The shocking ingredients in flu vaccines


Vicki Batts
November 14, 2016

The push for widespread flu vaccination is something that happens year after year. In fact, it seems as though the mainstream medical community is becoming even more demanding and aggressive about their vaccination agenda than ever before.

Just this past September, the CDC updated their flu vaccination guidelines so they could encourage people with egg allergies to get the flu vaccine. As many people are aware, in the past having an egg allergy exempted you from having to get the vaccine because this particular shot contains traces of eggs. Seems perfectly reasonable and logical, doesn’t it? Well, they’re throwing logic out the window with their new suggestions.

People with minor allergic reactions, like hives, are called upon to be vaccinated as usual, at any location of their choosing. For those with more severe reactions – like anaphylactic shock, which can kill you – it is suggested that they get vaccinated at their doctor’s office, a hospital or other medical facility. That way, when the person’s throat closes up, hopefully someone will be able to save their life. That seems perfectly reasonable to ask someone to do, don’t you think?

Apparently having a life-threatening food allergy is no longer enough to allow people to be remiss in their civic duty to be injected with harmful substances.

To be perfectly honest, for the average non-allergic person, eggs in the flu vaccine are really the least worrisome ingredient. There are things in vaccines many times more toxic than egg whites could ever hope to be.

Mercury, for example, is a toxic heavy metal. Despite industry claims that mercury is not used in vaccines, it still seems to have quite the presence. In 2014, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, revealed that laboratory testing showed quite a different story about the mercury content in flu shots. Using ICP-MS technology, Adams found that Fluval – a common flu shot – contained mercury at a level of 51 parts per million. The Health Ranger notes that this volume of mercury is more than 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury allowed in drinking water, as per the standards set by the EPA.

Adams writes, “In fact, the concentration of mercury found in this GSK flu shot was 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury we’ve ever tested in contaminated fish.”

Sodium deoxycholate is another concerning ingredient that is also featured in many flu vaccines. This chemical is actually a water-soluble ionic detergent and bile salt, and it is also known to promote cell death. Sodium deoxycholate has been shown to weaken the blood-brain barrier, and subsequently lead to seizures. It’s thought that the chemical can also induce DNA damage. Synergistic toxicity has also been seen when combined with certain medications. Researchers from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine found that the toxicity of sodium deoxycholate created an inflammatory response that persisted for 10 days following exposure.

Neomycin sulfate and polymyxin B are two antibiotic agents that are often featured in flu vaccines. Supposedly, these antibiotics are added to vaccines during manufacturing to prevent bacterial contamination. One would hope that the conditions under which an injected substance is created would be clean and sterile enough not to warrant the addition of antibiotics for “safety,” but apparently that may not be the case. Furthermore, given the growing concerns over antibiotic resistance in humans, it stands to reason that injecting antibiotics into uninfected individuals is probably not the best idea.

There are, of course, many other toxic aspects to flu vaccines. Some have alleged, for example that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Roundup, may be present in a number of vaccines.

Vaccines are not what the mainstream medical world wants you to believe; they are filled with harmful chemicals that no person would willingly inject into their body. The prevalence of pro-vaccine science truly showcases the increasing need for independent science.

Read More At:


Why should it take 14 years to learn a drug’s safety risks?

Depression More Common In People Who Talk About Themselves
John Scott
September 21, 2016

How would you describe the behavior of a teenager who takes 80 tablets of of an over-the-counter medication that’s deadly in high doses? Or an adolescent who had a disagreement with her mother, then overdoses on prescription pills? Or a child that had to be admitted to the hospital for severe suicidal and homicidal thinking?

Most people would call that becoming suicidal.

The makers of Paxil, in an influential 2001 research paper signed by some of the leading figures in child and adolescent psychiatry — including the current president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry — called it “emotional lability.”

Why would you give such a confusing name to such apparently suicidal actions? To hide them, of course.

