Tag Archives: pfizer

A Little Shot of Cancer, Perhaps?

Posted on by

(Please note that I have excerpted a good deal of the text which is available at the link below)

Sausage Making at FDA: How Human Cancer Cells Got Into Vaccines

In a 2012 meeting, the FDA voted to allow the use of human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines, despite acknowledging the many risks, including that vaccine recipients might later develop cancer.

“If the American people knew some of the things that went on at the FDA, they’d never take anything but Bayer aspirin.” — Len Lutwalk, FDA scientist

“The FDA, by spinelessly knuckling under to every whim of the drug companies, has thrown away its high reputation, and in doing so, forfeited our trust.” — Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA

…

Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee today

Today — Thursday, Dec. 10 — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) internal panel that licenses new vaccines as “safe and effective,” will meet to consider Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. VRBAC will meet in one week, Dec. 17, to consider approval of the Moderna vaccine.

The damning safety studies in Pfizer’s late release clinical trial data dump, and the severe (life-threatening) allergic reactions that bedeviled the vaccine’s UK rollout, have raised red flags and public anxiety about the safety of the companies’ mRNA vaccines. Anthony Fauci has addressed growing skepticism about COVID vaccines and the Operation Warp Speed program, by reassuring the public that “VRBPAC” is an “independent panel of leading experts” whom the public can absolutely trust to assure vaccine safety.

…

How FDA originally approved use of fetal cells in vaccines

FDA allows both human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines. Both types have cancer risks. While both Pfizer and Moderna tested their mRNA vaccine using fetal cells, there are no fetal cells, cell debris or DNA in their final products.

However, according to company documents, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) and Altimmune’s COVID vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line PER-C6, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from these cells. Researchers harvested these cell lines from the eyeball of an 18-week-old human fetus aborted in 1985, and then rendered them immortal by making them cancerous.

The AstraZeneca, Cansino, Gamayela, Vaxart, LongComm and Upitt vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line HEK293, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from the fetal HEK-293 cell line. Scientists harvested this cell line from the kidney of a female Dutch fetus legally aborted in 1973 and then immortalized the cells by rendering them cancerous.

Normal primary cells, which are unable to replicate indefinitely, ultimately die. Immortalized cell lines are derived from known malignant cancer cells such as those obtained from Henrietta Lacks (HeLa) or created in the laboratory by introducing viral oncogenes or chemical exposures capable of mutating normal primary cells into immortal tumor cells.

According to FDA’s “The Pink Sheet” dated Nov. 29, 1999, for two decades the agency has been acutely aware of the inherent risks of using immortalized cell lines for vaccine development. The FDA CBER Director Dr. Peter Patriarca, M.D. explained that continuous cell lines are used for their ability to self-propagate, making them an ideal substrate on which to grow viruses, “the worst thing we are concerned about is …  malignancy, because some of these continuous cells have the potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.”

Patriarca further conceded that “the technology to make these vaccines actually exceeds the science and technology to understand how these vaccines work and to predict how they will work.”   …

We call vaccines “biologics” because vaccinologists have traditionally grown their antigens on biological substrates — usually animal tissue. Competing companies culture COVID vaccines on a variety of animal strata. The Merck and IAVA COVID vaccines are manufactured in vero monkey cells, and thus contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from vero monkeys in the final product. The Sanofi, GSK, and Novavax COVID jabs are manufactured in insect cells and thus contain insect cellular debris and DNA fragments in the final products.

Public health advocates criticize the use of animal tissues in vaccines due to risks that they carry endogenous viruses, microbes, parasites and lack safety testing. (Plague of Corruption, Mikovits 2020). …

Researchers and regulatory agencies have worried for more than 50 years about the potential for injected DNA to cause cancer.  …

Regulators have in the past predicted that the odds of that happening were less than 1 in a trillion. However, in early gene therapy trials this event did indeed occur in 4 of 9 boys, 1 of whom died from the leukemia the insertions caused.

