How We Become Unwilling Participants In Medical Trials
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis enrolled a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama. 399 of the men had previously contracted syphilis and 201 did not have the disease. The men were told that the study was only going to last six months, but it actually lasted 40 years. The researchers withheld penicillin and information about it from the study participants even after the antibiotic was proven to successfully treat syphilis. In addition, scientists prevented the Alabama men from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to other residents in the area. None of the men were ever told that they had the disease during the study. Rather, the investigators told the Alabama study participants that they were being treated for “bad blood.” The victims of the study included numerous men who died of syphilis, 40 wives who contracted the disease, and 19 children born with congenital syphilis. A leak to the press led to the Associated Press breaking the story in 1972. The Tuskegee study was ended that same year at the demand of an Ad Hoc Advisory Panel created to investigate the ethical violations at the request of the Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs.
Reuters reported recently that a federal judge in Maryland said The Johns Hopkins University, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co and the Rockefeller Foundation must face a $1 billion lawsuit over their roles in a 1940s U.S. government experiment that infected hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis. 444 victims and relatives of victims are suing over the experiment, which was aimed at testing the then-new drug penicillin. The experiment and methodology echoed the Tuskegee study deliberately leaving participants untreated for syphilis.
U.S. history is marred with highly unethical testing and procedures forced upon impoverished populations. Adding to the known abuses was recent admissions under oath by vaccine developer, and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, MD. During his time working on the rubella vaccine, Dr. Plotkin stated that in his experimental vaccine testing, he used babies of mothers in prison, orphans, individuals under colonial rule and “mentally retarded children.” Defending his position, Dr. Plotkin stated in his deposition that “in the 1960s it was not uncommon to do that” and “that was more or less common practice [in the 60s].” He went on years later in a 1973 letter to the editor of the Journal of Ethics on Human Experimentation saying, “The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential?”
Why are these historical examples important? Did researchers, regulatory agencies and doctors stop exposing populations to harm after they were caught? Unfortunately with the previous examples, it wasn’t until decades later that the truth became public, and only sometimes, some form of limited justice would be served.
Thalidomide was marketed as a cure to anxiety as well as a mild sleeping pill safe even for pregnant women. Animal tests did not look at the effects of the drug during pregnancy. The apparently harmless thalidomide was licensed in July 1956 for prescription-free over-the-counter sale in Germany and most European countries. The drug reduced morning sickness so it became popular with pregnant women. The following years saw a spike in the number of birth defects from the drug. It is now estimated that the drug injured and killed up to 100,000 people worldwide.
Rosiglitazone (trade name Avandia) was approved by the FDA as an antidiabetic drug in 1999. One of the safety concerns identified before approval was fluid retention. Moreover, the combination of rosiglitazone with insulin resulted in a higher rate of congestive heart failure. A meta analysis of all trials from 2010 confirmed a higher risk of heart failure and a double risk when rosiglitazone was given with insulin. In 2012, the U.S. Justice Department announced Avandia maker GlaxoSmithKline pled guilty and would pay a $3 billion fine, in part for withholding the results of two studies of the cardiovascular safety of Avandia between 2001 and 2007.
Numerous examples exist in the present-day vaccine industry of large swaths of the population serving as unwilling trial participants. Approved in 2006, Merck’s Gardasil human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine is now approved and being given to children and adults despite no true saline placebo being used in the clinical trial control groups. In addition, the shot has a history of overlooked injuries and self-selected adverse event reporting by Merck researchers during clinical trials. The HPV vaccine also has been given a free pass to have proprietary ingredients [in the form of an aluminum adjuvant] while being federally recommended and in some states mandated. The shot’s aluminum adjuvant has never been approved for injection or independently studied and its owner, Merck, refuses to allow outside researchers access to it.
After approval, widespread HPV injury is continually being reported all having similar etiology and much like Thalidomide, seen globally wherever the shot is given. Unfortunately, global health bodies and the orthodox health community has responded by blaming the HPV vaccine-injured saying that the symptoms are all in their heads. A similar tactic of false psychiatric certainty is also being used currently on children injured in the U.S. outbreak of acute flaccid myelitis. The consequences are catastrophic because the misdiagnosis can lead to a patient receiving treatment for a condition they don’t have or missing out on treatment for conditions they do have and in both cases wasting valuable time.
At a current meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) the approval of a new hepatitis B vaccine, HEPLISAV-B manufactured by Dynavax, took place. During the meeting, an ACIP committee member questioned the lead CDC working group member responsible for presenting the evidence on the shot about HEPLISAV’s unique adjuvant. When asked, “Is there any comment on using this vaccine with other adjuvanted vaccines?” The answer was, “We have no data to make a recommendation one way or the other.” When asked by another ACIP committee member if multiple adjuvanted vaccines are used in Europe or other markets,” the answer was “not to my knowledge.”
In the clinical trials, 14 people had heart attacks in the HEPLISAV group compared to only one in the ‘control’ group which received the existing standard hepatitis B vaccine with its own risk profile, not a saline placebo. Since the Dynavax group was twice as large, the heart attack risk was seven times higher with the new vaccine. STAT news writes, “The new adjuvant in the vaccine caused an inflammatory response of uncertain duration. We know that inflammation causes atherosclerotic plaques in coronary arteries to rupture — the event that triggers most heart attacks. So a causal link between the vaccine and heart attacks wasn’t out of the question.”
According to conventional medical thinking, in order to understand if the heart attack risk is real, post-marketing data would need to be collected and that is only possible if the vaccine is approved. The FDA representative at the ACIP meeting estimated the numbers would be in by May 31, 2020. Until then, here we are, the wider public is now officially post-marketing trial data with an experimental adjuvant already signaling a potential heart attack risk.
Is HEPLISAV the next Avandia in terms of its ability to cause heart attacks? It should be noted that shortly after ACIP approved Dynavax’s Hepatitis vaccine, Dr. Plotkin announced he would step down from its board of directors citing his pleasure with ACIP’s recent approval of his company’s vaccine.
Are medical professionals informing their patients receiving HEPLISAV that they are part of an ongoing safety study of unknown risk? Are those medical professional injecting the hepatitis B vaccine informing the recipients that there was a seven-fold increase in heart attacks in clinical trials? Has the medical industry learned from its early, unethical mistakes or is it business as usual?
Original Source: http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/how-we-become-unwilling-participants-in-medical-trials