HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0525.017 2008-2010
Page 1 of 8
CcM z «P cou NCM
Murashige, Laura `A- FT 2
From: Roxanne Hampton [rhampton@co.hawaii.hi.us]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:21 PM 2009 OCT 19 PM `4 25
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us GQ" y:-,,
Subject: FW. r. Horowitz Replies to Dr. Pang Re: Hawaii H1 N1 Vaccinatiaft,@Ig fVs. BffnOfif~i,~
From: Lorrin Pang [mailto:panghi@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:40 AM
To: 'Leonard Horowitz'; 'Roxanne Hampton'
Cc: 'Acdal, Lorraine'; 'Mitch Fine'; 'Tiffany Edwards Hunt'; 'Dixon, Marlena I.C.'; 'David Corrigan'
Subject: RE: Dr. Horowitz Replies to Dr. Pang Re: Hawaii H1N1 Vaccination Risks Vs. Benefits
Let me respond to the most alarming point made by Dr Horowitz, Table 1. The test of a "new" product, the live
Flumist should be tested against both the standard (injectable) and against a placebo. From Table I one can only
compare between the products and I was not using this internal comparison to negligently or fraudulently prove
safety as Dr Horowitz suggests:
"The experimental and control groups both used vaccinations. Saline solution used by the
control group would have provided a more reliable assessment of risks of vaccination
intoxications and adverse events. Regardless of the reason this was done, the use of "active
controls" grossly biases the safety studies. The fact is, a claim of H1N1 vaccine safety, given
this bogus experimental design, is grossly negligent and fraudulent.... In other words, in most
safety studies of H1N1 vaccines, (as in Table 1 below) the experimental and control groups
were both given solutions that would cause approximately equal numbers of adverse events.
Thus, the statistical differences between the groups were significantly reduced, and because of
this health officials, including Dr. Pang here, falsely allege "proven safety."
Form Table 1 it looks like the less than 2 age group did worse than standard with Flumist
so the recommendation for flumist is only for those >2. That is the purpose of Table 1. So let us
talk of this older 2-5 yr group.
The data that Dr Horowitz asks for is in the next table, Table 2 (only for the 2-5 age
group) <http://www.medimmune.com/pdf/products/flumist_pi.pdf> of the same package insert.
That table list only those side effects which were >1 % AND for which the Flumist rates were
greater than the placebo. I do not see wheezing, GI or respiratory infection listed -so I guess that
these were not greater than placebo. Probably will call the company tomorrow to confirm. Still
it seems from table 1 that there were high rates (regardless of comparison to standard) of
hospitalizations and wheezing (for all age gropus). I see that the former occurred over 180 days
post vaccine and the latter over 42 days. Could it be that these rates of 2% in the 2-5 year olds
are "background" rates seen in the placebo control kids? Seems a little high from what I recall
from my Peds rotation or is this an especially "aware" group from just being in the study itself.
Guess we should call the company to confirm this.
As Dr Horowitz suggests we really need to see the data of the 2400 subjects tested with
the swine flu vaccine (that I/Fauci allude to) to see if they distorted the data as he describes
above - or did they compare to placebo control groups (or perhaps saw nothing and so did not
need a control group?). The real point of table 1 is that <2 years behaves very differently than
those 2-5. More worrisome than what Dr Horowitz brings up or what he attributes to me is that
when one stratifies the 2400 into subgroups (say the very young and the pregnant) numbers get
very small and the uncertainty of side effects get rather large. I am not enamored with the CDC
_X
Comm. No•~~~~~
Ref. To:
10/19/2009 Ref. Data OCT 21 2009
Page 2 of 8
but have found that the drug/vaccine unit of the FDA is pretty reliable regarding
preclinical trials and carrying forth to recommendations.
Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH
-----Original Message-----
From: Leonard Horowitz [mailto:lenl5@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:34 PM
To: Roxanne Hampton
Cc: 'Lorrin Pang'; Acdal, Lorraine; 'Mitch Fine'; Tiffany Edwards Hunt'; 'Dixon, Marlena I.C.'; 'David
Corrigan'
Subject: Dr. Horowitz Replies to Dr. Pang Re: Hawaii HINI Vaccination Risks Vs. Benefits
Dr. Lorrin Pang, Hawaii State Department of Health, has written the following regarding HINI
vaccines. Alternatively, I have expressed my comments in blue following statements of concern:
"First the benefits:
For population of 100,000, based on what we have seen so far in the US swine flu is
predicted to eventually infect half (50,000). Of this we expect about 250 deaths (half a
percent).
This is a most common pseudo-scientific conclusion alleged by those with grossly
conflicting interests or blind biases engaged in "public health."
The FACT is, this assignment of cause and effect for 250 deaths from HINI for "half a
percent" of the infected population is far less certain than Thimerosal's link to neuro-
developmental and behavioral disorders (e.g., autistic spectrum) in vaccinated children.
People in all pandemic flu "risk groups" die of myriad co-factors, not simply HIN1
infections, most commonly from drug intoxications and pharmacological immunosuppression.
For all we know, and it is far more reasonable to propose this, the vast majority of Dr.
Pang's "half a percent" died of drug side effects, drug interactions, or immunological
intoxications from previous vaccinations or corticosteroid administration.
The vaccine is about 95% effective so if everyone were vaccinated only 12 deaths would
occur, a reduction of 238. Most of these predictions are based on observations, not theories.
A reading of the scientific literature tells otherwise. It is a specious speculation
that "only 12 deaths would occur" from the HINI vaccines. Typically, in HINI vaccine studies,
experimental subjects have only been observed for days or up to six weeks. Most of the many
vaccine-induced autoimmune diseases and cancers require months and years to develop. Then,
after that length of time, there is no way to know for sure that a vaccine triggered the "adverse
event." So Dr. Pang's conjecture is misleading and not based on legitimate "observations"
required to prove vaccine efficacy. The vaccines, thus, cannot be relied upon to reduce deaths,
and are patently unsafe,
10/19/2009
Page 3 of 8
The safety:
Before it was released the best I can tell is that the vaccine was tested in 2400 people,
with no serious side effects or deaths seen. Because the number of subjects is not huge there is
an associated uncertainty with this zero rate of serious effects /death. The 95 % confidence
interval is (0 - .15%), which correlates to 0-150 per 100,000. Let us be "conservative" and worse
case the side effects to say it might be 150.
Frankly, the statement "the best I can tell, the vaccine was tested in 2400 people,
with no serious side effects or deaths seen," is sadly remiss and tragically biased. First, there is
no disclosure about which vaccine are we analyzing. There are several manufacturers and
different vaccines being tested by each. Some with adjuvants; some with no adjuvants. Some
with Thimerosal mercury; and others without mercury. So where is the hard data? And more
importantly, what was the study design?
These vaccines were "fast-tracked." Meaning the safety testing was "grandfathered" in
from older seasonal flu vaccine studies. Read those studies and WEEP. The experimental and
control groups both used vaccinations. Saline solution used by the control group would have
provided a more reliable assessment of risks of vaccination intoxications and adverse events.
Regardless of the reason this was done, the use of "active controls" grossly biases the safety
studies. The fact is, a claim of HIN1 vaccine safety, given this bogus experimental design, is
grossly negligent and fraudulent.
In other words, in most safety studies of HIN1 vaccines, (as in Table 1 below) the
experimental and control groups were both given solutions that would cause approximately
equal numbers of adverse events. Thus, the statistical differences between the groups were
significantly reduced, and because of this health officials, including Dr. Pang here, falsely
allege "proven safety." You can't fool all of the people all of the time...
The alternatives:
Despite massive efforts at education to prevent illness swine flu continues its rapid
spread. Tamiflu is looking to be more and more ineffective unless given very early in the course
of the illness - something quite impractical. The alternatives are an order of magnitude
worse than the vaccine.