…

FDA as an arm of Big Pharma

…

Between 2000 and 2010, pharmaceutical companies paid the FDA $3.4 billion to gain rapid drug approvals. Today, Pharma companies underwrite three-quarters of FDA’s budget for scientific reviews (ProPublica) and fund nearly 50% of the FDA’s total annual budget through PDUFA fees. In exchange, the agency increasingly fast-tracks expensive drugs and vaccines with significant side effects and unproven health benefits.

Corrupt vaccine approval panels

But as corrupt as FDA is, the internal panels — VRBAC — that approve new vaccines make the rest of the agency look like a Sunday church picnic.

When Dr. Fauci, Paul Offit, Peter Hotez and Bill Gates tell you that you needn’t worry because FDA is the “gold standard” for vaccine safety and that the ultimate licensing decision will be made by an “independent panel of experts,” they are talking about VRBPAC. But VRBPAC is far from “independent.” It is not even comprised exclusively of public officials. Instead, it is populated by outside “experts” who are almost all pharmaceutical industry insiders.

In 2003, following a 3-year investigation, the United States Congress’s House Oversight Committee found VRBAC was completely dominated by the vaccine industry.

“Examples of Conflicts of Interest:

  1. “For instance, 3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee (VRBPAC) members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
  2. “One out of five voting members’ employer had a $9,586,000 contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
  3. “One out of five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop a rotavirus vaccine.
  4. “One out of five voting members received approximately $1 million from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.”

Congressional investigators concluded that, “Altogether, four out of the five committee members had conflicts of interest that required waivers, and their recommendation for approval of the vaccine was unanimous.”

Here’s what happened at the 2012 FDA meeting on fetal cells

HHS acknowledges that the FDA and Centers for Disease Control committees that contract and review new vaccines have historically not used “evidence-based medicine.” To illustrate what this means, one only need read (below) the astonishing transcript of the 2012 panel that first approved the use of adult cancer tumor cells in vaccines.

This transcript shows what the public is never supposed to see: the behind-the-scenes sausage-making of federal vaccine approvals. Here, you will read for yourself how the “independent,” “gold standard” panelists entrusted with protecting your children made monumentally consequential decisions, not on evidence-based science, but by rolling the dice and taking what they knew was a horrendously risky bet on public health

In any other realm, this transcript would be proof of negligent homicide. … We are all lab rats in their high-risk population-wide experiment. At FDA’s vaccine division, that sort of reckless decision-making is routine.

In 2012, most live virus vaccines were from animal tissue and the idea of putting potentially cancerous tumor cells from adult “donors” in vaccines was still a daring and audacious gamble. That September, the FDA VRBPAC committee met to discuss this risky innovation. The transcript of that meeting — showing captive FDA officials considering a proposal by the pharma cabal to allow the use of human cancer cells (HeLa) to replace animal tissue in the manufacture of vaccines — is proof of reckless criminal conduct.

The HeLa cells are well known to cause cancer in animals, but Big Pharma wanted to lower production costs of vaccines and this method is cheaper and faster than using animal tissue for the cultivated media. …

Unbelievably, FDA voted to allow pharmaceutical companies to produce vaccines using human cells without reviewing a single scientific study to determine if the outcome would be safe.

Before, I quoted some of the criminally reckless statements from the meeting directly. A more detailed account appears in this article.

This was a full meeting of FDA’s VRBPAC in 2012 to decide on the use of human tumor cell lines for the production of vaccines. I list these speakers and their titles at that time:

  • Dr. Philip Krause, Acting Deputy Director of OVRR (Office of Vaccine Research and Review) and FDA’s CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research). Also, Principal Investigator for Vaccine Safety: Virus Detection and Latency.
  • Dr. Doug Lowy, Director of the National Cancer Institute of the NIH.
  • Dr. Robert Daum, Chair of the VRBPAC.
  • Donald W. Jehn M.S., Designated Federal Officer for VRBPAC.
  • Keith Peden, PhD, Chief of LDNAV, DVP/OVRR/CBER.
  • Dr. Marion Gruber, Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines.
  • Dr. Nathanial Brady, a self-described clinician.
  • Dr. Pamela McInnes, a vaccine development expert and the Director of the Division of Extramural Research at the NIH’s National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, and previously a Deputy Director under Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Pharma knew that their tumorigenic vaccines might cause tumors in recipients.

