From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Gary G. Kohls
*OAH_RuleComments.OAH
Vaccine Dangers; Patti Carroll Vaccine Safety Council; Jerri Johnson Vaccine Safety Council; Eileen Dannemann; Barbara Loe; PFPC
Written testimony to be submitted to Judge Lipman re: the proposed additions to the Mn Dept of Health/CDC vaccine schedule recommendations
Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:19:06 PM
Duty to Warn Flu Shots and Fosamax.doc
To honorable Administrative Law Judge Lipman:
My name is Gary G. Kohls, MD. I am a retired family physician from Duluth, MN whose last decade of medical practice could best be
described as the delivery of holistic mental health care. Basically my practice involved helping my patient with the difficult job of getting off
their hated psychiatric medications. Most of my patients had obviously had their brains altered/damaged by hears of neurotoxic prescription
drugs in various combinations, dosages, and duration of “treatment”.
I also saw a number of brain-altered/damaged children (with various mental illness diagnoses, including ADHD, personality disorders, anxiety
disorders and autistic spectrum disorders whose parents were certain that their deterioration had begun with their infant vaccinations. These
parents had often been fired by the clinics who had administered the baby shots without much information about the possibility of vaccine
injuries.
Many of the parents of these innocent and now disabled children had already done a lot of research into the presence of the terribly neurotoxic
substance that was in most of the baby shots, thimerosal. I had also already done a lot of research into the issue of vaccine-related
encephalopathy connected to both the thimerosal-laced vaccines and the MMR shots (which contains the live Rubella virus which is known to
cause encephalitis indistinguishable from autism), but their testimony spurred me on to do more.
(I hope that you are aware of the close correlation between the dramatically escalating incidence of autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) and the
dramatically escalating incidence of infant innoculations in the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC and the Minnesota State Dept of
Health’s recommended vaccination schedules, particularly over the decade of the 1990s.)
Tens of thousands of parents know with absolute certainty that their healthy babies suddenly started their developmental delays and
neurological deteriorations shortly after the fatal well baby visit that may have included as many as 9 different vaccines at one sitting, with
dangerous amounts of mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde in the innoculum. And the parents were not listened to, probably because of the
fear of being accused of an iatrogenic illness for which they could be charge with malpractice. There is no doubt that those in a position of
power, profitablity or resposibility (clinics, hospitals, medical associations, physicians, medical insurance agencies, CDC, FDA, etc) would do
everything in their power to discredit their accusers as well asimmediately “circle the wagons”, do “research” to counter the allegations, prove
their innocence and dispute the obvious evidence, and even fire the suspicious parents and, in general, try to cast doubt on what certainly is
the best explanation for the ASD “epidemic” (massively increasing injectable doses of neurotoxic chemicals overloading immature immune
systems and causing brain damage – all of which will be hard to prove I court without brain biopsies and spinal taps and other invasive
procedures [which are conveniently NEVER ordered by the medical establishment]). Instead, the reactions will be dismissed as benign “allergic
reactions to the shots”.
Well the science is very strong that officialdom is wrong and therefore guilty of massive and cunning cover-ups of a totally preventable
epidemic that is dooming millions of innocent kids (and their now-shackled and exhausted and increasingly impoverished parents) in life-long,
unaffordable and permanent disabilities that they had no way of preventing, given the lack of informed consent.
The evidence is overwhelming that the increasing injection of multiple doses (albeit each of them being individually sublethal and relatively
safe) of dangerous synthetic chemicals and inactivated and live viruses into children’s bodies that can easily overwhelm their immune systems
and cause damage to any number of organ systems, including the brain.
Other concerned individuals will give you testimony tomorrow. Please listen sympathetically and carefully to them. I suspect that many of them
have been victims of extreme sorrow, psychological trauma, humiliation at the hands of their now untrusted caregivers (by not being listened to
or believed) and then suffering the ultimate trauma of being treated dismissively and even fired from their clinics.
My major concern is that the BigPharma-co-opted medical groups listed above are believing their own cunning disinformation campaigns and
will continue pushing the vaccine industry’s agenda of expanding market share and enlarging profit margins by cavalierly putting at risk the
neurological and mental health of unaware children and their families - who will also have no recourse in the courts for the vaccine injuries
that will inevitably result.
