You Might also like
By Elliot Booker — 3 years ago
Just as Black Men were targeted and injected with drugs for the Tuskegee Experiment, and Black Women in the U.S. and other countries injected, some forcibly with contraceptive drug Depo-Provera. We must start understanding what and whom we are dealing with. Please read the article and leave comments.
Minority Report: A Covert CDC Program Inoculated Black Babies with Deadly, Experimental Measles Vaccines
By Neil Z. MillerA Senior Scientist with the CDC, Dr. William Thompson, recently admitted that he and his co-authors intentionally omitted statistically significant information from their 2004 study that was published in the journal Pediatrics. The excluded data showed that “African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”(1,2) Dr. Brian Hooker, an independent scientist, re-analyzed the original CDC data and published his results confirming that “African American boys receiving their first MMR vaccine before 36 months of age are 3.4 times more likely to develop autism” when compared to African-American boys who receive MMR after 36 months of age.(3)
For more than 10 years, the CDC buried scientific evidence that young Black boys who receive the MMR vaccine have a significantly increased risk of developing autism. The CDC kept this crucial information confidential. The CDC refused to warn the public. The parents of Black babies were not provided with informed consent and their human rights were violated.
Concerned parents are now wondering whether this callous and potentially criminal behavior by the CDC is a one-time fluke or part of a larger pattern. Actually, the CDC and World Health Organization (WHO) have a history of violating the human rights of Black families by unethically experimenting on their babies with dangerous measles vaccines.
A CDC and WHO Catastrophe
In developing countries where children are malnourished and health care is inadequate, measles fatality rates between 5 and 10 percent are possible.(4-6) However, infants up to five months old are usually protected by maternal antibodies that they received during birth.(7-9) Standard measles vaccines do not work in babies under nine months of age.(10) Thus, authorities reasoned that if an effective vaccine could be developed for this vulnerable period — from 5 to 9 months of age — the measles death rate could be lowered.
Scientists pinned their hopes for a new measles vaccine on “high-titer” shots that are up to 500 times more potent than standard measles vaccines.(11) In the early 1980s, they tested one of these — the Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ-HT) strain — on Mexican and Gambian babies 4 to 6 months old.(12-15) During the next few years this high-titer measles vaccine was also tested on babies in Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Senegal, Haiti, and impoverished minority communities in Los Angeles, California.(16-22) The general public was informed that EZ-HT “produces a better immunological response than standard vaccines,” but a large, randomized controlled study published in The Lancet confirms that it was experimental and deadly.(17)
The Senegal study
From 1987 to 1989, scientists set up a research center near 30 remote villages in central Senegal. Their stated primary objective was to study the clinical efficacy of two high-titer measles vaccines: Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ-HT) and Schwartz (SW-HT).(17) However, researchers had already done several studies demonstrating that high-titer measles vaccines produce a better immunological response than standard vaccines when given to children younger than nine months and as early as four months.(13-16; 18-21) Therefore, scientists conducting the Senegal study might have had another agenda. In fact, an elaborate “mortality surveillance” was established to check safety, evaluate the vaccination strategy, and perform “independent checks on child deaths.”(17)
Researchers might have suspected the vaccine was dangerous when the results of earlier studies began to filter in. But they were probably reluctant to abandon their high-titer shot without testing it at least one more time to be sure. Senegal must have seemed ideal; the region was extremely remote, and less than 4% of the mothers who “consented” to the study were literate.(17)
To begin the study, researchers randomly assigned comparable children to three vaccine groups: a) EZ-HT administered at five months; b) SW-HT given at five months; and c) placebo at five months, followed by a standard low-titer measles vaccine at 10 months. All of the children were followed for up to three years. When the results were tabulated (using eight statistical procedures) it became clear that children who received the high-titer measles vaccines had significantly higher mortality at 41 months than children in the standard low-titer measles vaccine group. But they were not dying from measles. Most of the deaths were from other common childhood diseases. Apparently, the high-titer measles vaccines lowered overall immunity making the children fatally susceptible to diarrhea, dysentery, malaria, malnutrition, acute respiratory ailments, and other infectious diseases.(17)
Children who received the Schwartz strain (SW-HT) died of other diseases at a rate 51% higher than children who received a standard vaccine. There were 48 excess deaths for every 1000 babies vaccinated. Children who received the Edmonston-Zagreb strain (EZ-HT) died of other diseases at a rate 80% higher than children who received a standard vaccine. There were 75 excess deaths for every 1000 babies vaccinated.(17) Mortality remained consistently high in the second and third year after the EZ-HT vaccine was administered, whereas it declined substantially in the control group. One of every six babies vaccinated with EZ-HT died within three years.(17)
