WHO Refuses to Publish Report on Cancers and Birth Defects in Iraq Caused by Depleted Uranium Ammunition

September 16, 2013 by  
Filed under General News


The World Health Organisation (WHO)  has categorically refused in defiance of its own mandate to share evidence uncovered in Iraq that US military use of Depleted Uranium and other weapons have not only killed many civilians, but continue to result in the birth of deformed babies.

This issue was first brought to light in 2004 in a WHO expert report “on the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population resulting from depleted uranium (DU) weapons”. This earlier report was “held secret”, namely suppressed by the WHO:

The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organization (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO. (See Rob Edwards, WHO ‘Suppressed’ Scientific Study Into Depleted Uranium Cancer Fears in Iraq,  The Sunday Herald, February 24, 2004)

Almost nine years later,  a joint WHO- Iraqi Ministry of Health Report on cancers and birth defect in Iraq was to be released in November 2012. “It has been delayed repeatedly and now has no release date whatsoever.”

To this date the WHO study remains “classified”.

According to Hans von Sponeck, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations,

“The US government sought to prevent the WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.” (quoted in Mozhgan Savabieasfahani Rise of Cancers and Birth Defects in Iraq: World Health Organization Refuses to Release Data, Global Research, July 31, 2013

This tragedy in Iraq reminds one of US Chemical Weapons used in Vietnam. And that the US has failed to acknowledge or pay compensation or provide medical assistance to thousands of deformed children born and still being born due to American military use of Agent Orange throughout the country.

The millions of gallons of this chemical dumped on rural Vietnam were eagerly manufactured and sold to the Pentagon by companies Dupont, Monsanto and others greedy for huge profits.

Given the US record of failing to acknowledge its atrocities in warfare, I fear those mothers in Najaf and other Iraqi cities and towns advised not to attempt the birth of more children will never receive solace or help.

A United Nations that is no longer corrupted by the five Permanent Members of the Security Council is what is needed.


Mounting Evidence Shows Many Vaccines are Ineffective and Contribute to Rise of Outbreaks Caused by Mutated Viruses

July 30, 2012 by  
Filed under General News

By Dr. Mercola

In the middle of July, NBC News reported that :

“The U.S. is on course for a record year for  whooping cough, health officials said this week. And while vaccinating kids is  clearly the most important defense, health experts say adults may not realize  they’re supposed to be getting regular shots, too.”

The article goes on to hype what are actually  predictable pertussis (whooping cough) increases and promote the ineffective pertussis  vaccine—basically giving the media their marching orders for this fall’s  propaganda campaign, which centers on blaming  increases in pertussis on parents who file non-medical exemptions for their  kids, which is pure nonsense.

Surprise! Whooping Cough Spreads Mainly through Vaccinated  Populations

In 2010, the largest outbreak of  whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time,  a scare campaign was launched in the California by Pharma-funded medical trade  associations, state health officials and national media, targeting people  opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the  outbreak.

However, research published in March  of this year paints a very different picture than the one spread by the media .

In fact, the study showed that 81  percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18  occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven  percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series,  and only eight percent of those stricken  were unvaccinated.

According to the authors :

“This first detailed analysis of a recent  North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully  vaccinated older children. Starting  approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly  increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the  acellular vaccine.” [Emphasis  mine]

The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is  included as a component in “combination” shots that include tetanus and  diphtheria (DPT, DTaP, Tdap) and may also include polio, hepatitis B, and/or  Haemophilus Influenza B (Hib). CDC data shows  84 percent of children under the age of three have received at least FOUR DTaP  shots—which is the acellular pertussis vaccine that was approved in the United  States in 1996—yet, despite this high vaccination rate, whooping cough still  keeps circulating among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

So,  as clearly evidenced in this study, the vaccine likely provides very little, if  any, protection from the disease. In fact, the research suggests those who  are fully vaccinated may in fact be more  likely to get the disease than unvaccinated populations.

Why Do Pertussis Vaccines Fail Despite Claimed Efficacy?

Interestingly in a recent article published in the journal  Pediatrics , author James D. Cherry, MD, reveals that estimates for  pertussis vaccine efficacy have been significantly inflated due to the case  definitions adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1991, which  required laboratory confirmation and 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough. All less  severe cases were excluded.  He states:

“I was a  member of the WHO committee and disagreed with the primary case definition  because it was clear at that time that this definition would eliminate a  substantial number of cases and therefore inflate reported efficacy values. Nevertheless,  the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration  accepted this definition, and package inserts of the US-licensed DTaP vaccines reflect this

….For example, Infanrix… and Daptacel… have stated efficacies  of 84% and 85% respectively. When less severe cough illness is included, however,  the efficacies of these 2 vaccines decrease to 71% and 78% respectively. In  addition, even these latter efficacies are likely inflated owing to  investigator or parental compliance with the study protocol (observer bias).”

Dr. Cherry lists eight potential reasons for why the efficacy of pertussis  vaccines are overestimated:

  1.   Overexpectation of efficacy because of case definition.
  2.     Inflated estimates of efficacy because of observer bias.
  3.     Other Bordetella sp are the cause of similar cough illnesses.
  4.     Lack of initial potency.
  5.     Decay in antibody over time.
  6.     Incomplete antigen package.
  7.     Incorrect balance of antigens in the vaccine.
  8.     Genetic changes in B pertussis

Whooping Cough is Cyclical Disease

B. pertussis whooping cough is a  cyclical disease with natural increases that tend to occur every 4-5 years, no  matter how high the vaccination rate is in a population using DPT/DTaP or Tdap vaccines  on a widespread basis. Whole cell DPT vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950’s  until the late 1990’s were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and  studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after  seven years.

In the study cited above, the researchers noted  the vaccine’s effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a  dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-12 .

With this shockingly low rate of  DTaP vaccine effectiveness, the questionable solution public health officials  have come up with is to declare that everybody has to get three primary  shots and three follow-up booster shots in order to get long-lasting  protection —and  that’s provided the vaccine gives you any protection at all!

Why “Cocooning” Vaccines Does Not Work

Additionally, in a futile effort to  address the outbreak, the  American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)   started directing physicians, particularly pediatricians, to offer Tdap  vaccine to parents and close family members of babies under age 2 months, who  are too young to receive a pertussis-containing vaccine themselves. In a recent  study on this topic the researchers concluded:

“… the  parental cocoon program is inefficient and resource intensive for the  prevention of serious outcomes in early infancy.”

Cocooning,”  is a controversial practice and is being promoted by the AAP and government  health officials as a way of protecting babies from whooping cough and other  infectious diseases like influenza by vaccinating their parents and other adult  caregivers. However, there is little evidence to show that this works. In fact,  research from Canada has demonstrated just the opposite. Published last year,  this Canadian study investigated how many parents would need to be vaccinated  in order to prevent infant hospitalizations and deaths from pertussis using the  cocoon strategy ,  and the results were dismal. They found the  number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for parental immunization was at least one  million to prevent ONE infant death; approximately 100,000 for ICU  admission; and >10,000 for hospitalization.

Also Confirmed: U.S.  Varicella Vaccination Program is a Total Flop

In  related vaccine news, a recent review of the US varicella (chickenpox)  vaccination program published in May in the journal Vaccineconcluded the vaccine has:

  • Not  proven to be cost-effective
  • Increased  the incidence of shingles
  • Failed  to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and
  • Is  less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population  before the vaccine

Here,  vaccine efficacy is again questioned as the efficacy of the varicella vaccine was  found to have declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. The information was  gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years  since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although  statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, “CDC  authorities still claimed” that no increase had occurred.

The  authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity  to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine,  but also ignored the “rare serious events following varicella  vaccination” as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults:

“In the  prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as  children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective  than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal  varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles]  morbidity has disproportionately  offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal  varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV  disease.” [Emphasis  mine]

Ridiculous Claims about Herd  Immunity Achieved by HPV Vaccine

According  to a report in the journal Pediatrics ,  which has been praised in major media like Discover Magazine ,  the quadravalent vaccine for HPV, Gardasil, appears to be protecting young  people that haven’t even been vaccinated with it. Not only that, Gardasil has  accomplished this amazing feat in just four years―long before most vaccines  begin to show any sign of what’s known as “herd immunity.”

The  study looked at rates of HPV infection in a small group of teens and young  women at two primary care clinics, and found that infections from the  cancer-causing HPV strain had declined. Apparently, they also observed that  infections in women, who had not been vaccinated, had also declined. The team  concluded the overall decline in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated must have  been due to the vaccine! As per Discover Magazine, if the news pans out to be  true in further research, it will be “pretty exciting.”  Indeed, if this is true it would be an  outright miracle, considering the  fact that this theory is beyond ludicrous.

Consider  that claim in light of these facts:

  • In  the study, 59 percent of participants at two primary care clinics received the  HPV vaccine
  • According  to 2008 survey statistics, an estimated 25 percent of American adolescents 13  to 17 years old had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, and a mere  11 percent had received all 3 doses
  • By  2010 the vaccine uptake estimates had nearly doubled, with 48 percent of girls between  the ages of 13 and 17 having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine

It is  typically taught that the vaccine acquired herd immunity threshold is anywhere  between 80-95 percent of the population, depending on the disease. So, HOW  could the HPV vaccine confer herd immunity when, on a nationwide basis,  less  than half of teens and young women have received the vaccine (and the vast  majority of those have only received one-third of the recommended number of doses)?

Whenever  an outbreak of disease occurs, government health officials are always quick to  point the finger at those who are unvaccinated, stating that it’s because of  them that vaccine induced herd immunity was not achieved, thereby allowing the  disease to flourish (although they rarely if ever offer an explanation for why  so many vaccinated people get sick when they should theoretically be immune).  For most diseases, vaccine-induced herd immunity cannot be achieved unless 80-95  percent of the population is vaccinated against the disease in question. So  truly, for the HPV vaccine to suddenly confer herd immunity at less than 50  percent coverage would be nothing short of a miracle.

