Hi, everyone! Get a load of this! Opinions please.

Report Predicts Massive Resistance to Mandatory AIDS Vaccine

By Wes Vernon

Thursday, June 21, 2001

WASHINGTON - A new report predicts massive resistance to a mandatory AIDS vaccine is coming in the U.S. in the next few years.

Millions of parents would refuse to have their children vaccinated by any variation of an HIV/AIDS shot, the Committee to Protect Medical Freedom said at a news conference Wednesday.

The paper, titled "If AIDS doesn't kill you, the AIDS vaccine will," declared an AIDS vaccine would have HIV in it.

Among those supporting the findings of the study was Dr. Howard Umovitz, a prominent member of a group of scientists calling for an HIV/AIDS vaccine moratorium.

Jim Turner, a Washington attorney and expert on the swine flu vaccine scandal of the 1970s, lent his support, as did Barbara Lee Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center. Redmond Handy, an opponent of the military's mandatory anthrax vaccination program, also warned of what he sees as the dangers of rushing into a mandatory AIDS vaccine program.

The thrust of the report, written by Clifford Kincaid, is that there's big money in rushing the an AIDS vaccine to market, some of it tied up in conflict-of-interest questions involving the promoters and their connections with companies that stand to benefit. More to the point, he says, there are indications that the vaccine, possibly to be administered to 11- to 12-year-old children, or perhaps earlier, contains a risk of inflicting the very disease it is intended to prevent.

Promoting the idea of a mandatory AIDS vaccine is United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan, along with high-tech magnate Bill Gates. Kincaid challenges them to take the vaccine themselves if they are so certain it is safe.

Some of the discussions on radio talk shows around the country indicate "the U.S. could witness massive civil disobedience against a massive mandatory HIV/AIDS vaccine. Parents want to know what is in the vaccine, and they should be told that it is a form of HIV that the government says can cause AIDS," the report alleges.

Jon Cohen, author of "Deep Denial," published by the New York Academy of Sciences earlier this year, is quoted as saying that "medical products sometimes do the opposite of what they are supposed to do, causing illness rather than alleviating it. Such risk, of course, is common to all drugs, but at least many sick patients accept that they would have fared poorly even without the ill-fated drug treatment. Vaccines, in contrast, are administered to [healthy] people, often children."

Which means the vaccine would be targeted at those without AIDS. Further, AIDS is most likely to be avoided by choosing a healthful way of life. The study asks: Does it make sense to subject innocent children or AIDS-free military personnel to a risk that could be greater than the that of the disease, depending on the habits chosen as they go forward in their lives?

Polio and smallpox, for example, could strike without warning. The public has been warned about AIDS and how to avoid it.

In anticipation of Wednesday's news conference, various health agencies have told Gannett News Service there was no plan to make the AIDS vaccine mandatory for any American.

But Kincaid, the director of the Committee to Protect American Freedoms, says the proof is available at the Web site of the U.S. Military HIV research program, where it is openly stated that AIDS vaccines under development will be "licensed and used to protect military personnel." These shots are not voluntary in the military service, he says.

Kincaid added that Dr. Deborah Brix, who runs the program, could have made the denial in the 30 days since he asked her in writing a series of questions about the program. His question included: "Who made the decision to use and mandate this vaccine on U.S. military personnel?"

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, reports that a member of the federal committee that recommends vaccine for children had said that an AIDS vaccine would be tested and then forced on all 12-year-old children.

Neal Halsey, M.D., chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Infectious Diseases, reminded HIV vaccine researchers and developers at a meeting in February 1997 of an advisory committee of the federal Centers for Disease Control that CDC plans to target 11- to 12-year-old children for "universal application" of an HIV vaccine.

The Kincaid study says "babies are being used as guinea pigs now." The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, under the auspices of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, is sponsoring an HIV vaccine test on babies born to HIV-infected women.

A spokesman for this program, where mothers have no ability to provide informed written consent, has admitted that "a small percentage of our trial applicants have become infected" and now have access to "the best medical care available."

One cannot get any details as to who the "guinea pigs" are. Have they chosen to remain anonymous? "Or are their identities being concealed because they are dead or dying?"

Dr. Umovitz, a member of a group of scientists calling for a moratorium on all HIV vaccine research, says coverage of "promising" vaccines is extremely misleading, and those being tested so far appear harmful and dangerous. Some undergoing trials increase the likelihood of infection and accelerate the disease. In a paper, he quotes Dr. Albert Sabin as saying the available data "provide no basis for testing any HIV vaccine in humans."

U.N. leader Anan and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has engaged in extensive research on AIDS, think an AIDS vaccine just may be a "secret weapon."

But the Committee to Protect Medical Freedom concludes: "What if the theory driving the vaccine research is scientifically bankrupt? ?. What if their war on AIDS proves to be a no-win war in which millions more die? Then the world will move on to the next crisis and the same people may still be in charge." ********************************************************************** OBRL News is a product of the non-profit Orgone Biophysical Research Lab Greensprings Research and Educational Center P.O. Box 1148 Ashland, OR 97520 USA Web: http://www.orgonelab.org Email: demeo@mind.net

Building upon the discoveries of the internationally acclaimed natural scientist, Dr. Wilhelm Reich

To subscribe to OBRL-News, send the message: subscribe obrl-news to the following address: Majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu (Plain text email only! No "HTML-mail"!)