…

FDA officials knew that tumors might occur decades after vaccination.

…

FDA openly acknowledged that its primary objective was not to assure public safety but to help vaccine manufacturers.

…

FDA officials knew that they could not prove vaccine safety using test animals to assess oncogenicity.

…

FDA officials deliberately terminated animal safety tests too early in order to conceal consequences.

…

FDA decided to keep the tumor cell lines secret, because doctors and the public may be alarmed and say “Oh, my God!” if they knew the truth.

…

FDA decided to use deceptive language to convince doctors and the public that the vaccines were safe even when they, themselves, were unconvinced of safety.

…

FDA decided to hide information about their use of tumor cells and omit it from package inserts. 

…

Health authorities were skeptical about safety of the tumor lines, but they decided to subject the public to the risk, so that they could perform a global population-wide live human experiment.

…

FDA officials opted to toss the dice, perform the population-wide human experiment, and learn about the risks as time goes by.

…

The committee formally approves the method of making vaccines from human cancer tumors.

..

Prior to voting to go forward, the committee made the following conclusions:

  • Making vaccines with cells that are directly derived from human cancer tumors is faster and cheaper than breeding animals for the culture media.
  • Millions of potentially cancer-causing vaccines will be produced.
  • The vaccines may possibly cause genetic mutations.
  • Millions of dollars will be made by vaccine promoters.
  • The health of millions of consumers may be jeopardized.
  • Information about how vaccines are made will be hidden from doctors and

Finally, it’s worth considering that cancer treatment drugs like Keytruda are among pharmaceutical companies’ largest profit makers. Precipitating a cancer epidemic in human populations only benefits vaccine makers’ bottom line.

Remember, these are the same companies and the same FDA regulators that brought us the opioid epidemic.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-cancer-cells-in-vaccines/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8fc80363-cace-4de1-bcd2-9e309b779ac5

THey Will Pay You to Vaccinate Your Child

Posted on by

FDA Lets Pfizer Test Experimental COVID-19 Vaccine on U.S. Children

Pfizer becomes first company in U.S. to include children in Phase 3 COVID vaccine trials.

Americans have been following COVID-19 vaccine trial developments for weeks, watching companies jockey for frontrunner status like contestants in a reality TV show. And though participants in some of the studies (by Moderna, Oxford, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer) have surfaced with reactions serious enough to pause several of the trials, market analysts remain “bullish” about the near-term prospects for approval of these liability-free products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

On Oct. 16, Pfizer’s CEO indicated the company would likely file for FDA Emergency Use Authorization for its experimental BNT162b2 vaccine in late November. That statement came three days after Pfizer announced that it had received FDA permission to administer the unproven vaccine to children as young as 12, becoming the first company in the U.S. to include young participants in Phase 3 trials. In the UK, Oxford and AstraZeneca gained approval to test their vaccine in children aged 5-12 back in May, a couple of months before two of their adult clinical trial participants developed transverse myelitis.

To date, Pfizer has administered two doses of vaccine to almost 35,000 adult participants in five countries. Unworried by the dramatic side effects reported by some of these adults — including high fever, pounding headaches, body aches, exhaustion and shivering intense enough to crack teeth — more than 90 parents have already expressed interest in volunteering their teenagers.

Are these parents (perhaps left unemployed by coronavirus restrictions) tempted by the financial incentives offered to clinical trial participants, reportedly anywhere from $1200 to $2000? Otherwise, their motivation for wanting to throw their children into the experimental fray is unclear; as the director of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital stated, “most of the time, what a coronavirus causes is a cold” that does not even make children “sick enough to where a parent says they need to go to a doctor.”