What a grossly negligent summary of "alternatives!" What about silver hydrosols for
people who can afford them? What about Vitamins C and D? Why did the government spend
billions of dollars exclusively stockpiling toxic vaccines and Tamiflu, but resisting the mountain
of science proving silver hydrosols, developed by NASA to keep astronauts healthy in space,
provide broad spectrum protection against viruses and bacteria, and they are far safer and more
effective than vaccinations and Tamiflu (thank you Donald Rumsfeld!) What about the many
natural remedies and preventatives used for centuries successfully in developing and native
nations? All grossly neglected by our pubic health protectors.
Dr. Pang wrote, "massive efforts at education to prevent illness" had been administered.
Hog wash! The commercials to wash hands and wear masks is far from "massive!" Why were
schools and workplaces not sent memos from the CDC urging low cost natural methods of
alkalinizing body chemistry through pH adjusted hydration and good nutrition?
10/19/2009
Page 4 of 8
Preventive education gets between 1-2% of the CDC's annual budget. I would not call
that "massive." I would call the stockpiling of these vaccines "massive."
Bottom line is for 100,000 people would you give a vaccine which in the worse case results in
150 severe side effects to prevent 238 swine flu deaths? Yes, the benefits outweigh the side
effects.
This analysis and "bottom line" is false, misleading, and extremely dangerous for the reasons
stated above, improper safety testing study design, and conjectured efficacy. There are more
unreliability concerns detailed below.
Note:
1) So far this argument applies to the general population with a death rate from swine flu of
5 per 1000. If you look at high risk groups (underlying disease or pregnancy) the death
rate is much higher and the benefit to safety argument favor even more the giving of the
vaccine.
This conclusion is false, misleading, and extremely dangerous also for the reasons stated above
and below. Common sense tells you if "high risk groups" are people with "underlying diseases
or pregnancy," certainly those with underlying diseases have already weakened immune systems
due to the disease taxing it. Stress itself is a severe immunological retardant. It stands to simple
reason that if you inject people with immune system taxing man-made, genetically "reverse-
engineered" viruses, transmitting foreign DNA, RNA, proteins, chicken embryo antigens,
mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, and more chemical toxins in adjuvanted
vaccines (e.g., squalene, nonoxynol-9 spermicide, IL-2 etc., etc.) you are likely to substantially
assault the immune system, and weaken it significantly. This common sense conclusion is
supported by a recent, highly disturbing, Canadian study that has prompted Health Canada
officials to suspend flu vaccines due to the 2-fold increase in susceptibility to getting a serious
case of H1N1 swine flu in persons previously vaccinated against the seasonal flu 2007-2009.
The study sample was more than a million persons over two years. The respectable data and
paper is currently undergoing peer review.
even adjuvants which have not
2) Arguments of fhimerisof toxicity, method of production, ~
been used) etc, etc. are all covered by the observation of the 2400 vaccinated. We saw
no severe side effects (I'm going to trust that we are not lied to on this point) .
Furthermore these 2400 were monitored for several weeks - when all the rapid onset
side effects (including Guillain_Barre) would show. The only thing which we might
miss are the late side effects (slow virus - which should be killed since we use the same
processing as seasonal flu vaccine and late occurring birth defects).
CLASSIC STATEMENT: "I AM GOING TO TRUST THAT WE ARE NOT LIED TO ON
THIS POINT." What makes Dr. Pang even say this? Do you think it might have
something to do with the grossly obvious conflicting interests between vaccine industrialists,
government health officials, and media moguls, including those who influence scientific
publications? Does this doubt have anything to do with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the
National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), America's leading promoter of
the H1N1 swine flu vaccines, receiving royalties from vaccine companies for his co-patented
Interleukin 2 (IL-2), considered a fundamental adjuvant for proprietary vaccine formulations?
10/19/2009
Page 5 of 8
Does this tempered faith have anything to do with the fact that the Rockefeller family has
controlled American medicine and public health since the early 1900s, including the genetics
and cancer industries, according to ALL medical historians. Sen. Jay Rockefeller currently
spearheads the nation's democratic healthcare reform plan, while his brother David Rockefeller
heavily influences the UN, WHO, CIA that oversees, for "national security" of course, Dr.
