US Court Rules Vaccine Implicit in Infant Death
The US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) ruled earlier this year on the involvement of vaccines in the unexpected death of an infant. While skeptics argue the NVICP’s decision is legal rather than scientific, the case is a landmark event in vaccine court rulings and is yet another link between adverse vaccine reaction and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). The case has offered thorough and persuasive evidence that vaccination ‘actually caused or substantially contributed’ to the child’s death. To date, the NVICP has paid out nearly $4 billion in compensation for death and injury related to vaccines, which is a significant sum for an intervention that the authorities maintain is safe. With mainstream research turning a seeming blind eye to the links between vaccination and serious adverse effects, how many more children will be sacrificed before proper action is taken? For more information on vaccine safety and consent, please visit our Vaccine Choice campaign resource page and consider signing our petition to stop the authorities from calling vaccines ‘safe’ .
Africa, vaccines and informed consent
The African continent is a prime target for vaccine manufacturers. News of an ethics row has emerged after scientists at Oxford University were accused of not providing sufficient information to South African families to give informed consent when agreeing to take part in a vaccine trial. In an interview with BBC’s File on Four Professor Peter Beverley said information relating to primate deaths following immunisation with the trial vaccine had not been disclosed to families. An investigation into Professor Beverley’s complaint found no evidence of wrongdoing, but instead concluded it, “would have been good practice for the potentially adverse reaction observed in the monkey experiment to be reported to the authorities in a more timely fashion.” There are increasing concerns over the safety of vaccines, particularly with the developments of new vaccines containing virus like particles. If you have concerns over the safety of vaccines please consider signing our petition calling on health authorities to stop claiming vaccines are ‘safe’.
Does screening prevent prostate cancer?
A new study would have you believe so. However, the PSA test used to screen men for possible prostate cancer, doesn’t necessarily do what it says on the tin! Despite ongoing controversy and criticism (even from Dr Richard Ablin who discovered the test) the study has suggested use of the blood test could reduce deaths from the disease by 20%. Film producer, director and Hollywood stunt rider, Peter Starr, focused on the myriad problems associated with the test in his documentary on prostate cancer. The biggest of which is that the test can produce a lot of false negatives, resulting in unnecessary treatments and worry for men diagnosed with the disease. Prostate Cancer UK acknowledges early diagnosis is important, but accepts the current PSA blood test can cause more harm than good. What is not well known is that some prostate cancers are very slow growing. Last year the ProtecT trial found that men, with slow-growing prostate cancer, who chose active surveillance had the same survival rate over 10 years as those that underwent treatment. Increasingly, evidence is finding that changes to diet and lifestyle can have a positive impact on the development, or not, of this cancer. If you have concerns about prostate cancer, please obtain a copy of Peter Starr’s invaluable docu-film. More information about positive changes to your diet to reduce your risk of developing prostate cancer or support your underlying health during treatment can be found in ANH-Intl’s Food4Health guidelines.