When it started to become clear that mortality in the high-titer vaccine groups was excessive, researchers refused to end the study. Instead, they sought out new babies to take part in more tests of their deadly shots.(17) They said, “these findings suggest a need to reconsider the use of high-titer measles vaccines early in life in less developed countries.”(17) [Author’s emphasis added.] The implication is that EZ-HT and EZ-SW may be okay for use in more developed countries. In fact, the Senegal researchers were willing to develop “other strategies to reduce mortality from early measles,” but apparently only “if these findings are confirmed in other settings.”(17)
The Los Angeles study
Vaccine researchers were unwilling to abandon their deadly Edmonston-Zagreb high-titer measles vaccine. Instead, they set up a study base in Los Angeles, California. In 1990, three years after the Senegal study was initiated, the first American Black and Hispanic babies were inoculated with EZ-HT.(22)
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC knew about the high mortality associated with EZ-HT but considered the data “preliminary.”(23) Thus, the Los Angeles trials were permitted to occur. However, Dr. Joanne Hatim, an active proponent of vaccine safety, questioned the experimental study and was able to muster public outrage.(22) In 1991, the Los Angeles trials were halted, but not before nearly 1500 minority babies were experimented on.(24)
The CDC was dishonest about the Los Angeles study on several points, both before and after it was conducted:
1) The “informed consent” form provided to parents violated U.S. and internationally accepted ethical codes of conduct regulating human experimentation. The mothers and fathers of the babies who were used as research subjects were not informed that EZ-HT was unlicensed in the U.S. It was registered as an investigational new drug to be used for experimental and research purposes only.(22) Nor were they informed of earlier studies in Guinea-Bissau, Senegal and Haiti where the EZ-HT measles vaccine had shown a significant increase in mortality.(22) The Los Angeles babies were used as sacrificial guinea pigs because it was well established before they were injected that this experimental vaccine was a killer.(22)
2) Parents were told that millions of doses of the Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine had already been used in Europe. But the Los Angeles, California babies were not receiving that vaccine; they were being injected with the significantly more potent, high-titer shot.(22)
3) The CDC claimed that the communities targeted for the experimental vaccine were hardest hit by a recent outbreak of measles. Babies in Inglewood, East Los Angeles, and West Los Angeles received the shots.(24) However, according to data obtained from the Los Angeles County Department of Health, 14 of 24 regions within Los Angeles County had a greater number of confirmed measles cases than East Los Angeles, and 16 of 24 regions had more measles than West Los Angeles. Inglewood was ranked fourth. In other words, communities targeted for the experimental shots were not hardest hit by the recent outbreak of measles.(22)
The three regions chosen to receive the experimental shots were predominantly Black and Hispanic. In fact, 88% of the babies were minorities. Several mixed-race and White communities harder hit by the recent outbreak of measles were not chosen to participate in the study.(22
4) The CDC claimed that no children were adversely affected by the experimental vaccines. However, one baby died from a rare bacterial disease.(24) Furthermore, according to investigative journalist Keidi Obi Awadu, several children “experienced what parents are describing as long-term immune system impairment, seizures and other acute conditions consistent with vaccine-induced injury.”(22)
5) Dr. Stephen Hadler, director of the epidemiology and surveillance division of the CDC’s national immunization program, claimed that babies died in the earlier studies because they were malnourished and did not have access to adequate health care.(24) However, the Senegal study emphasized that “the three vaccine groups were comparable as regards various social, family, and health characteristics.”(17) If the babies vaccinated with high-titer shots were malnourished, so were the babies in the control group, yet mortality was 80% higher in the group receiving EZ-HT.(17) Regarding the claim that babies did not have adequate health care, the Senegal study also noted that “intensive medical care [was] provided during the project.”(17) For example, “Free drugs and medical services were provided to all children. As a consequence, overall mortality was substantially lower than during the three preceding years.”(17)
6) The Los Angeles study might have had a hidden agenda. In Senegal, researchers established that “there was no significant difference within the study group in mortality by sex,”(17) yet scientists claimed the vaccine had a “mysterious gender bias,” with girls more likely to suffer from the vaccine-induced delayed mortality.(23) E. Richard Stiehm, an immunologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, speculated that girls mount a superior immune response to the measles vaccine, then suffer from a hypersensitivity that leaves them immunologically disadvantaged later on. Kenneth Bart, director of the National Vaccine Program Office in Rockville, Maryland, provided a sociological explanation: boys and girls probably get sick equally in the years after vaccination, but girls receive less adequate health care causing them to die at greater rates. However, Lauri Markowitz, an epidemiologist with the CDC, thought there might be a biological explanation, and claimed there is no evidence that boys in the earlier studies were treated better than girls. To shed light on this gender enigma, Markowitz planned to measure antibody levels and immune cell counts in Los Angeles children who received the high-titer vaccine.(23) Is it possible that these babies’ lives were placed in jeopardy to satisfy scientific curiosity and settle an academic debate?
In 1990, WHO requested 250 million doses of the deadly EZ-HT measles vaccine to be dispensed throughout the world.(22) However, data from Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, and Haiti continued to confirm that EZ-HT doesn’t save lives — it increases mortality.(23) By June of 1992, the link was irrefutable; WHO called for a moratorium on use of the disputed vaccine.(23) By some estimates, this might have prevented 18 million baby deaths.(22) Four years later, the CDC issued a tepid letter of regret by declaring, “a mistake was made.”(24) Yet, the entire debacle was unnecessary. In the Senegal study conclusion, the authors refer to a Togo study that used a low-titer measles vaccine and produced a good immunogenic response at six months.(20)
Researchers also discussed another Senegal study where standard measles vaccines “were safe, even when given at 4-6 months.”(17) Furthermore, “since most complications of measles occur during the 2nd and 3rd weeks after onset, early treatment is possible.”(17) In fact, “a systematic treatment of complications in [the other Senegal study] reduced the case-fatality rate among children below three years of age by 78%.”(17) Thus, non-fatal options were available.
A top scientist at the CDC recently admitted that he and his co-authors omitted crucial information from a study that was published 10 years ago. The excluded information showed that “African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”(1,2) Less than 20 years before their study was published, the CDC tested deadly, experimental measles vaccines on African infants and then again on inner-city American babies. These examples provide strong evidence that the CDC is engaged in a pattern of cavalier, unethical and potentially criminal behavior whereby the human rights of Black families and minority children are being violated. You should trust the CDC and their measles vaccines, including MMR, at your own peril.
1. DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, et al. “Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta.” Pediatrics 2004 Feb; 113(2): 259-66.
2. Press Release. “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., regarding the 2004 article examining the possibility of a relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.” August 27, 2014. www.morganverkamp.com
3. Hooker BS. “Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data.” Translational Neurodegeneration 2014 Aug 8; 3: 16.
4. Henderson RH, et al. “Immunizing the children of the world: progress and prospects.” Bull WHO 1988; 66: 535-43.
5. Hayden GF, et al. “Progress in worldwide control and elimination of disease through immunization.” J of Pediatrics 1989; 114: 520-27.
6. Gold E. “Current progress in measles eradication in the U.S.” Infect Med 1997; 14(4): 297-300; 310.
7. Van Ginneken JK, et al. Maternal and Child Health in Rural Kenya. (London: Croom Helm, 1984).
8. Black FL, et al. “Geographic variation in infant loss of maternal measles antibody and in prevalence of rubella antibody.” American J. of Epidemiology 1986; 124: 442-52.
9. Garenne M, et al. “Pattern of exposure and measles mortality in Senegal.” J of Infectious Diseases 1990; 161: 1088-94.
10. WHO-EPI. “The optimal age for measles immunization.” Weekly Epidemiology Records 1982; 57: 89-91.
11. Job JS, et al. “Successful immunization of infants at 6 months of age with high dose Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine.” Pediatric Infect Dis J 1991 April; 10(4): 303-311.
12. Sabin AB, et al. “Successful immunization of children with and without maternal antibody by aerosolized measles vaccine. I. Different results with undiluted human diploid cell and chick embryo fibroblast vaccines.” JAMA 1983; 249: 2651-62.
13. Sabin AB, et al. “Successful immunization of children with and without maternal antibody by aerosolized measles vaccine. II. Vaccine comparisons and evidence for multiple antibody response.” JAMA 1984; 251: 2363-71.
14. Whittle HC, et al. “Immunisation of 4-6 month old Gambian infants with Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine.” Lancet 1984; ii: 834-37.
15. Whittle HC, et al. “Trial of high-dose Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine in The Gambia: antibody response and side-effects.” Lancet 1988; ii: 811-814.
16. Aaby P, et al. “Trial of high-dose Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine in Guinea-Bissau: protective efficacy.” Lancet 1988; i: 809-811.
17. Garenne M, et al. “Child mortality after high-titre measles vaccines: prospective study in Senegal.” Lancet 1991; 338: 903-7.
18. Whittle HC. “Effect of dose and strain of vaccine on success of measles vaccination of infants aged 4-5 months.” Lancet 1988; i: 963-66.
19. Khanum S, et al. “Comparison of Edmonston-Zagreb and Schwartz strains of measles vaccine given by aerosol or subcutaneous injection.” Lancet 1987; i: 150-53.
20. Tidjani O, et al. “Serological effects of Edmonston-Zagreb, Schwartz, and AIK-C measles vaccine strains given at ages 4-5 or 8-10 months.” Lancet 1989; ii: 1357-60.
21. Markowitz LE, et al. “Immunization of six-month-old infants with different doses of Edmonston-Zagreb and Schwartz measles vaccines.” NEJM 1990; 332: 580-87.
22. Awadu KO. Outrage! How Babies Were Used as Guinea Pigs in an L.A. County Vaccine Experiment. (Long Beach, CA: Conscious Rastra Press, 1996).
23. Weiss R. “Measles battle loses potent weapon.” Sci 1992 Oct. 23: 546-47.
24. Cimons M. “CDC says it erred in measles study.” L.A. Times (June 17, 1996).
Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the author of several articles and books on vaccines, including Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Parents and Health Practitioners.
http://www.blackisbackcoalition.org/2013/09/14/depo-provera-deadly-violence-against-women/Post Views: 161
Time for an Awakening with Bro. Elliott 2/02/18 guest Stacy Nzinga Hill Philadelphia Black History CollaborativeBy Elliot Booker — 1 year ago
“Time for an Awakening” for Friday 02/02/2018 at 8:00 PM (EST) guests was Stacy Nzinga Hill of the Philadelphia Black History Collaborative. Sister Hill informed us about this years conference, and the initiatives being pushed by the Phila Collaborative. In 2018, from the need to develop a new mindset in our communities, to our political and economic empowerment, the solution to these problems must come from us. Always information, insights and dialogue from a Black PerspectivePost Views: 172
By Elliot Booker — 2 years ago
The U.S. has deployed at least 1,500 troops to the Sahel and sub-Saharan regions, with little public debate and what experts call an unclear strategy.
America’s little-known war on terrorists in Africa is becoming more perilous as the U.S. deploys growing numbers of troops to the continent’s most lawless regions, including the part of Niger where four special operations soldiers died in an ambush last week.
The escalation is occurring with little public debate — and, some military experts say, too little attention from top decision-makers in Washington. The U.S. military presence in the Sahel and sub-Saharan regions has grown to at least 1,500 troops, roughly triple the official number of American troops in Syria, according to Pentagon and White House figures.
As with Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the dispatch of hundreds of additional U.S. troops to countries like Niger, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Uganda and South Sudan is another instance where President Donald Trump’s “America First” rhetoric hasn’t kept his administration from being drawn deeper into far-flung war zones. And the U.S. lacks a comprehensive strategy for pursuing its mission in Africa, military and intelligence experts told POLITICO.
“I don’t think there is any congressional oversight in this,” said Michael Shurkin, a former CIA analyst specializing in Africa who is now a researcher at the Rand Corp., a Pentagon-funded think tank.
He also pointed to vacancies in top policymaking posts in the State and Defense departments, saying they’ve left military operations such as Africa Command and its special operations component “pretty much doing their own thing.”
“It is not that there is a good policy or bad policy,” Shurkin said. “There is just no policy. It is inertia.”
Last week’s deadly attack has thrust into the limelight a series of dangerous military deployments that normally receive scant attention compared with the far larger military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A central focus of the mission is the vast desert nation of Niger, nearly twice the size of Texas, which has been a magnet for jihadists of many stripes, including those recruited locally and so-called foreign fighters drawn from North Africa, the Middle East and beyond.
In June, the official number of U.S. troops supporting Niger’s military as it fights the militant groups was 645, up from 575 in December 2016. But now it’s at least 800, according to the Pentagon.
Many of the troops are Green Berets, Navy SEALs and Marine Raiders, but officials said the reinforcements have mostly been Air Force personnel who are there to manage a surge in surveillance flights by unmanned drones and manned spy planes.
That’s a significant jump from the 100 troops that then-President Barack Obama deployed to Niger in 2013, notes a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. “This trend has coincided with sizable increases in U.S. security assistance for African countries over the past decade, of which Niger has been a major beneficiary.”
Plans are also underway to accommodate more forces, including $50 million that the Air Force requested to construct an air strip in the northern city of Agadez, considered one of the most volatile areas of the country.
