IT IN COURTS WHEN HE IS CONDEMNING WOMEN WHOSE
BABIES DIED AFTER VACCINE??? "
These meetings about the trials they were engaged in occurred in the mid to late
eighties. The MMR landed on top of the accelerated DTP shots and for those
children who reacted to the DTP and then developed allergies and a compromised
immune system, the MMR with its 3 live viruses might have been the final nail
for them. Thats when many children reacted to MMR and developed autism and gut
problems. These gut problems make kids more vulnerable to cancer, never mind the
hell on earth suffering with the problems themselves for the children and the
family throughout their childhood.
Look also at who else is in these meetings - Dr Elizabeth Miller, still head of
the UK Immunization Dept who has helpfully created drug company funded research
epidemiology that trashes the idea that there were reactions to vaccines, and Dr
Salisbury still in charge of all this at the Dept of Health.
Its all rather too obvious now - MSBP and the dodgy drug company funded research
were all designed to cover up for an epidemic of terrible, terrible vaccine
damage.
There must be a special kind of hell for these people.
I will put minutes up in order please notice that Professor Roy Meadow appears
from 1987
Discussions about baby deaths, anaphyliaxis etc appear in various Minutes
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/09/04135309.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/10/04135310.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/14/04135314.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/11/04135311.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/12/04135312.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/13/04135313.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/15/04135315.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/16/04135316.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/17/04135317.pdf
Jenny Fawcett
I find it all quite revealing, particularly the
discussion involving how to deal with adverse reaction reporting. If you look at
section 7 of the minutes of the 8 March '88 meeting, (http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/53/15/04135315.pdf)
you will see there is a section on "how the monitoring system for vaccine
reactions would cope with any vaccination related adverse publicity." Always a
thorny issue for the medical authorities....we can't have the herds of
sheep...sorry the general public....getting ideas into their little heads about
vaccine reactions now, can we? Not good for business.
Especially with the past experience of the "loss of public confidence in the
pertussis vaccination" which lead to the "public becoming far more critical of
all vaccines". Yikes - not a happy scenario - pharma shares sliding down the
pan, paediatricians with egg on their faces, public health bigwigs looking
silly. Besides, what would happen to all those jobs? No, no that can't happen.
So - collective scratching of heads - what shall we do to, you know, put the
public in their place and silence any criticism of our precious holy cow (the
entire childhood vaccination policy and especially the forthcoming jewel in the
crown - the MMR). Ah! Lightbulb goes on!! We must "consider a report system for
vaccine reactions that would cope with any vaccine related adverse publicity."
Yes, that's it, we have to learn from the pertussis experience...but what do we
mean by "cope". Well, you know, really play on the public's fear of infectious
diseases and also - this bit will work a treat - exaggerate their dangers!! Yes,
it's looking good. Make out that measles is a "deadly" disease even though we
didn't used to think so. Also, really work on the guilt principle - if you don't
vaccinate your child you are threatening the entire universe with outbreaks of
killer diseases... Yes, that's it.
And - if any annoying maverick scientist or doctor pops up with some negative
research, pharma will pull the plug on the research grants and the medical mafia
will do the rest - the climate in Australia is very good you know, a bit dusty
okay, but there are lots of aborigines who you can experiment on...
But what about the patients - how do we shut up the parents when their child is
adversely affected or dies following a vaccination? Of course no-one listens to
the parents and just because something bad happens right after a vaccination
doesn't mean a thing, does it, but still, we have to have a strategy to shut
them up. Ah we've got it - discourage "patient generated data involving event
reports, and "endorse the need for doctor generated reporting..." Because, to be
honest, we all know that half the time the doctor or nurse can't be bothered to
report an adverse incident. ..too much hassle, and, in any case, it might end up
leading to incriminating evidence against the vaccination. Christ, we can't have
that, too many share options down the drain!
Ho, hum, hum... just how much is the drug industry worth, and how much should
the public be paid for being guinea pigs, do you think????
As I see it, a nice stage has been set for a total cover-up of any kind of
adverse reactions to drugs/vaccinations/medically-induced illness etc in order
to "restore public confidence". This gathered momentum prior to the introduction
of the beloved MMR which ore health authorities are so pathetically wedded to.
All of this paves the way very nicely for the REAL maverick doctors (Meadow,
Southall but there are loads more obviously in such a lovely fertile
breeding-ground) to promote their own theories - msbp being a prime example -
and it doesn't even have any research to back it up. It's great what you can get
away with in a "cover-up" culture.