Fauci's NIAID, and the Partnership for New York City (PFNYC)-the world's premier
biotechnology trust, with partner Thomas Glocer, Merck & Co. Director and Reuter's News
Service Editor-n-Chief. Glocer broke the H1N1 story along with Rupert Murdoch, David
Rockefeller's Co-Chairman directing the PFNYC. Does this doubt have anything to do with
Rupert Murdoch's mother, Elisabeth Murdoch, directing the Royal Women's Hospital in
Australia where Merck & Co's subsidiary, CSL, did all the H1N1 vaccine testing on pregnant
women and babies? Does Dr. Pang not trust Murdochs and Rockefellers?
Dr. Pang also wrote, "The only thing which we might miss are the late side effects (slow virus-
which should be killed since we use the same processing as seasonal flu vaccine... Another
CLASSIC STATEMENT-"We might miss should be killed." Does Dr. Pang recall the
hepatitis B vaccines administered to gay men in NYC, Willowbrook State School mentally
retarded children on Staten Island, and Central African villagers between 1972-1974 produced
in chimpanzees that transmitted such a "slow virus" we call HIV/AIDS today? Does Dr. Pang
recall the Salk polio vaccines that that contained SV40 that should have been killed by
formaldehyde also, but was not? Similarly, the Sabin vaccine spread cancer around the world
also.
You can be sure these FACTS about vaccines alleged to be safe too, has left their mark on Dr.
Pang's mind, thus explaining his disclaimer.
3) The situation in 1976 will show that the risk of serious side effects (Guillain- Barre) of
12 per million to that vaccine outweighed the benefits. This is because even if the side
effect rate was very low, the transmission of Swine flu in 1976 (outside or the Army
base) was near zero, nearly no benefits. With no benefits even low rates of side effects
imply that we should not give the vaccine. Note that testing of "only" 2400 this year
could "miss" detecting this low rate of side effects BUT because the 2009 benefits are so
large we don't care about teasing out the rates of side effects that are this low.
The above statement is sinfully absurd and reflects gross criminal official malfeasance, because
people are getting sick and dying from trusting this propaganda! Dr. Pang knows very well that
Guillain-Barre is only one of more than a dozen vaccine-linked autoimmune diseases, and there
are many more serious adverse vaccination reactions than simply autoimmune diseases.
Dr. Pang cites this 1976 risk rate for serious side effects of only "12 per million" from Lasky,
et. al, New England J of Med., Volume 339:1797-1802, December 17, 1998. This was not what
most health scientists would consider a definitive study. In fact, these authors disclaimed, "This
study highlights the difficulty of relying on passive surveillance (such as VAERS) alone-for
identifying true issues of concern regarding vaccine safety.28" In essence, what they are saying
is that their statistics are unreliable because of the virtually non-existent adverse event reporting
system between 1992-1994, and earlier.
Compare the following Table 1 with Dr. Pang's absurd statistic: 12 per million = 0.000012 .
FluMiste is a registered trademark of Medlmmune, LLC.
10/19/2009
Page 6 of 8
Manufactured by:
MedImmune, LLC
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
1-877-633-4411
Issue Date: June 2009 R-AL-FLUV9
U.S. Government License No. 1799
Table 1
Percentages of Children with Hospitalizations and Wheezing from MI-CPI 11
Adverse Reaction Age Group FluMist Active Controla
6-23 months (n = 3967) 4.2 % 3.2 %
Hospitalizationsb
24-59 months (n= 4385) 2.1 % 2.5 %
6-23 months (n = 3967) 5.9 % 3.8 %
Wheezing
24-59 months (n = 4385)°2.1 % 2.5 %
a
Injectable influenza vaccine made by Sanofi Pasteur Inc.
b
From randomization through 180 days post last vaccination.
C
Wheezing requiring bronchodilator therapy or with significant respiratory symptoms evaluated from
randomization through 42 days post last vaccination.
Most hospitalizations observed were gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections and occurred
more than 6 weeks post vaccination. In post hoc analysis, rates of hospitalization in children
6-11 months of age (n = 1376) were 6.1% in F1uMist recipients and 2.6% in active control
recipients.