The Cincinnati physician has, nonetheless, just started giving Pfizer’s shot to 16- and 17-year-olds (and soon to 12-15-year-olds). To entice additional young participants, he tells parents that the COVID-19 death rate in children is “not zero” — but declines to spell out that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the survival rate in those age 19 and under is 99.997%. Using similarly vague language, a Memorial Sloan-Kettering health policy expert said that a COVID-19 vaccine’s benefits for the young would likely be “secondary’ in nature” but characterized the gesture as “an act of service to help protect others.”

However, reports in Pediatrics and other journals assert that children are not a source of infection and are far more likely to acquire COVID-19 from adults “rather than transmitting it to them.” In other words, policymakers expect children to accept a risk-benefit equation heavily tilted toward risk.

Corporate bad guy

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer — the second-largest drug and biotech company in the world and the fourth-highest earner of vaccine revenues — has seen a 7% increase in its share value this year. However, though Pfizer claims to be a standard-bearer for “quality, safety and value,” it has a corporate rap sheet a mile long. Pfizer is routinely mired in controversies involving alleged price-fixing, bribery, kickbacks, tax avoidance, regulatory misdirection and other unsavory practices and has also repeatedly paid fines for environmental violations at its research and manufacturing plants.

Critics point to decades of aggressive and questionable marketing. In 2009, this behavior earned Pfizer the dubious distinction of paying the largest-ever criminal fine at the time — $2.3 billion — for fraudulent and illegal promotion of four drugs, including a painkiller marketed at “dangerously high” doses. In 2016, a British regulator levied a $106 million fine against Pfizer for a 2600% increase in the price of a widely prescribed anti-epilepsy drug that increased the National Health Services’ expenditures from one year to the next — for a single drug—from $2.5 million to $63 million.

Perhaps to compensate for its unpleasant track record, Pfizer is the top drug company spender in state elections, even outspending the industry’s own lobbying group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRM). As a just-published analysis of drug company political spending by STAT and the National Institute on Money and Politics shows, Pfizer’s “prolific” state-level spending ($778,000 since January 2019) “mirrors its behavior at the federal level, where its [political action committee] was also the top political spender among drug companies” — roughly $1 million over the same time period. The report pointedly notes that while the amounts paid out to legislators represent a “pittance” for a company earning tens of billions a year, “those small chunks of corporate change can have a significant impact.”

Pfizer’s vaccines

Pfizer is responsible for two vaccines on the U.S. childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule: the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnar-13 (given to children under 5 and also to older adults) and the meningococcal vaccine Trumenba (approved for 10 – 25-year-olds). Package inserts link the two vaccines to a large number of serious adverse events, including anaphylaxis and other allergic reactions, severe headaches and chronic muscle and joint pain. Among the roughly 40 harms listed in the Prevnar-13 insert are sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and half a dozen other fatal outcomes.

Pfizer developed its COVID-19 vaccine — which uses experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) technology — in partnership with the German biopharma company BioNTech. Although mRNA vaccines must be stored in special ultra-low-temperature freezers that pose certain logistic obstacles, Pfizer is gung-ho on the never-before-approved approach because it bypasses the more costly and difficult methods used in traditional vaccine production. It does this by essentially turning recipients into “vaccine factories” — with long-term risks that are unknown.

Pfizer and BioNTech brought their COVID-19 vaccine candidates “from concept into clinical development” in under three months, perhaps helped along by the current Pfizer CEO’s efforts to restructure Pfizer into a more “nimble” company. At the same time, observers who now place Pfizer at the head of the pack for COVID-19 vaccines credit the company’s “well-oiled system,” remarking that “Pfizer’s incredibly organized and is always … a couple steps ahead, planning where they want to go.”