The U.S. military presence has also been expanding elsewhere in the region.
As of June, another 300 U.S. troops were operating in neighboring Cameroon, up from 285 in December, according to the White House notifications to Congress required under the War Powers Act.
A Pentagon spokeswoman, Maj. Audricia Harris, confirmed the increase in American troops in Niger but did not respond to inquiries about more up-to-date U.S. troop levels elsewhere in the region.
U.S. intelligence has warned in recent months about the growing Islamic militant threat in the region that stretches from Mali in the northwest to South Sudan and Uganda in East Africa — and a number of countries in between.
“In North and West Africa, al-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) escalated its attacks on Westerners in 2016 with two high-profile attacks in Burkina Faso and Cote d’lvoire,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, reported to Congress in May. “It merged with allies in 2017 to form a new group intended to promote unity among Mali-based jihadists, extend the jihad beyond the Sahara and Sahel region, increase military action, and speed up recruitment of fighters.”
Current and former military officials say the distinction between advising and combat is blurring as U.S. troops expand their footprint and increase the patrols they conduct in terrorist sanctuaries alongside local allies.
“You’re damn right they’re in harm’s way,” said a former military officer with direct knowledge of the Africa operations who was not authorized to speak publicly, “because we are accompanying the indigenous forces and those forces are fighting an active, thinking enemy there.”
The level of danger to U.S. troops had been on display even before the deadly ambush in Niger last week.
Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee, said after the attack that “this was the first attack on U.S. forces on the ground in Niger.”
But two military officers — one current and one former — with direct knowledge of the operations in Niger told POLITICO that troops had previously been injured by an improvised explosive device or mine, though it remains unclear whether Americans were deliberately targeted in that incident.
The ill-fated patrol last week was an Expeditionary Forces mission, in a part of the country where troops are trying to hunt down and disrupt convoys of smugglers who travel through Niger’s open brush land from Mali and Chad to Libya carrying arms and terrorist funds. It is one of several areas in the broader Lake Chad Basin where advisers accompany the Expeditionary Forces and other local units.
While the Americans “stay back from actual raid,” the former military officer related, sometimes advisers have been under fire.
“We would go to the last covered and concealed spot” when going along with partner forces on a combat mission and then stay back from the actual raid, the former military source said. “But of course there’s no concealment out there” in an arid landscape with little vegetation to hide behind.
But as the military effort ramps up, so have concerns that the Trump administration lacks a comprehensive strategy for the region. Such a strategy would also emphasize more non-military tools such as economic aid and cooperation with allies to strengthen democratic institutions in some of the world’s poorest nations.
“There is a tendency to militarize things by deferring to the military,” Shurkin said, adding that the military effort “should be part of a larger strategy that will include other types of assistance.”
“You will end up with this piecemeal approach — focused on military stuff but in a very narrow way,” he added, noting that the U.S. military is only training a few elite units in these nations.
A senior State Department official on Wednesday told Congress that the administration is seeking to do more to assist countries hardest hit by the scourge of terrorist groups.
Donald Yamamoto, an acting assistant secretary of state, told a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that the the administration’s $5.2 billion foreign aid budget next year will give priority to Mali, Nigeria and other African nations where Islamic terrorist groups have gained strength.
He called promoting these fragile states “a critical priority for the United States in Africa.”
But Congress received a warning last week that the larger U.S. military presence, along with that of other allies like the French, may already be angering local populations prone to the jihadist message.
“The growing foreign military footprint in the country appears to have fed a local backlash against both the government and Western countries,” the Congressional Research Service report said.
“One risk is that it is ineffectual and we are wasting money,” Shurkin said of the African counterterrorism mission. “We can also make things worse. Mucking around you bound to inflame things, exacerbate problems. We have no idea who these people are, which could be very, very dangerous.”
Army Lt. Gen. Kenneth Tovo, who oversees all Army special operations forces, pledged in an address Wednesday to the Association of the United States Army in Washington to get to the bottom of what happened to the troops killed in Niger last week.
“I think we owe that to the American people, we owe that to the mothers, fathers, and wives of the fallen, to look critically from every echelon to see if we can do our job better,” Tovo said. “I think it highlights the fact that really every mission around the world that we’re undertaking has got elements of risk.”
Both military sources with knowledge of the Niger operations questioned just how much the missions are accomplishing.
“I would be hesitant to say we and the Nigeriens are having significant effects in that part of Niger up near Mali,” said the former officer.
“We’re having an effect,” he added. “Is it going to win the war? No, because the war will never end.Post Views: 124