Little bit Farm

-- Little Bit Farm (littlebit@compworldnet.com), June 29, 2001

Answers

Just a thought from strictly a medical person: (me)...Clinical trials as mentioned above always are balanced ones, so if a trial was administered to test an HIV vaccine on infants of HIV+ mothers, then a number of babies would be given the experimental vaccine and a number of babies would be given nothing. Statistically speaking, infants of HIV+ mothers already have a gloomy rate of developing active disease themselves, so it would be difficult to determine which babies got the disease despite the vaccine and which did not get the disease just "because" . A study would have to be years in the making and include babies whose mothers did not test HIV+..these children would have to be followed into adulthood to actually prove that the vaccine worked in this particular group. It is a proven medical fact that the use of weakened live virus in a vaccine provides darned good immunity. It is also a fact that if not enough live weakened virus is in the vaccine, the immunity does not last (such as measles vaccines). It is also a proven medical fact that when live weakened virus is used in a vaccine, some of the virus is communicable to immunosupressed folks. This is why the polio vaccine has now been switched from a live weakened virus to a dead virus vaccine. Because of the AIDs crisis, too many folks developed a mild form of polio after coming in contact with babies/toddlers who had received live weakened polio virus vaccine. As far as mandating vaccines, as a medical professional for umpteen years, I abhor the stance of some that vaccines are evil nasty things to be avoided. I request that those folks research the polio and measles epidemics where entire villages were wiped out in the late 1800's in this country by these diseases. On the other hand, I am against mandating vaccines which protect against diseases which can ONLY be transmitted through immoral behavior, such as HIV and Hepititis B. If folks kept their pants on, and illegal drugs out of their arms, we would not have these illnesses to worry about. Health care workers have been offered the Hep B vaccine for years now..I sure am glad that I got the vaccine after working for over 10 years around folks who have HepB. Sure we need a HIV vaccine, but only to protect unborn babies and other folks exposed to this illness. The concept of protecting teens from these illnesses by vaccines instead of advocating morality is frankly repulsive to me.

-- lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), June 29, 2001.

Lesley, sorry, but there are a lot of people who get Hep B, C, D, and now E, as well as Aids without having done anything deserving of it themselves. My sister has a very good friend the mother of three, who has never had sex with anyone but her husband whom she married at 19 years of age. She's really failing quickly. He was raped by his uncle when he was fifteen and never told anyone about it.

The authorities still aren't even sure of all the methods of transmission of Hep C. Or D and E.

Nonetheless, vaccines are really questionable as an approach to Aids because the data and supposition that research is done under is'nt completely proven. Where is the co efficient? Did it get found and I missed it? Could be....really, does anyone know?

I knew a guy who was repeatedly diagnosed as HIV+ in the 80's...I want to say it was 87, but don't make me promise that was the year. At any rate, he was still asymptomatic the last time I talked with him in '98. All he did was change his diet and not party as much as he had.

I think vaccinations CAN be good, but there are a number of things that cause me to be leery of them. I do vaccinate my animals. Not against everything under the sun, but for what is definitely a problem and vaccines have been proven to help. I wouldn't take a vaccination for HIV or for Hep for any reason. It sure seems like a panacea and the UN is pushing too hard for it, and I don't trust them a bit. Calvary and Indians??? One of the earliest biological warfare acts.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), June 29, 2001.

Perhaps I was not clear. Nobody "deserves" HIV or Hep B, and yes, there are folks who get these illnesses because of their partner's lifestyles, or folks who have been victimized, yet the vast majority of HIV infections as well as Hep B are due to sexual encounters or shared needles for IV drug use. I see nothing wrong and everything right with developing a vaccine against HIV, what I am against is the idea of making this vaccine mandatory. Hep B certainly is transmitted sexually as well as through blood access (needles). Hep B research has been around for nearly 30 years, and it is well documented how this transmission takes place. Hep C is a different story..it was only found as a separate disease in the late 1980's, early 1990's, so there has not been enough time to accurately conduct widespread research on it's transmission, treatment, etc. The hep B vaccine is safe and effective. The only question ever raised about it was in the early 80's when HIV was discovered. Hep B vaccine was then made from blood donations of folks who had the disease. Since many drug addicts sold their blood for research and development of the Hep B vaccine, there was great anxiety over the filtration system being able to also filter HIV virus from their blood since many addicts also had/have HIV . The method of making the vaccine was changed, not because they found it was unsafe, but because they found it COULD be unsafe. Vaccine research is very meticulous and is one of the most highly regulated medical industries in the world. Could a government subject it's citizens to mysterious mind-controlling drugs via a mass immunization guise? Of course it could, but it would be a more likely scenario to dump chemicals in the public water supply..you wouldn't have folks protesting. I am much more suspicious of the more mundane "services" that everybody takes for granted than I ever would be about vaccinations.

-- lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), June 30, 2001.

Thanks for clarifying what you were saying, Lesley. I must have not read it carefully enough.

-- Dreen (bisquit@here.com), June 30, 2001.

Regardless of what you have been told by school authorities, medical authorities etc, no vaccines in this country are mandatory (unless perhaps you are in the armed services in which case you have little say over your life!). For any vaccine, it is up to you as the patient or parent to make an informed an educated decision. It isn't always easy but it is your right to say no. Kim

-- kim (fleece@eritter.net), July 01, 2001.

I don't believe anyone here at my place is going to rush right out and get an HIV vaccination, or any other vaccination for that matter. Remember the polio vaccine? I'm old enough to remember when they did mass "vaccinations" by placing the vaccine on sugar cubes and than you ate it, and supposedly everyone would be OK forever. Well, for some it worked out OK, but for some of the others it turned out to GIVE them polio. No thank you. I'll let the gullible and the nervous nillies take their HIV shots first. Then, maybe in another 20 years or so they might know if it was safe or not.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), July 02, 2001.

Leslie - THANK YOU!!

I wouldn't have done it anyway - for several reasons - but you've addressed most of the concerns I would have had. I guess I am of the popular opinion on this one. Feels good to be a part of a majority for once, lol!

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), July 05, 2001.