Conflicts of interest and revolving doors

In the summer of 2019, after having served as the Trump administration’s FDA commissioner for two years, Scott Gottlieb passed through the revolving door to join Pfizer’s board of directors as well as becoming a regular contributor on CNBC. For the past four decades, stepping onto pharmaceutical boards has been par for the course for departing FDA commissioners, though Gottlieb may have upped the ante by also joining the boards of the AI- and big-data-reliant genetic testing start-up, Tempus, and the biotech company Illumina.

While at the FDA, Gottlieb presided over a record number of drug approvals. According to one commentator, this “trail-blazing” FDA stint and Gottlieb’s focus on “hustling up the [drug approval] process … helped endear him to the industry, making him one of the most popular commissioners in FDA history.” As the director of a consumer watchdog group put it, “He’s basically been a shill for pharmaceutical corporations for much of his career.” Two months before stepping down from the agency, Gottlieb attracted notice when he strongly denied any link between vaccines and autism while publicly threatening that the federal government might be “forced” to intervene in states with vaccine exemptions to make vaccines mandatory across the board.

Gottlieb’s affiliation with CNBC may explain why he has been a frequent public face during the coronavirus pandemic, promoting the U.S. as a world leader in the vaccine race but also vocally endorsing measures like universal masking, universal testing and restaurant and school shutdowns. On October 19, Gottlieb dourly told Americans that the U.S. is “entering a pretty difficult period” and that “the hardest part is probably [still] ahead.” Ironically, around the same time that Gottlieb was using positive test results to hype ongoing restrictive measures, a former Pfizer vice-president and chief science officer in the UK characterized mass testing as “inappropriate,” asserting that “it is impossible for the positives to be much other than false.” Discussing the harsh policies that have been particularly disastrous for children, the former Pfizer executive agreed that they have essentially been based on “completely fake data.”

Kids at risk

Reporter Whitney Webb recently outlined how Operation Warp Speed is awarding contracts to vaccine companies through a nongovernmental defense contractor intermediary, a tactic that shields the contracts from oversight and federal regulation. Meanwhile, Moncef Slaoui — who heads up the Operation Warp Speed initiative — stated that after a round of testing in adolescents, he expects the leading coronavirus vaccines to also be tested in toddlers and babies. Parents would do well to keep their children on the sidelines of these experiments. If vaccine clinical trials, including Pfizer’s, are already generating concerning results in adults capable of describing their symptoms, what will happen when preverbal babies experience similar adverse outcomes?

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-pfizer-experimental-covid-vaccine-children/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=b18c0c6e-fe4c-4d23-b98f-d41da6147716

The More You Know – Support Those Who Fight For The Truth

Posted on by

6 Wikileaks Revelations Expose Corporate Abuse At The Expense of People & Planet

By. 

People around the world are watching as U.K. Judge Vanessa Baraitser hears arguments and decides whether or not to extradite Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange to the U.S.

While the Obama administration chose not to charge Assange, wary of the precedent it might set in criminalizing journalism, the Trump administration indicted him with 18 criminal charges that may land Assange in one of the U.S.’s most notorious prisons for 175 years.

Assange’s Wikileaks has won numerous journalism awards and has never had to retract a single publication despite releasing more than 10 million documents exposing, among other things, U.S. war crimes. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta recently indicated that the ongoing persecution of Assange is meant to “send a message to others not to do the same thing.”

As the world debates whether Assange is a hero or a traitor, Children’s Health Defense takes a step back to examine some of the things his organization has revealed for those fighting for health and environmental justice.

1. U.S. diplomatic efforts to overturn resistance to GMOs at the behest of Monsanto

Wikileaks published hundreds of diplomatic cables exhibiting attempts by the U.S. to quell opposition to genetically modified organisms or GMOs. As reported by The Guardian, “the cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto.”

In a 2007 cable, Craig Stapleton, then U.S. Ambassador to France, advised the U.S. to prepare for economic war with countries unwilling to introduce Monsanto’s GM corn seeds. He recommended the U.S. “calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the E.U.”