That’s the best explanation that comes to mind after the findings published in the journal BMJ last week — 14 years later — that the blockbuster antidepressant is neither safe nor effective in the treatment of depression in adolescents and children. In fact, the study found, it is far more dangerous than previously realized — the drug caused 11 out of 93 children to develop suicidal behaviors, compared to just 1 out of 87 on a placebo. The original paper only reported five such events on Paxil.

The recent news about the distortion of the clinical trial that put millions of kids on Paxil in the U.S. did not arise thanks to the makers of the pill, or the FDA, or the health media. As former Boston Globe reporter Allison Bass described in her 2008 book “Side Effects,” the data that paved the way for last week’s study came into public domain thanks to a series of accidents.

Paxil’s undisclosed liabilities came to light because a TV reporter in Scotland thought the term “emotional lability” made no sense, did a show about it, then an insider at the drug company leaked some emails showing the company knew the drug wasn’t safe or effective, which led then-New York attorney general Elliot Spitzer to sue the makers of the drug for fraud.

Almost no one was interested in that lawsuit — the makers of Paxil paid a fine and the world moved on. Except, thanks to Spitzer’s office, they had made public much of the data behind the trial, opaque decision-making that would have otherwise been called proprietary.

That means it’s not even clear that there is anything especially unique about Paxil. Other drugs, and especially drugs of this class, could have similar problems and yet we will never know because we do not get to see the soft underbelly of a clinical trial of a new drug — the many ways a manufacturer can use sleight-of-hand and ghostwriters to distort their findings and hide a drug’s problems.

Fast forward 14 years, and Dr. Peter Doshi, a University of Maryland researcher who made his name by learning that the evidence supporting the drug Tamiflu was not as apparent as we had been told (when our nation spent billions stockpiling it), wondered what could be learned by starting with the so-called “clinical study reports” from the clinical trial that put Paxil on the market.

To their credit, GSK, the company that now owns Paxil, let a tenacious set of researchers, including psychiatrists Dr. Jon Jureidini, Dr. David Healy and Dr. John Nardo, probe an even deeper level of transparency, the so-called “case report forms” — patient level paperwork stripped of all identification data — where side effects show up and are coded.

That’s where they found out how seriously suicidal the patients taking Paxil had become.

The authors stress that if a child is taking Paxil that parents should not stop the drug — there is the risk of a withdrawal syndrome in the same findings, which is why they should talk to their doctor about their concerns.

It has become fashionable for clinicians hoping to prescribe these drugs to youth and adolescents to say the side effects are overblown, and that the benefits of the drug outweigh their risks.

You will hear advocates of the pills say that children only think about suicide on the drug, but do not attempt it, or that Paxil is a unique case, but all the other antidepressants are not nearly as concerning.

But they do not have the raw data behind the trials that put those drugs on the market, and neither do the doctors who signed the published clinical trials that put those drugs on the market.

They remain the property of drug makers. It has to end. Science is numbers, and if the public is to be asked to trust the numbers, episodes like the publication this week of the news about Paxil tell us to trust, but verify.

Read More At:

Global drug giant GSK ‘published a flawed study which led to millions of children being wrongly prescribed dangerous antidepressants’

A BMJ study has highlighted serious flaws in a trial published by GlaxoSmithKline, that found the drug paroxetin – marketed as Seroxat and Paxil – was ‘generally well tolerated by children with depression

Sophie Borland
September 15, 2016

Now a new study in the BMJ has gone back over this trial and highlighted major flaws, showing the extent to which doctors and patients were misled.

Australian researchers point out that the drug was no more effective than a dummy pill and that the increased risk of harms was ‘clinically significant.’

They also highlight how the trial was actually typed up by a medical writer hired by GSK while another of the senior scientists involved was under investigation by US authorities for his ties to drugs firms.

The editor of the BMJ Fiona Godlee said the case ‘shows the extent to which drug regulation is failing us’.

Although this took place some time ago, she said many drugs firms routinely overstate the benefits and underplay the side effects in trials in their treatments.

This includes trials for statins and she said too little had been published about the potential harms of these cholesterol-lowering pills.

On top of this, there are also concerns that many of the scientists involved in these medical trials are being paid by the drugs firms to carry out other work or attend conferences and dinners.