This “study”  is nothing but marketing masquerading as science.

Discover  magazine also didn’t mention the fact that at least five individuals on the  seven-member team making these over-the-top claims are paid speakers and  consultants for Merck, or have received research funds from Merck to develop  this vaccine―meaning this wasn’t exactly an independent, outside group with no  conflicting interests in the outcome. Please also note that the president of  the Merck Vaccine Division, Julie Gerberding, is the former head of the CDC.

Discover  also didn’t mention that the rates of the rates of sexual activity—the primary  way HPV is spread—had also declined during the years of the study period, which  could indicate that the reason HPV infection rates went down was not “herd”  immunity acquired from the vaccine, but rather that fewer young people were  having sex.

read more:http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/30/whooping-cough-vaccine.aspx


UPDATE 2-Deadly bird flu studies to stay secret for now – WHO

February 18, 2012 by  
Filed under General News

(Adds source close to U.S. biosecurity board, WHO quotes)

By Stephanie Nebehay and Kate Kelland

GENEVA/LONDON Feb 17 (Reuters) – Two studies showing how scientists mutated the H5N1 bird flu virus into a form that could cause a deadly human pandemic will be published only after experts fully assess the risks, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Friday.

Speaking after a high-level meeting of flu experts and U.S. security officials in Geneva, a WHO official said an agreement had been reached in principle to keep details of the controversial work secret until deeper risk analyses have been carried out.

“There is a preference from a public health perspective for full disclosure of the information in these two studies. However there are significant public concerns surrounding this research that should first be addressed,” said Keiji Fukuda, the WHO’s assistant director-general for health security and environment.

The WHO called the meeting to break a deadlock between scientists who have studied the mutations needed to make H5N1 bird flu transmit between mammals, and the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), which wanted the work censored before it was published in scientific journals.

Biosecurity experts fear mutated forms of the virus that research teams in The Netherlands and the United States independently created could escape or fall into the wrong hands and be used to spark a pandemic worse than the 1918-19 outbreak of Spanish flu that killed up to 40 million people.

WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl said that because of these fears, “there must be a much fuller discussion of risk and benefits of research in this area and risks of virus itself”.

But a scientist close to the NSABB who spoke to Reuters immediately after the decision said the board was deeply “frustrated” by it.

The only NSABB member attending the meeting was infectious disease expert Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University and he “got the hell beat out of him”, the source said.

“It was a closed meeting dominated by flu people who have a vested interest in continuing this kind of work,” he added.

The WHO said experts at the meeting included lead researchers of the two studies, scientific journals interested in publishing the research, funders of the research, countries who provided the viruses, bioethicists and directors from several WHO-linked laboratories specialising in influenza.



The H5N1 virus, first detected in Hong Kong in 1997, is entrenched among poultry in many countries, mainly in Asia, but so far remains in a form that is hard for humans to catch.

It is known to have infected nearly 600 people worldwide since 2003, killing half of them, a far higher death rate than the H1N1 swine flu which caused a flu pandemic in 2009/2010.

Last year two teams of scientists – one led by Ron Fouchier at Erasmus Medical Center and another led by Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin – said they had found that just a handful of mutations would allow H5N1 to spread like ordinary flu between mammals, and remain as deadly as it is now.

This type of research is seen as vital for scientists to be able to develop vaccines, diagnostic tests and anti-viral drugs that could be deployed in the event of an H5N1 pandemic.

In December, the NSABB asked two leading scientific journals, Nature and Science, to withhold details of the research for fear it could be used by bioterrorists.

They said a potentially deadlier form of bird flu poses one of the gravest known threats to humans and justified the unprecedented call to censor the research.

The WHO voiced concern, and flu researchers from around the world declared a 60-day moratorium on Jan. 20 on “any research involving highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 viruses” that produce easily contagious forms.

Fouchier, who took part in the two-day meeting at the WHO which ended on Friday, said the consensus of experts and officials there was “that in the interest of public health, the full paper should be published” at some future date.

“This was based on the high public health impact of this work and the need to share the details of the studies with a very big community in the interest of science, surveillance and public health on the whole,” he told reporters.

In its current form, people can contract H5N1 only through close contact with ducks, chickens, or other birds that carry it, and not from infected individuals.

But H5N1 can acquire mutations that allow it to live in the upper respiratory tract rather than the lower, and the Dutch and U.S. researchers found a way to make it travel via airborne droplets between infected ferrets. Flu viruses are thought to behave similarly in the animals and in people.

Asked about the potential bioterrorism risks of his and the U.S. team’s work, Fouchier said “it was the view of the entire group” at the meeting that the risks that this particular virus or flu viruses in general could be used as bioterrorism agents “would be very, very slim”.

“The risks are not nil, but they are very, very small,” he said. (Additional reporting by Sharon Begley in New York; editing by Andrew Roche)