The Precautionary Principle should apply in this instance if there is any justice in this world; but in the medical device and drug industries,
corporations in American ignore the ethics of proving the safety (both long-term and short-term) of any new substance or device before putting
it on the market! I hope that you will add that piece of missing justice and deny or order the delay of the new recommendations. Please study
the information below and don’t allow more new, unproven (for safety or even efficacy) additions of questionably effective, known-to-be-toxic
and potentially lethal innoculations, especially when any number of conscienceless multinational corporate giants are the major ones to profit.
Respectfully submitted, Gary G. Kohls, MD, 1306 E 8th St, Duluth, MN 55805 Ph 218-728-9756.
PS: Please also see the attached essay above that I wrote a couple of years ago about the fraudulent use of the Relative Risk Reduction
statistic that was invented by the drug companies in order to make the most dubious of medical treatments seem much better than they
actually are.
The following excerpts from the (non-mainstream medical) literature should be perused. I have bolded and underlined various pertinent
phrases for your convenience. (Such articles are, sadly, never read by mainstream physicians, to the peril of their trusting patients.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Human and Experimental Toxicology October 2012 vol. 31 no. 10 1012-1021
Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and
age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010
GS
Goldman1⇓
NZ Miller2
1. 1 Computer Scientist, Pearblossom, CA, USA
2. 2 Thinktwice Vaccine Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA
Gary S. Goldman, Computer Scientist, PO Box 847, Pearblossom, CA 93553, USA Email: [email protected]
http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012.full
Abstract
In this study, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, 1990–2010, was investigated; cases that specified either
hospitalization or death were identified among 38,801 reports of infants. Based on the types of vaccines reported, the actual number of
vaccine doses administered, from 1 to 8, was summed for each case.
<<<snip>>>
Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations
and deaths. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic
toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest
priority.
<<<snip>>>
Discussion
In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life: 3 DPT injections (9 vaccine doses), 3 polio, and 3 Hib
vaccines—5 vaccine doses at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. By 2007, the CDC recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio,
3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines. While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical
trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single
physician visit as recommended by CDC guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for
polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby
visit—even though this combination of 8 vaccine doses was never tested in clinical trials.
An article written by Guess, representing a vaccine manufacturer, claimed that it is “impractical to conduct preapproval studies of all
combinations [of vaccines] in clinical practice.”1 However, a recent study by Miller and Goldman found that among the developed
nations, infant mortality increased with an increase in the number of vaccine doses.2 Similar associations have also been found with
respect to other serious adverse outcomes. Delong reported that the higher the proportion of children receiving recommended
vaccinations, the higher the prevalence of autism or speech and language impairment.3 A CDC report on mixed exposures to chemical
substances and other stressors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, found that they may produce “increased or unexpected deleterious
health effects.” In addition, “exposures to mixed stressors can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can
potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures.”4 Administering six, seven, or eight vaccine doses to an infant during
a single physician visit may certainly be more convenient for parents—rather than making additional trips to the doctor’s office—but evidence
of a positive association between infant adverse reactions and the number of vaccine doses administered confirms that vaccine safety
must remain the highest priority.
Single-dose outlier
There are several possible explanations why the hospitalization rate corresponding to one dose is an outlier and therefore excluded from the
linear regression analysis:
1. The distribution of cases aged <1 year is disproportionately highest among the youngest infant age 0 to 0.1 years with 273
hospitalizations (24.4%) reported out of the total of 1115 VAERS reports in that narrow age range. Infants who receive one dose
either as a newborn or as a neonate are predisposed to more hospitalizations and deaths than older infants. 5
2. A disproportionate number of hospitalizations were due to the administration of the at-birth dose of the hepatitis B
vaccination: 809 (73%) of the 1115 VAERS cases reported the receipt of hepatitis B vaccine; 242 (30%) of these 809 were reported
as hospitalized. Several studies provide evidence of correlations between hepatitis B vaccination and serious adverse reactions,
including pediatric multiple sclerosis. 6⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–12 Thus, the newborn dose of hepatitis B vaccine, administered at a time when the
immune system is most immature, may be contributing to increased vulnerability to serious adverse reactions causing
disproportionately high rates of hospitalizations during the neonatal period.
<<<snip>>>
Studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of administering multiple vaccine doses in a variety of
combinations as recommended by CDC guidelines. Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses
administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to VAERS. In addition, younger infants were significantly more
likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines. Since vaccines are administered to millions of infants every year, it is
imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants are likely to
receive; universal vaccine recommendations must be supported by such studies.
Adverse reaction trends detected in VAERS have important implications for vaccine recipients and health care providers. Finding ways to
increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority. Further inspection of potential correlations between increasing vaccine doses,
hospitalizations, and death is essential. Health care policy makers have an obligation to determine whether immunization schedules are
achieving their desired goals.
____________________________________________________________________________
From: Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A. 2011;74(14):903-16. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.573736.
A positive association found between autism prevalence
and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population.
Delong Gayle.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535?dopt=Abstract
Source
Department of Economics and Finance, Baruch College/City University of New York, New York, New York, USA.
[email protected]
Abstract
The reason for the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s is a mystery. Although individuals probably have a genetic
predisposition to develop autism, researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers are also needed. One of those triggers might
be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive. Using regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the
relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT)
or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant
relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of
AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior
nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the
number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may
link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted.
____________________________________________________________________________-
“The CDC, infiltrated by Big Pharma, is the Heart of the problem”
From: http://focusautisminc.org/the-cdc/
The CDC oversees vaccine research, safety and promotion. They decide what vaccines will be recommended.
Their recommendations make up the vaccine schedule. In most states, a child cannot go to day care or public school unless they have
received the CDC-endorsed vaccines.
Unfortunately for our children, the CDC has been infiltrated by Big Pharma.
Polio was called an epidemic at 1 in 3000. The CDC refuses to call autism an epidemic at 1 in 88.
Today, a 2008 report of children born in 2000, shows 1 in 88 (could be 1 in 55 today) and 1 in 29 boys born in NJ have autism, besides
“subtle damage.”
♥♥♥
Throughout the 1990’s, the CDC recommended vaccines that gave children 125 times more ethyl mercury than the EPA’s safe limit.
The EPA’s safe level is 0.1 microgram per kilogram body weight. Children in the 1990's and early 2000's were exposed to 62.5 micrograms
of mercury at 2 months of age (body weight of about 5kg at that point).
“No one did the calculation.” – Neal Halsey, Director of Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
♥♥♥
In 1999, the CDC recommended that the nation’s vaccine makers eliminate thimerosal in their vaccines “as soon as possible.” After
thimerosal was taken out of most vaccines, the CDC allowed pharmaceuticals to export the mercury-laden drugs to developing countries.
The CDC refuses to test vulnerable populations, so pregnant moms and infants over 6 months receive mercury-laden flu shots in states where
health officials are legally permitted to give thimerosal containing vaccines to pregnant moms and infants under 3 years of age.
♥♥♥
A 1992 CDC activity report shows that the CDC had an agreement “with SmithKline Beecham that currently funds three positions at the
CDC”.
In an OpEd published by Arianna Huffington, Robert Kennedy Jr. discloses that the documents, correspondence between SmithKline Beecham
(SB), now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), vaccine manufacturer and the CDC reveal that in July 1999, SB offered to produce a non-Thimerosal
DTP (Diptheria/Tetanu/Pertussis) vaccine immediately and that it has sufficient inventories to supply the entire U.S. market during the
remainder of 1999 and the first half of 2000, by which time other vaccine manufacturers would have their Thimerosal-DTP vaccines on line. “However, in November, CDC mysteriously sent a letter back rejecting SmithKline’s offer.”
“On July 14, 2000 CDC published a deceptive press release promising to require that all vaccines be Thimerosal-free as soon as “adequate
supplies are available.” However, this was 12 months after the agency had denied SmithKline’s proposal.”
In 2004, Mr. Braga of Aventis proposed the establishment of a timeline to preservative (thimerosal) free flu vaccine manufacture only. The
CDC ignored the offer and continued to recommend the poisoning of children in the U.S.
♥♥♥
In 2003, an investigation by United Press International found that the CDC had “close ties” between the agency’s advisory panel for
vaccines and Big Pharma. Some of the members of the advisory panel received money from vaccine makers through sharing of
patents, owning stock, and payments for research.
According to that investigation, the “CDC itself is in the vaccine business.”
♥♥♥
Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 to 2009, landed a top job at Merck. She is now the president of the vaccine division.
♥♥♥
They continue to allow thimerosal even though it has been banned in the following countries: Denmark Russia, Sweden, Austria,
Japan, Great Britain, Norway, Iceland and Finland.
♥♥♥
Today they recommend Hep B to newborn babies within 24 hours at birth, knowing that only 1-2% needs it. The following countries only
vaccinate children born to mothers who test positive: Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Japan, Netherlands and Norway.
They recommend the “catch-up” vaccine schedule, even giving guidelines to doctors on how to do it, even though they have NEVER TESTED
the safety of those recommendations.
The CDC relied on Poul Thorsen, from Denmark, who distorted data and stole over a million dollars from the CDC.
♥♥♥
For some dumb reasons, the CDC allows the MMR and does not make individual doses available.
♥♥♥
“Someday they will have to live with the fact with what they say is wrong.”
-Dr. Frank Engley, Researcher and Microbiologist who served on CDC, FDA and EPA throughout 1970’s and 80’s
♥♥♥
At the November 2012 Congressional Oversight Hearings on Autism, Colleen Boyle stated the following:
Carolyn Maloney asked why a schedule to require a child to receive a number of vaccines in such a small amount of time when there is so
much verbal evidence of parents who had a completely normal child regress almost immediately following vaccination? To which
Boyle made the statement “There is a federal advisory committee that determines the vaccine schedule. The reason they cluster the vaccines
is really to try to make sure everyone gets it. And again trying to make sure vaccines go to all children and not everyone goes to the doctor
routinely, so we use that opportunity to make sure they get them.”
In Congressman Bill Posey’s exploration of the subject, directed at Colleen Boyle, he said, “So clearly, definitely, unequivocally, you have
studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated?”
To which she replied, “We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated.” His response was: “Never mind. Stop there. That was the
meaning of my question. You have wasted two minutes of my time.”
♥♥♥
There has been a 67% increase in flu-related deaths since the CDC said flu shots were safe for children under 5 in 2003.
From: http://focusautisminc.org/resources/vaccine-ineffectiveness/
“Vaccine Ineffectiveness”
To those that study alternative medicine, this is no surprise. It’s also no surprise that disease outbreaks throughout the last hundred years
almost always occur in vaccinated rather than unvaccinated populations. Here are just a few examples:
-In another study of 103 children who died of SIDS, Dr. William Torch, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine at Reno, found that
more than two-thirds (of SIDS deaths) had been vaccinated with DPT prior to death. Of these, 6.5 percent died within 12 hours of
vaccination; 13 percent within 24 hours; 26 percent within three days; and 37, 61, and 70 percent with one, two and three weeks,
respectively. He also found that SIDS frequency have a bimodal-peak occurrence at two and four month – - the same ages when initial
doses of DPT are administered to infants.
[source: Miller, Neil Z. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? 2012]
-In 2008 seven babies participating in drug testing in the province suffered what the U.S. clinical-trials community refers to as “an adverse
event”: they died. The deaths occurred as the children took part in a medical trial to test the safety of a new vaccine, Synflorix, to
prevent pneumonia, ear infections, and other pneumococcal diseases. Developed by GlaxoSmithKline, the world’s fourth-largest
pharmaceutical company in terms of global prescription-drug sales, the new vaccine was intended to compete against an existing vaccine. In
all, at least 14 infants enrolled in clinical trials for the drug died during the testing. Their parents, some illiterate, had their children signed
up without understanding that they were taking part in an experiment.
[source: Deadly Medicine, Politics. Vanity Fair, January 2011.]
- In 1871-2, England, with 98 percent of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever
smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96 percent, there were over
125,000 deaths from smallpox. (The Hadwen Documents)
- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to
250,000. (Don’t Get Stuck, Hannah Allen) – In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated
with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been
injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555) – In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health
Organization after 96 percent of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its
highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)
(http://www.naturalnews.com/027203_Chi_vaccination_vaccine.html) [source: Stossel, Richard. Government Report Links Thimerosal Laden
Vaccines To Neurological Disorders. Natural News. July, 2012.]
-In a 2007 article, entitled “Nigeria Fights Rare Vaccine-Derived Polio Outbreak, Reuters showed how the vaccine itself ignited outbreaks of
polio in Nigeria, Chad, and Angola.
-And according to the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, the polio vaccine program launched by Bill Gates paralyzed 45,000 children in
2011 alone. And those injured by the vaccine died at twice the rate of those infected by “wild” polio.
-Researchers with the CDC publicly stated in 2002 that, “the number of infants dying from whooping cough is rising, despite record
high vaccination levels.” In 2009, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recognized the trend too. In the article titled, “Whooping Cough Vaccine
not as Powerful as Thought,” the publication highlighted a recent cluster of 18 whooping cough-infected students. Seventeen of those
students – 95% of those infected – had been immunized with five doses of DTaP vaccine.
-Between 1983 and 1990, there was a 423% increase in measles cases among vaccinated individuals. Then in 2006, the largest mumps
outbreak in twenty years occurred. Among those infected, 63% were “immunized,” as shown by Neil Miller in Vaccines: Are They Safe
and Effective? Others found similar results.
-In 2007, the CDC reported that it had “no or low effectiveness” against influenza or influenza-like illnesses. The data showed that the flu
vaccine protected no more than 14% of those who received it.
[source: Ellison, Shane. Herd immunity: Three Reasons Why I Don’t Vaccinate My Children…And Why Vaccine Supporters Shouldn’t Care.
The People’s Chemist, 2012]
-This is not the first time mandated vaccines in the military have caused problems, it can be seen throughout military history, for example
when 50,000 cases of hepatitis were caused from a contaminated yellow fever vaccine, containing infected human blood serum.
[source: Cantwell, Dr. Alan. The Persian Gulf Syndrome: A Look at the Role of Vaccinations. New Dawn, No. 32. September-October
1995. http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/The%20Persian%20Gulf%20Syndrome.html]
-In fact, Hib vaccination started in 1985 and universal Hepatitis B vaccination of all newborns started around 1990, and this study “From the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” found “In our main analysis we found that Hib and hepatitis B vaccines were associated with
18 and 20% increases in asthma risk, respectively.”
[source: Destefano, Frank et. Al. Childhood Vaccines and Risk of Asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2002. Vol 21, No. 6.
http://www.smartvax.com/images/PDF/cdc%20-%20childhood%20vaccinations%20and%20risk%20of%20asthma.pdf]
-The study showed that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 19, occurred in those who
were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years reportedly
occurred in California.
[source: Dr. Mercola. Big Surprise – Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly Through Vaccinated Populations. Mercola.com. April 2012]
Duty to Warn
Flu Shots, Fosamax and Pharmaceutical Fakery:
The Common Use of Misleading Statistics in the Medical Literature
By Gary G. Kohls, MD
Posted at: www.PreventDisease.com/news/11/110411_Flu-Shots-FosamaxPharmaceutical-Fakery-Misleading-Statistics-in-the-Medical-Literature.shtml
Last week there was a media buzz generated by a recent article in The Lancet (a provaccine, pro-pharmaceutical industry medical journal that is published in Britain) that
showed that flu vaccinations are far less effective than had been previously believed. In
fact, the study suggests that the trivalent flu vaccines currently being pushed may
approach worthlessness.
The article’s principle author was Michael Osternolm, PhD, MPH, a widely published
infectious disease researcher who, prior to his current faculty position at the University of
Minnesota, had served in various capacities with the CDC and the Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH), including a high profile role as the MDH’s Chief of the Acute Disease
Epidemiology Section. 15 years of that association with the MDH was served as
Minnesota state epidemiologist. Osterholm has published over 300 articles and is highly
respected in his field.
The disconnect between the science and the propaganda
The Lancet study, in the reports that I listened to on NPR and read about in various print
media, was deceptively reported as showing that the trivalent flu vaccines should still be
regarded as “moderately effective” for flu prevention rather than being brought into
question as the minimally effective vaccine that the article suggested. What could explain
the disconnect between the science and the propaganda?
Seeing no sign of a public retraction from Osterholm or his co-authors about the glaring
misperceptions, I began to wonder if they were even aware that they had stooped to the
depths that so many other medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industry researchers
have gone to when their articles are published in mainstream medical journals.
Misleading statistics that have appeared in medical journals are also used in drug
commercials and by drug sales representatives when they try to convince us physicians to
prescribe their company’s synthetic drugs.
What I am talking about is the common statistical trick of the trade called the Relative
Risk Reduction [RRR] statistic, which intentionally inflates embarrassingly low or even
statistically insignificant results that have been obtained from research studies.
What the public deserves to be informed about but usually doesn’t get is the far more
meaningful Absolute/Actual Risk Reduction [ARR] figure, which are often too small to
call attention to. Hence, the invention of the misleading RRR. I will deal with the
important mathematical differences further below.
The deceptive relative risk reduction statistic
A lot of medical research these days is done by academic scientists that may not be
clinicians. The vast majority of these researchers (estimated to be over 80%) are in the
employ of the for-profit drug and medical device industries. The research articles that list
them as authors are frequently written by ghost-writers who are salaried by the
corporations that designed and funded the study and have, by contract, exclusive control
of how the research is utilized.
The researchers involved in such studies are naturally highly motivated to help sell the
products they are working on, with the hope that positive results will increase the value of
any stock holdings that may be part of their compensation package. I hasten to add that
there is nothing wrong with making money in an ethical and honest manner, but a lot of
medical research intentionally overstates the benefits of the products that are being
marketed and minimizes or even hides the negatives of their newly discovered
drugs, vaccines or medical devices.
One of the problems alluded to above is the widespread use of the grossly misleading
statistic called the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR). It is important for consumers of new
drugs or medical devices to understand the differences between it and the ARR. Usually,
if the differences are mentioned at all, they are only mentioned in the fine print.
The Lancet article that revealed the lack of efficacy of flu shots did indeed report a “60%
efficacy rate”, and that phrase was prominently reported in the media, which pointed out
the commonly-accepted past estimates of 90% efficacy. The problem was that both were
misleading RRR figures. But what wasn’t reported in the media coverage was the fact
that the actual risk reduction (ARR) with the flu shots was a miniscule 1.5%. If that
figure had been used, people would have balked at consenting to the shot. And, as any
honest, non-co-opted, thinking person can see, the difference between the misleading
figure of 60% and the real figure of 1.5% is huge – and represents just another cunning
statistical trick that is used to promote highly profitable products, that, incidentally, can
also be toxic.
Blowing the whistle on deceptive advertising in medicine
Seeing the truth of the matter and hearing the misleading media interpretation, I knew
that some somebody needed to blow the whistle. Hence this article.
One of the reasons to be truthful about flu vaccine efficacy is the fact that the benefits for
the elderly have been consistently exaggerated over the years, both in the medical
literature and in the advertisements by medical clinics, trade associations, departments of
health and the CDC. Many studies have failed to show any reduction in mortality for
elderly recipients, despite an increased vaccination rates in that group (from 15% to 65%
over the past 30 years). (Ref: The Lancet Infectious Diseases, October 2007)
And here is the math
To make my point about the deceptiveness of the RRR statistic to those who are nonscientists or non-mathematicians, here is the essential math that needs to be pointed out:
In the Lancet study, there were only 357 victims of influenza among the non-vaccinated
pooled sample of 13,195 that were studied. That means that only 2.7 persons out of every
100 non-vaccinated person (2.7%) got symptoms compatible with the flu, meaning that
97.3% of unvaccinated people did not get the flu despite not getting the shot. Good odds
that many people would accept if we had known the actual risks of forgoing the shot.
The study also states that 1.2% of the vaccinated population still got flu symptoms even
after having received the shot. So 98.8% of people who were vaccinated did not get the
flu (virtually the same as the 97.3% of non-vaccinated people that did not get the flu).
Simple subtraction tells us that a tiny 1.5% (98.8 – 97.3 = 1.5) of people benefited and
that approximately 98% would not have become sick with the flu whether or not they
were vaccinated. Again, a risk many people would be willing to take if they were told the
truth!
Here is more about how the RRR statistical trick is calculated, using the flu vaccine study
results:
Relative risk reduction is calculated by dividing the 1.5% number above by 2.7%, which
equals a seemingly large number of 55%, (which was rounded up to get the talking point
figure of 60%). To get the more meaningful ARR of 1.2%, one subtracts 1.5% from
2.7%. Therefore the calculated benefit (the “absolute/actual risk reduction”) for getting
the flu shot is a miniscule figure.
Knowing that there are a number of studies that show that taking extra doses of the far
cheaper and safer vitamin D3 during the winter months can give definite protection from
the flu, one realizes that there are alternatives to being vaccinated.
An important point that needs to be reiterated is the fact that the 98 % of the vaccinated
population who weren’t going to get the flu anyway were unnecessarily exposed to the
toxic ingredients of the intra-muscular trivalent viral influenza shot. Included among
these potentially dangerous substances that are acknowledged to be in the flu shots are
the mercury preservative Thimerosal, formaldehyde, aluminum, immune systemstimulating adjuvants like squalene, viral contaminants, and who knows what else?).
Fosamax prospered because of the same statistical trickery
Fosamax was the first popular and highly profitable “osteoporosis prevention” drug that,
among many other unknown and unappreciated effects (at least at the time of marketing
approval), interfered with a patient’s fragile, complex and incompletely understood bone
metabolism. The drug had been proven to increase bone density in many patients (but did
not necessarily increase bone strength), but the claim that it reduced hip fractures by 50%
was based on the misleading “relative” hip fracture reduction (a RRR) calculation. What
was not prominently advertised was the ARR of only 1%, a minuscule rate for elderly
women who continuously took the drug over a 4-year period.
The Fosamax hip fracture study for older women at high risk for future fractures (that
was funded and controlled by the British pharmaceutical giant Glaxo) revealed that hip
fractures occurred in only 2 out of every 100 untreated (placebo) patients, a 2%
incidence.
In the drug-treated patients there were only 1 out of 100 patients who suffered hip
fractures, a 1% incidence. So the RRR (1% divided by 2% = 50%) had to be used to
convince patients to take the drug, but the calculated ARR was well hidden because it
was a miniscule 1% (2% minus 1% = 1%).
That also means that 98% of non-treated patients did not get a hip fracture after 4 years of
observation and 99% of Fosamax-treated patients did not get a hip fracture, thus
receiving no benefit from taking the drug. 80% of media ads deceptively claimed that
“Fosamax cut the risk (of hip fracture in elderly women) by 50%” And not many of us
physicians saw through the clever subterfuge!!
Again it must be emphasized that 98 – 99% of elderly patients who were regarded as
being at high risk of having a hip fracture had no hip fractures, whether they were
drugged or not. But the treated group risked experiencing the often serious side effects
including esophageal ulcerations and the disfiguring and incurable osteonecrosis of the
jawbone, among dozens of other potentially serious adverse reactions that the untreated
group were not at risk for.
Fully informed consent: Is it a thing of the past?
Being fully informed about all the pros and cons of any treatment, medical device usage
or surgical procedure used to be solely the obligation of the involved health care
provider. Nowadays it seems that such health information is being taken over by the
propaganda techniques of cunning megacorporations who can afford to pay the billions of
dollars for propagandizing patients and their physicians, for lobbying Congresspersons
and presidents to enact favorable legislation and to pay the costs of the inevitable and
expected lawsuits for damages done when the injured patient hadn’t been given fully
informed consent.
Only in America (and New Zealand) would this be expected to happen for they are the
only two nations in the developed world where direct-to-consumer advertising for
synthetic pharmaceutical drugs is not against the law.
There is some slim good news I suppose and that is that the spirit of Hippocrates, he of
the “First Do No Harm” code of medical ethics, may still be alive, and that spirit could
save us, if there is any justice left in this crashing nation. Hippocrates has been spinning
in his grave ever since the pharmaceutical industry and big corporations took control of
and spoiled the honorable practice of medicine.
Our patients, who have already been losing respect for what, in its current incarnation as
a hard-hearted, highly efficient Big Business, would forgive us if we admitted that our
profession is flawed and compromised.
Dr. Kohls is a retired Duluth-area physician who, prior to his retirement, practiced
holistic, non-drug, mental health care. He writes about issues of peace, justice,
nonviolence, theology, war and health. He recommends to readers that they discuss their
personal healthcare concerns with a trusted, open-minded practitioner.
Sources used in the production of this article:
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70295-X.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2970295X/abstract