She said: ‘This long running saga has within it all the seeds of our current discontent – industry malpractice, paid opinion leaders twisting the results of trials, hidden data allowing manufacturers, academics and clinicians to overstate the benefits and underplay the harms of treatment.’

The BMJ study found the drug - which was prescribed to two million children in the US off the back of the GSK study in 2001 - was no more effective than a dummy pill and the risk of harm was 'clinically significant'

The BMJ study found the drug – which was prescribed to two million children in the US off the back of the GSK study in 2001 – was no more effective than a dummy pill and the risk of harm was ‘clinically significant’

GSK was fined a record £2 billion by a US court in 2012 wrongly promoting Paxil between 1997 and 2004 in what was described as the biggest fraud in American healthcare history.

The offences included paying US doctors to attend dinners, lunches, spas and pheasant hunting trips where the treatment was heavily promoted.

The treatments are not widely offered to children and teenagers now and there are clear safety warnings on their packets.

A spokesman for GSK said: ‘We were able to help this team to carry out their reanalysis by providing access to the detailed data from the original trial.

‘This reflects our commitment to data transparency – we publish the results of all our studies regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

‘Importantly, the findings from this team’s analysis appear to be in line with the long-standing view that there is an increased risk of suicidality in paediatric and adolescent patients given antidepressants like paroxetine.

‘This is widely known and clear warnings have been in place on the product label for more than a decade. As such we don’t believe this reanalysis affects patient safety.’

Should Paxil be banned? The only ‘evidence’ of effectiveness was ghostwritten by Glaxo Smith Kline’s public relations firm


Amy Goodrich
March 29, 2016

In 2001, a study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, showing that the SSRI antidepressant paroxetine – sold under the names Paxil, Aropax and Seroxat – was safe, well tolerated and effective for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and social anxiety in adults and teenagers.

However, a recent reanalysis of the same data, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), reports that the opposite is true. It is the first reanalysis of a drug trial by a collaboration of researchers called RIAT (Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials). Their aim is to correct abandoned or misreported studies to ensure that doctors and patients are given the most accurate information.

Flawed research

The original study, known as Study 329, was authored by Dr. Martin Keller, et. al., but it was actually ghostwritten by Sally Laden, who was hired by the drug manufacturer Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK). Severe adverse effects of the drug were vaguely described and deliberately left out of the report. GSK used Study 329 to promote the use of Paxil in depressed teenagers.

While drug companies aren’t allowed to promote drugs for unapproved uses, doctors took the results for granted, and prescription of these unapproved drugs for off-label use skyrocketed over the years.

The drug brought in $11.6 billion between 1997 and 2006. By 2007, it was one of the most prescribed antidepressant drugs in the U.S., with more than 18 million annual prescriptions.

Suicidal thoughts and behavior

In the years after Study 329 was published, doctors and concerned parents worldwide reported signs of suicidal thoughts and behavior among teens who were prescribed paroxetine to treat depression. For years, small groups of patients and doctors have voiced their fears about SSRIs such as Paxil. However, many clinicians and drug companies disagreed, relying heavily on the findings published in Study 329.

In 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was finally alarmed, and began researching the potential dangers. The results were clear, but instead of taking the drug off the market, they only advised doctors not to prescribe it to teens suffering from depression.

In 2004, an FDA panel voted that manufacturers be required to include a black box warning on every package. It should clearly state that taking Paxil or other SSRI drugs increases the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, young adults and adolescents. The warning also states that anyone who takes SSRI’s to treat depression should be closely watched for significant changes in their behavior.

Despite rising concerns and evidence regarding the lack of safety and effectiveness, Study 329 lived on. It was never questioned, retracted or edited – until now.

Reanalysis reveals alarming results

After years of trying to access GSK’s data, researchers from the RIAT finally got their hands on more than 77,000 pages of patients’ information.

According to author Dr. Jon Jureidini, professor and research leader of critical and ethical mental health at the University of Adelaide, the authors of the original Study 329, “deliberately misrepresented the outcomes of the study,” and changed the protocols of the study without following the proper procedures to do so.

Continue Reading At: