Image: patentdocs.typepad.com
Source: The Environmental Illness Resource
The following statement (kindly translated by CSN) from the German Professional Association of Environmental Medicine outlines their position specifically on the Pandemrix® H1N1 vaccine providing a scientific rationale for each point on a substantial list of concerns.
Press release of the German Professional Association of Environmental Medicine (Deutscher Berufsverband der Umweltmediziner – DBU).
From 26. October 2009.
Swine flu [H1N1] vaccine is unsuitable for patients with chronic multi-system illnesses. Pandemrix® poses substantial health risk with respect to mass immunization programs due to the lack of proof of safety. Because of the producer’s release from liability by the German Federal Government (BRD), the risk of adverse reactions and/or permanent damage due to the vaccine rests with the patient.
The German Professional Association of Environmental Medicine (DBU) has, in spite of press releases from the BRD, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, as well as the vaccine producer’s assurances of safety, serious concerns relating to Pandemrix® (GlaxoSmithKline), the only vaccine which has been approved for mass vaccination by the BRD.
The DBU discusses at this point neither the medical use of immunization in general nor the necessity of such measures in the, up until now, mild course of the swine flu pandemic.
Our criticism is directed only against the pandemic vaccine Pandemrix®.
There exists considerable doubt as to the effectiveness of the vaccine: during the licensing phase, the vaccine tested had a 40% higher portion of virus antigen (5. 25µg) than the vaccine (3.75µg) now being delivered. An unequivocal consensus has not been reached as to whether the vaccination should be given once or twice a season.
There exists considerable doubt concerning the safety of the adjuvanted active amplifier since it is being used for the first time. The vaccine contains 27.4mg AS03, an emulsion of polysorbate, squalene and tocopherol. Sufficient studies are lacking, because in the test phase, only the development of antibody titers was determined as a surrogate criterion, and not any potential adverse reactions.
The producer as well as government agencies have concealed the fact that squalene, if used subcutaneously or intramuscularly is an inflammatory immune activation immunogen, unlike when ingested. (Squalene is, among other things, for example, naturally contained in olive oil.)
Autoimmune diseases can be provoked by squalene; already existing ones can be activated. Squalene has been connected with the emergence of Guillan-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and is now considered a trigger for Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). In animal studies squalene brought on rheumatoid arthritis.
Squalene from food sources is mainly incorporated into membranes in the body. The production of squaline antibodies resulting from an immunization sets off chronic inflammation of the membranes, which explains diseases such as Gulf War Syndrome and also degenerative neurological diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy and Guillan-Barré Syndrome.
The delivery of vaccine in multiple dose ampules is obsolete. In single dose ampules the mercury used for preservation, as in thimerosal – which is included in Pandemrix – would be unnecessary. Also, mercury has been proven to set off autoimmune diseases.
Since the vaccine has not been tested on either young children or pregnant women (Ethics Commission objection), the call to give preference in the first phase of vaccination to precisely this particularly endangered segment of the population represents an improper and totally unjustifiable field test.
The vaccine poses a higher risk than the swine flu itself for patients with environmental illness and for patients with compromised immune systems (e.g. AIDS).
The vaccine producer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), according to the contract with the BRD, is largely exempt from liability. In case of damage from the vaccination, the affected vaccinee would have to sue the government and therefore the country of Germany, usually a futile exercise.
To avoid the trap of liability, the doctor giving the vaccination must meticulously inform the patient of all risks concerning the vaccination and the vaccine. It is recommended to give this information in the presence of an assistant and to have it be confirmed by the patient’s signature. The explanation should also include the liability features. Also the indication that other, lower risk vaccines are available in Europe and that due to a faulty decision by the German government, they are currently not available to the German population. This information should definitely be included in the explanation.
Read More HERE
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
No comments: