When Patients Become Consumers WHO & UNICEF Suffer Hiccups
When Patients Become Consumers WHO & UNICEF Suffer Hiccups
-
Jagannath Chatterjee
What if vaccines were sold like cars? Instead of having them pushed on you, what if you had a real choice, with real information and competition? Now that a greater & greater number of people are acting like consumers & asking questions, the WHO & UNICEF are taking steps to counter it, and some plans are downright scary.
How would you act if you have decided
to buy a car? You would visit the car showrooms, talk to the salesmen, collect
literature on the cars, visit other showrooms, search the internet, talk to
people who have purchased cars, exchange ideas with your friends, talk to the
mechanics, and find out more from people who have faced problems with a
particular brand. You would also be concerned about the performance and the
safety features and wonder if they are up to the advertisements and sales
pitch. Pretty much normal is it not?
Car manufacturers take it on their
stride. They know that this is a typical consumer behaviour pattern. The
consumers are choosy, picky, and try to have the best value for money. They
have distinct individual needs and choices that have to be met in order to stay
afloat and be profitable. The manufacturers respond by manufacturing quality
cars that are better than the competitors and take great care to ensure that
both performance and safety aspects are above reproach.
But what if the car manufacturers had
an association and a huge political lobby? What if they ensured that there was
no competition? What if all the car salesmen were taught by the same institution?
What if the manufacturers decided what the salesmen read and understood? What
if all the salesmen were given licences that could be revoked if they did not
speak the same language? What if they had laws that protected them from
lawsuits?
You know what would happen, don’t you?
You would then be dealing with a cartel; a cartel that would take the decisions
and force them upon you. You would land up with products you do not want.
Products that would not perform and would not be safe either, for these would
not be ensured in such a situation, simply because they would not matter.
The entire pharmaceutical market is
such a cartel; more so the vaccination industry.
The movement against vaccinations,
both by victims as well as by discerning doctors, is based upon the consumer
behaviour pattern. People are now comparing products, reading the package
inserts, logging on to the internet and discussion boards, the social media,
they are talking to people who or their children have suffered adverse
reactions, and they are reading books that enable them to get a glimpse beyond
the hype.
The WHO & UNICEF are not happy
with this.
In two recently released documents,
these two institutions we have been indoctrinated into believing that they had
our best interest in their minds have reacted rather strongly. They may have
been compelled to do so by their biggest funders, philanthropists and
philanthropic institutions that have perfected the art of corporate
philanthropy, and the money that freely flow to them are used for agendas that
are rarely public. You can read up on Bill Gates and George Soros if you have
not done so already.
To keep the medical fraternity on
check, and to provide ample scope to those who toe the line for favours earned,
the WHO has devised a document named, “Causality assessment of an adverse event
following immunization (AEFI)”. It is the revised WHO classification prompted
by the way recent products like the oral polio vaccine (OPV), Pentavalent, the
Rotavirus vaccine and the HPV vaccine have behaved in the market.
As pointed out by doctors in India,
reacting to the deaths from the Pentavalent many countries suspended its use.
The WHO did not like this attitude which went against its policy of imposition.
They responded by reclassifying the way the doctors would report the adverse
effects. While earlier the doctors had more choices, the WHO reduced them to
two; due to the vaccine and not due to the vaccine. After the Andrew Wakefield
witch hunt few doctors have the courage to associate any adverse event directly
to any vaccine. So the vaccine became safe, as all adverse effects were
recorded as not due to the vaccine.
Unfortunately some black sheep did not
like the way the issue was handled. They continued to point out that the
vaccine was killing children and also that there was no other cause besides the
vaccine as the children were perfectly healthy before they were vaccinated.
They suggested that the vaccine was causing an allergic reaction and also that
SIDS was not the possible explanation just because SIDS is a classification
made if there is no exciting factor in sight. In case of the Pentavalent there
was indeed an exciting factor – the vaccine.
Instead of testing the vaccine on
laboratory animals to check if indeed there was any allergic reaction, the WHO
studied the contents and reiterated the safety of the vaccine. It also sought
approval from vaccine industry funded associations who declared that they have
been using the vaccine without any side effects noticed and that the deaths
were indeed SIDS. It did not matter for them that the death rate from the
Pentavalent was more than the infant mortality rate of the state in which the
maximum number of deaths occurred.
The WHO then realized that it had to
act sternly to save its crumbling empire. It thus came out with its revised
classification, which the rogue doctors promptly pointed out that if one
followed the new classification, no vaccine could ever be associated with any
adverse event.
Dr Paul G King went through the
document with a lens and came out with a classification that has shocked the
entire establishment; not because it is implausible but because it is the right
way to classify an adverse event!
Dr King’s classification contains the
following choices;
·
Caused
by
·
Probably
caused by
·
Possibly
caused by
·
Unclassifiable
at present (because of lack of critical information)
·
Possibly
not caused by
·
Probably
not caused by
·
Proven
not caused by
The last choice could only be made
after a proper autopsy of the case was made and all possibilities were ruled
out by an impartial investigating team.
Writes Dr King, “In general, the designation of an
infant's death following shortly after an inoculation session as
"SIDS" is inappropriate absent a complete detailed autopsy that rules
out any brain, brain stem or cardiovascular inflammation as well as any and all
out-of-control immune-system aberrations”. Thus,
in many cases, the "SIDS" label is misused to hide "death by
vaccination" especially when high fever, wailing, seizures, convulsions,
body rigidity and/or body flaccidity are observed just after vaccination.”
It remains to be seen how the WHO
responds to these suggestions. As has been observed in the past, this august
institution frames its own rules and ignores sane voices.
The UNICEF, reacting to the public
outcry against vaccine reactions and the absolute disregard for all calls for a
transparent and just system of evaluation, came out with its own document
titled, “Tracking Anti-Vaccination Sentiment in Eastern European Social Media
Networks”.
The document reveals the obvious;
parents are today looking for alternative sources of information and are
suspicious about the official handouts or assurances that vaccines are safe and
effective. In other words the parents are now acting as consumers and not as
sheep as they did in the past. There has been an awakening and it is not going
to go away.
Imbibed in this document is a subtle
threat; while doing its research on internet based personalities and groups the
researchers could actually pinpoint the locations and the computers from which
the messages emanated. However, bound by ethics, the organization declares that
it has not captured the information. The message is clear – we can get you when
we want to.
It finishes by saying that it is all
about conspiracy theories, Western plots, and conflict of interest. It also
acknowledges that there are “influencers” who have a considerable hold on those
seeking information. In its chapters it quotes exact sentences which the
activists will identify as their own. These quotes are about those expressing
concerns about side effects, development disabilities, chemicals, toxins,
contaminants and religious and ethical values.
It recommends that powerful search
engines should continue to be used to track the influencers, groups and
sentiments. They should also be optimized such that official views turn up in
the top while users search for information. It advises that, “Members of the
individual sphere should be approached with an emotional appeal”. It divides
the public into three sections; core, intense and alert, and concedes that the
first two categories have already made up their minds. It is the “alert” category
that are yet undecided and should be targeted by staff trained by communication
experts.
It is very interesting to note that
the UNICEF wishes to take advantage of its brand value. What it wants is
“Empower through delivering key
information and helping to ask the
right questions. Leverage strong UNICEF brand
proposition.
The term “vaccine hesitancy” that is
now being used to describe alarm at various levels over gross irregularities
noticed in aspects of vaccine safety, transparency and accountability not only
downplays the concerns but also seeks to label the alarm as “hysteresis”. This
tactics is not new as right since inception, intelligent and thinking parents
have been labelled lunatics. WHO now perceives this “hesitancy” as a global
threat to public health even as it concentrates on achieving vaccine targets
with two alarming vaccines for dengue and flu that have caused public uproar in
Philippines and the USA for deaths and adverse effects. Who benefits from these
targets? Who are harmed? These crucial questions remain unanswered.
India is reeling under the impacts of
a school based vaccine programme that has been launched to bail out a vaccine manufacturer
which was saddled with excess stocks of the MR vaccine. Multiple deaths and
hospitalizations occurring throughout the country have led to Court decisions
in favour of informed consent, but consent is considered to be a deterrent
factor while achieving targets. The fact that the Indian Government has
conceded that its vaccine programmes have led to 10,612 deaths from 2008 to
2018 and that 600,000 adverse effects occur every year does not provoke the
state machinery to self introspect. The private sector that delivers 15 vaccines additional to the state sanctioned list that have no official sanction, remains unmonitored even as profit
motive has been ascribed to the action with pediatricians earning more than
Rs. 8,100 crores annually from them; commissions range from 30 to 300% and
incentives can add to the figures.
The public should now be aware about
what they are dealing with. Technology, money power, institutional power, the
power of indoctrination, the power to segregate information and blocking
unwanted sound bites, the power to intimidate and threat and the power to lie
in an official imposing tone will be the tools through which the vaccination
dogma will be promoted.
Buyers Beware!
Post a Comment