This Table 1 sources from the package insert from the manufacturer of flu mist, the nasal spray,
MedImmune. Notice the controls (as I previously wrote) did not snort saline solution, they were
made to snort, or were injected with, "injectable influenza vaccine made by Sanofi Pasteur Inc."
to provide false assurances of safety. Notice the hospitalization rates due to severe adverse
reactions ranged from 2.1 to nearly 6% in both groups.
Thus, given this year's flumist vaccine, if 12 million people are made to snort this toxic spray, 2
percent minimally, would be expected to require hospitalization. That is 240,000 people! Take
5 percent and you have more than a half million people....
This is why studies show the vast majority of health professionals who got vaccinated said they
would never do it again, they felt so sick afterwards!
Now think about this. Dr. Pang is claiming statistics for the 1976 adverse event reporting system
are reliable, when in fact, the reporting system was virtually non-existent at that time!
According to the CDC, and Lasky, et. al, cited above, even during the 1990s, 90 percent of
vaccine illnesses and injuries went unreported!
So it is obvious that Dr. Pang has not made a simple forgivable mistake here. This is not
excusable neglect in the legal sense... THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AT
STAKE, AND PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
SUCH DEADLY LAPSES OF INTEGRITY.
10/19/2009
Page 7 of 8
12
4) The "benefits" might be to the individual or to society. When the individual benefits are
below the risks of side effects - but one is asked to take the vaccine to protect the public -
then we have moral dilemma. In this case 1, personally could not force anyone to take
the vaccine. I could deny unvaccinated staff to come to work since unvaccinated staff
could put the public at risk. I believe that by the time mandatory vaccines are even
envisioned the personal and the public benefit EACH will far outweigh the risk. This is
especially true if the swine flu turns more deadly.
In other words, Dr. Pang implies in this unreasonable analysis, what is good for the
individual is bad for the society. In fact, public health officials create a moral dilemma by
forcing "herd immunity" upon people who rebuke "herd mentality" that is driving sheeple to
their slaughter.
Honestly, vaccinated staff, given Flumist and other "live" or "active" viral inoculations,
shed virus for several days following vaccinations. Possibly up to 3 weeks, although peaking at
3 days. Is Dr. Pang going to home quarantine the health department's vaccinated staff for days
or weeks for becoming a risk to the public's health? Not likely, which indicates hypocrisy.
Does Dr. Pang worry that the new HIM vaccine-inoculated "active" reverse-engineered
viral recombinant-this "triple reassortant" HINI, a highly unstable, easily mutated, laboratory
created virus-might recombine with other more deadly viruses naturally circulating, including
possibly H5N1? Not likely, which indicates insanity more than hypocrisy!
Why does Dr. Pang choose to neglect the scenario health officials envision,
wherein "mandatory" vaccines will be justified, most likely resulting from this dangerous,
deadly, arguably demonic vaccine campaign that may bring H5N 1 together with H IN 1 killing
60% of billions infected? Does Dr. Pang know so little about virology, genetics, and molecular
biology to be clueless that this HIM vaccination campaign represents the greatest risk for
creating the worst-case scenario?
In conclusion, the proposed RESOLUTION for the State of Hawaii should be celebrated,
not simply passed, because it does four essential things:
1) It discourages ignorant health officials, who arrogantly claim to be experts, from
overstepping their authority potentially killing masses of people smart enough to avoid
risky vaccinations;
2) It teaches health officials to respect real science and common sense in the public's
interest;
3) It affirms allegiance to the U.S. Constitutional covenants of freedom of choice,
particularly freedom of religion, and required compensation for the stolen property of
natural immunity. That is, it respects the 1St and 5th Amendments to the Constitution;
4) It honors God's two most precious gifts ever given to humanity-a) free will to choose
wisely one's bodily fate; and b) natural immunity free from intoxication from
vaccinations to sustain the innate birthright for health as has been done without medicine
10/19/2009
Page 8 of 8
or much thanks from the beginning of the human race.
Respectfully submitted,
Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH, DNM, DMM
10/19/2009