Another dispatch, this one from 2009, demonstrated that the U.S. funded a GMO workshop in Mozambique that, according to the authors, helped advance biotech-friendly policies in the country.

In another cable from 2009, a U.S. diplomat stationed in Germany relayed intelligence on Bavarian political parties to several U.S. federal agencies and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, telling them which parties opposed Monsanto’s M810 corn seed and tactics that the U.S. could impose to resolve the opposition.

One cable from Hong Kong shows a State Department employee requesting $92,000 in U.S. public funds for “media education kits” to combat a growing popular movement calling for the labeling of GMO foods in Hong Kong. The cable indicates a desire to “make it much more difficult for mandatory labelling advocates to prevail.” The State Department’s Anita Katial, who wrote the cable, also recalled a time when her office facilitated the sending of pro-biotech and bio-agriculture DVDs to every high school in Hong Kong.

According to Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, the trove of cables “really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”

2. Multinational commodities trader dumping toxic waste in West Africa

In 2006, Trafigura, the world’s second largest oil trader, illegally discharged more than 500 tons of highly toxic oil waste near the Port of Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. Some of the dump sites were near agriculture fields or water supplies, and the UN estimates that more than 100,000 people sought medical treatment due to the incident. Wikileaks would later call this incident “possibly the most culpable mass contamination incident since Bhopal.”

Trafigura’s lawyer commissioned a confidential study that listed what the environmental and health impacts of the dumping incident would be after people living near the port started flooding hospitals.

The report explained that contact with the offloaded compounds could lead to eye damage, lung damage, skin burns, headaches, breathing difficulty, permanent skin ulceration, coma and death. The report also states that the chemical compounds would have a “severe and negative effect” on the environment.

As recently as 2016, residents were complaining about the smell of the waste, headaches, breathing problems and skin problems.

Wikileaks published the classified report in 2009, the first time the public could see the company’s true negligence.

3. Gates Foundation sees environmental activists as a threat

In 2008, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hired an intelligence firm called Stratfor to put together a “threat assessment report” and determine current and future threats to the foundation.

Stratfor’s report saw environmental activists, indigenous farming groups, and peasant political parties in Asia and South America, as “potential threats” to the foundation.

“Threats to the foundation are likely to be directly related to the public association between the foundation and a controversial issue such as GMOs, animal testing, clinical trials and reproductive rights,” the report reads.

Stating that the primary threat to the foundation’s agriculture program comes from its work promoting GMOs, the report notes the rise of anti-GMO campaigning in developing countries, including a “staunch opposition to GMOs in India.” It even names specific activists, such as the U.S.-based anti-GMO campaigner Jeffrey Smith.

The report also mentions the work of large organizations like Greenpeace and PETA as well as alternative media outlets like the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones, AlterNet and the LA Times, which had just published a series accusing the foundation of “reap[ing] vast financial gains from investments in companies that contribute to the human suffering in health, housing and social welfare.”

Wikileaks published the threat assessment as part of its release of more than 5 million Stratfor emails in 2012.

4. Pharma intel and espionage operation

In 1996, Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, conducted clinical trials in Nigeria for an antibiotic called Trovan. The results were devastating, as Nigerian officials reported more than 50 children died in the experiment and dozens became disabled.

In 2006, a Nigerian government panel concluded that Pfizer violated international law and called the experiment “an illegal trial of an unregistered drug.” In 2007, Nigerian state and federal authorities sued Pfizer for $7 billion, alleging the company did not have proper consent from the children’s parents.

A 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks revealed that while the case was in federal court, Pfizer had hired a private intelligence firm to get blackmail on Nigerian Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa.

According to the cable, “Pfizer’s investigators were passing this information to local media,” who published articles on the attorney general’s “alleged” corruption. “Aondoakaa’s cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles,” it reads.

A few months after the negative articles, the Nigerian ministry of justice signed a settlement with Pfizer.

5. U.S. is a climate bully

Cables disclosed by Wikileaks in 2010 present the U.S. using what The Guardian called “spying, threats and promises of aid” to get international support for the 2009 Copenhagen Accord — an industry-friendly international climate deal with non-binding agreements to lower emissions. (Climate activist Naomi Klein described, at the time, the accord as “nothing more than a grubby pact between the world’s biggest emitters”.)

The State Department sent a secret cable to foreign embassies seeking human intelligence, or “dirt,” on UN diplomats regarding climate policy. And, as reported by Democracy Now!, the cables also indicated that the U.S. cut funding to Bolivia and Ecuador after both governments opposed the accord.

Bill McKibben, founder of the climate organization 350.org, said the cables exposed that “the U.S. was both bullying and buying countries into endorsing their do-little position on climate.”

6. International organizations consulting with Big Pharma

In 2009, Wikileaks revealed documents that the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) gave its members a report by the UN’s World Health Organization(WHO)’s Expert Working Group on research and development financing.

IFPMA members include pharmaceutical giants like Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi, and the organization represents these entities when dealing with the UN. What makes the Wikileaks document dump significant is that the working group gave IFPMA access to these documents months before their scheduled public release, suggesting that the UN’s health expert group was more accountable to the pharmaceutical industry than to its own member states.

“The compilation of documents shows the influence of ‘Big Pharma’ on the policy making decisions of the WHO,” Wikileaks commented when publishing the files.

Written by Jeremy Loffredo.

from:     https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/10/06/6-wikileaks-revelations-expose-corporate-abuse-at-the-expense-of-people-planet/

Thinking About Celebrex? Check this out.

Posted on by

(Comment:    How about Zyflamend instead)

Pfizer ‘Cherry-Picked’ Celebrex Data, Memos Say

July 09 2012
  • New evidence in a lawsuit against Pfizer alleges that the drug company cherry-picked data on its drug Celebrex in a scheme to make the drug appear safer and more effective than it really is
  • Pfizer withheld critical data needed to assess the drug’s effectiveness, and newly unsealed documents showed this was all what appeared to be part of a carefully calculated plan by Pfizer execs
  • On a regular basis new studies appear that show the real risks of many medications, including popular varieties that are used by millions of people
  • The number of lawsuits that Big Pharma is settling―many of them out of court without going to trial―are rising, with settlement amounts in the billions
  • If you are still under the impression that drugs are the “answer” to your health complaints, you are likely being misled … and may be worsening your health by the day

By Dr. Mercola

Celebrex is a type of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) known as a COX-2 inhibitor.

Basically, it works by blocking COX-2 enzymes, which become overly active in your body when it becomes inflamed, and is widely used as a form of pain relief; in 2011, 2.4 million Americans received prescriptions for this drug.i

They may have thought twice, however, if they knew the truth behind how this drug came to be … a story that involves cherry-picking of data in attempts to make the drug seem superior to others on the market, when in fact it was not.

Also concerning: Celebrex is the only selective COX-2 inhibitor left on the market, as its close “cousins” were all pulled due to either their killing tens of thousands of people or to their unacceptably high heart risks …

Internal Memos Reveal Deception Surrounding Celebrex Data

New evidence in a lawsuit against Pfizer alleges that the drug company cherry-picked data on its drug Celebrex. Its claim to fame when it came on the market in 1998 was that it relieved pain without causing the gastrointestinal side effects common to other pain-relief drugs like ibuprofen.

Studies showed it didn’t necessarily relieve pain any better than the other drugs on the market, so Pfizer was counting on the gastrointestinal “ticket” to propel the drug into blockbuster status, and, in fact, used its easiness on your stomach as its primary selling point.

The problem was, Celebrex only appeared to be easier on the stomach because Pfizer, and its partner Pharmacia, only released the first six months of data from a year-long study. When the entire data set was looked at, the stomach “benefit” disappeared.

Folks this is what is called a blatant lie of omission and these companies do it on a regular basis. The system even encourages it. Contrary to what many people believe the FDA does no testing of drugs that are to be approved. Nor is there an objective third party that does tests. Rather the system the FDA employs has the drug company pay for and do the studies, and they only submit the studies that support the release of their drug. They are not required to submit failed ones.

That Pfizer withheld the critical data has been known for years, but newly unsealed documents showed this was all part of a carefully calculated plan by Pfizer and Pharmacia execs. While medical directors and scientists at the company expressed feeling uncomfortable with the “data massaging” and “cherry picking” of data, the powers that be moved full steam ahead with their deceptive marketing blitz.

Another reason that you might not be surprised about this report is that Pfizer purchased Monsanto and spun it off as subsidiary called Pharmacia in 1997.ii Most readers of this newsletter will instantly recognize that the bastion of evil, Monsanto, would not be out of place with this type of behavior.

The New York Times reported:iii

“The documents suggest that officials made a strategic decision during the early trial to be less than forthcoming about the drug’s safety. They show that executives considered attacking the trial’s design before they even knew the results and disregarded the advice of an employee and an outside consultant who had argued the companies should disclose the fact that they were using incomplete data.

… The documents show that in February 2000, Pharmacia employees came up with a game plan on how they might present the findings once they were available … Another document, a slide, proposed explaining poor results through “statistical glitches.””

Do You Still Trust Celebrex?

Celebrex is still being widely used, often by arthritis patients who are desperate for pain relief. But even if you overlook the fact that it’s made by a company that clearly puts profits ahead of patients, it’s much harder to shrug off the very real risks it poses to your heart.

Remember, Celebrex is in the same class of drugs as Vioxx and Bextra, both of which were pulled from the market because of serious heart risks or killing tens of thousands of people. Celebrex may still be on the market, but it is not immune to these risks!

In 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine released a study that discussed “a significant increase in adjudicated serious cardiovascular events with the use of celecoxib [Celebrex] … an increase in risk by a factor of two or three for … myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular-related death.” The risk was so severe that it “prompted suspension of the administration of celecoxib …”iv

Pfizer actually has a trial that’s ongoing right now that’s supposed to compare the heart risks of Celebrex to those of ibuprofen (Advil/Motrin) and naproxen (Aleve). But though it was started in 2005, it’s not slated to be completed until 2014 … the same year the Celebrex patent expires (at which point the company’s profits for the drug will dwindle … making negative study results far less impacting).

It’s widely known, however, that this painkiller has been linked to increased risks of stomach bleeding, kidney trouble, and liver damage – along with other adverse reactions that can range from mild to deadly. And it’s not at all unusual for a drug company to play up the “fabulous benefits” of their products while conveniently glossing over the fatalities they’ve caused … what would be unusual is if they didn’t.

Common Diabetes Drugs Associated with Increased Risk of Death

New studies regularly reveal the true risks of many medications, including popular varieties that are used by millions of people. For example, an analysis of nearly 24,000 patients with type 2 diabetes found that three diabetes drugs — glipizide, glyburide, and glimepiride – caused a more than 50 percent greater risk of death compared to another diabetes drug, Metformin.v The three drugs are known as sulfonylureas, which work by spurring your body to produce more insulin.

The drugs not only increased the risk of death among all patients, but among those with heart disease (which is common among those with diabetes), glipizide increased the risk of death by 41 percent, and glyburide by 38 percent compared to Metformin.

But simply switching to metformin, a drug that makes your body’s tissues more sensitive to insulin, is not the answer here, as type 2 diabetes can be effectively treated without medications in the vast majority of cases. In fact, drugs can’t cure diabetes, as they do nothing to address the underlying cause. To learn about the drug-free methods that can prevent, and reverse, diabetes, we published a report on this last month.

to read more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/09/lawsuit-against-pfizer-celebrex.aspx?e_cid=20120709_DNL_artNew_2