Dr. Lewis points out that many books have been written on corporate influence on scientific and academic integrity. However, he states that corporate influence is just a subset of a much larger problem – the government’s own agenda and policies which dictate and even predetermine research outcomes. Advocates have observed this phenomenon time and again in the government’s study of autism causation. Government-sponsored scientists have focused on genetic and environmental factors linked to autism and chronic disease while publishing studies with flawed statistical analyses and other deceptive tactics to obscure any connections with vaccines recommended by the CDC.
Who is Causing Viral Epidemics? Consumers or the Medical Industry Designed to Protect Us?…
Turn your signature into dozens more by sharing this petition and recruiting people you know to sign.
You Your Friends Their Friends
170 10,000
avg. approx.
My name is Marie-Océane Bourguignon and I am 18 years old. I would like to have a life like other girls my age but the Gardasil vaccine has filled my life with suffering.
When I was 15, I received two injections of this vaccine prescribed to prevent cervical cancer. As a result of this, I suffer with a central nervous system disorder which has left me disabled and plagues my everyday life with fatigue, joint pains and difficulty concentrating. This makes it very hard for me to continue my studies. Due to all the adverse effects, I often miss school.
My life is not what it should be for a girl my age. I can no longer go out with friends during the day or in the evening: I am too exhausted. The trips to the beach which I used to love (we live near the sea in the Landes region of France) are now over because I can no longer tolerate heat and the sun. As a student, I would like to get a part-time or summer job, but my condition makes this impossible.
According to medical examiners, my ailments were caused by the aluminium salts in the Gardasil vaccine. More and more lawsuits are being filed against the manufacturer of this vaccine in France, an increasing number of doctors are questioning its usefulness and the French health authorities acknowledge that Pap smears are the most effective way to screen for cervical cancer, but the government is still pushing for all young girls to have this vaccine!
We must take action to prevent any more Gardasil victims. I have therefore launched this petition, backed by French vaccine victim support groups E3M, REVAHB, CNMSE and Amalyste. We call upon French Minister of Social Affairs Marisol Touraine, to declare a moratorium on the widespread use of this vaccination and to initiate impartial research into its usefulness.
The more signatures we have, the more the government will listen to us and not the pharmaceutical companies. Please sign and circulate this message.
Bordeaux: On September 18, 2013, Judge Patrick Mairé handed down a decision stating Gardasil was 50% responsible for the permanent injury of a French teenager who had received two injections of the HPV vaccine. The other 50% was attributed to a genetic pre-disposition for autoimmune disorders. Judge Mairé presides over lawsuits filed with a regional branch of the CRCI in France, which is the equivalent of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) court in the United States.
Marie –Océane’s parents, Jean-Jacques and Yveline Bourguignon, have granted permission for their daughter’s story to be published hoping they can help make people aware of the potential risks involved with HPV vaccinations. They do not want anyone else to go through what they have experienced without knowing of the possibility in advance.
In 2010, Marie-Océane Bourguignon, age 15, received two injections of Gardasil® the first on October 11th and the second on December 13th. Two weeks after the first injection, she experienced sensory and motor problems in the upper limbs, lasting approximately two weeks before spontaneously and gradually regressing.
Three months after the second injection, on the 13th of March 2011, Mlle. Bourguignon was hospitalized at Centre Hospitalier de Dax for deterioration in her general health, cerebral-vestibular disturbances and sensory-motor impairment (ataxia, vertigo). On March 15, 2011, an MRI of her brain revealed lesions in the white matter.
The initial diagnosis was that she was suffering from either multiple sclerosis or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). After multiple subsequent hospitalizations, it was determined that Marie had developed multiple sclerosis, a chronic, typically progressive disease involving damage to the sheaths of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, whose symptoms may include numbness, impairment of speech and of muscular coordination, blurred vision, and severe fatigue. Marie-Océane will live with this condition for the rest of her life.
Consequently, her parents filed for compensation on her behalf with CRCI, Regional Medical Injury Arbitration and Compensation Tribunal in Bordeaux on January 28, 2012. The decision was handed down on September 18, 2013.
The decision handed down by Judge Mairé was kindly translated into English by Helen Kimball-Brooke and is printed below in its entirety. The Bourguignon family had been successful. They could have accepted the compensation award from the French vaccine compensation program and gone on to live their lives.
But this family knew they were not the only ones to have had their lives turned upside down after using the HPV vaccine, Gardasil. They knew that the decision by CRCI would not be widely publicized in order to warn other families about the potential risks involved with the use of HPV vaccines.
Consequently, they decided to turn down the award and take their case to a traditional criminal court where the outcome of the adjudication could be made public. They decided that a just decision for their family was simply not good enough. They wanted justice for all victims of adverse events after Gardasil. They wanted to have the opportunity to warn others about the potential risks involved with consenting to the use of HPV vaccines. They wanted the opportunity to let the public be aware of the fact that HPV vaccines can be quite dangerous for some individuals.
The Decision Handed Down by the French Vaccine Injury Court:
CRCI
REGIONAL MEDICAL INJURY
ARBITRATION AND COMPENSATION
TRIBUNAL
NOTICE
(Article L.1142-8 of the French Public Health Code)
Case: Marie-Océane Bourguignon
File Number: 12.033.C.000071
THE AQUITAINE REGION MEDICAL INJURY, IATROGENIC AILMENT AND NOSOCOMIAL INFECTION ARBITRATION AND COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL, HELD IN BORDEAUX ON THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2013 AND FORMED TO REACH AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
Considering the French public health code, articles L. 1142-1 to L. 1142-24, D. 1142-1 to D. 1142-3 and R. 1142-13 to R. 1142-18 in particular; modified French Law no. 2002-303 of the 4th March 2002, regarding patients’ rights and the quality of the health system; also considering the French Order of the 4th March 2003 regarding the documentary evidence to be included in a compensation request lodged with a regional medical injury, iatrogenic ailment and nosocomial infection arbitration and compensation tribunal,
Considering the compensation request lodged with the secretariat of the Tribunal on the 28th of January 2012 and deemed to be complete the same day, by Mr. Jean-Jacques Bourguignon and Mrs. Yveline Bourguignon, née Cazaux, acting as the legal representatives for their daughter Marie-Océane Bourguignon, born on the 10th of June 1995, a claim then renewed on the 26th of July 2013 in the names of Mme. Marie-Océane Bourguignon and as indirect victims, Mr. and Mrs. Bourguignon, who are hereby suing:
– Dr. Fabienne Chatelet
– SNC Sanofi-Pasteur MSD, 8 rue Jonas Salk, 69007, Lyon 07, insured by Marsh S.A.
Considering the various items of evidence included in the file,
Considering that Dr. François Rouanet, neurologist, and Dr. Larbi Benali, medical examiner, specialist in compensation for injury, had been appointed by the presiding judge as co-examiners on the 31st of May 2012,
Considering the medical examination report submitted on the 26th of June 2013,
Considering the statement submitted by Attorney Coubris on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Bourguignon,
Considering the statement submitted by Attorney Annie Berland on behalf of Dr. Chatelet,
Considering the statement submitted by Attorney Cécile Derycke on behalf of Sanofi-Pasteur,
Considering the following which was presented during the hearing
The case presentation report by Judge Patrick Mairé, presiding judge, the reports by Drs. Rouanet and Benali, along with the observations made by Attorney Coubris representing Mlle. Océane Bourguignon and her parents, Attorney Annie Berland representing Dr. Chatelet and Attorney Cécile Derycke representing Sanofi-Pasteur.
The tribunal pronounced on:
1. The circumstances:
In 2010, Marie-Océane Bourguignon, age 15 at the time, received two injections of Gardasil ®, a vaccine used to prevent cervical cancer, the first on the 11th of October and the second on the 13th of December that year. The vaccines were administered by her regular doctor, Dr. Fabienne Chatelet.
Two weeks after the first injection, she experienced sensory and motor problems in the upper limbs, lasting approximately two weeks before spontaneously and gradually regressing.
Three months after the second injection, on the 13th of March 2011, Mlle. Bourguignon was hospitalized at Centre Hospitalier de Dax, the main hospital in Dax, France, for deterioration in her general health, cerebral-vestibular disturbances and sensory-motor impairment (ataxia, vertigo).
She was successfully treated with steroids.
An MRI of the brain was performed on the 15th of March 2011 and revealed lesions in the white matter.
The initial diagnosis was that she was suffering from either multiple sclerosis or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM).
Mlle. Bourguignon was later hospitalized on several occasions for the same cerebral-vestibular episodes and progressive flare-ups of inflammation until multiple sclerosis was finally diagnosed after she responded well to treatment with Tysabri ®.
On the day of the medical examination, Mlle. Bourguignon had not recovered her health due to the progressive nature of her pathology.
Mlle. Bourguignon does not display any neurological deficiency or functional disability but she is unable to walk more than 1 km. She takes mild analgesics for headaches and abdominal pains. She complains that she has difficulty concentrating and suffers from vertigo.
She feels that Sanofi Pasteur MSD should compensate her for the injury sustained which she attributes to the two injections of Gardasil ® she received.
2. On the Jurisdiction:
Considering that Mlle. Bourguignon’s illness restricts her to life-long clinical and radiological supervision as well as a constant feeling of anxiety regarding the expected course of her disease, it is clear that Mlle. Bourguignon experiences particularly serious deterioration in her quality of life, including financial problems, and this justifies the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
3. On the Substance:
3.1. Responsibility of Dr. Chatelet
It is clear from the two medical examination reports and the information which the examiners provided to the tribunal that before administering the second injection, Dr. Chatelet performed a full clinical examination of Mlle. Bourguignon and did not observe any residual neurological disorder from the reaction which occurred immediately after the first injection. She could legitimately have attributed these sensory and motor disorders to an epicondylitis, particularly since the vaccine package insert did not include any mention of the type of reaction her patient had displayed.
There are therefore no grounds for claiming that she is responsible for any fault especially as the plaintiff does not reproach her for anything.
3.2. Responsibility of Sanofi-Pasteur
The two medical examiners were unable to agree on the diagnosis of the first inflammatory episode so they submitted their reports separately. Dr. Rouanet felt that it was not possible to specify with certainty whether the first episode could be attributed to a flare-up of multiple sclerosis or to acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Dr. Benali on the other hand felt that the first episode was a kind of pediatric ADEM. Aside from the failure to agree on this point, which had no medical or legal impact on the case, the two medical examiners did agree on the fact that this first episode represented the beginning of a vaccine-induced neurological demyelinating inflammatory cascade.
They both concluded categorically that the neurological disorders presented by Mlle Bourguignon had been triggered by the immune decompensation of an unknown prior condition, a decompensation secondary to the vaccination process which led to the initial vaccine-induced acute demyelination, the prodromal physio-pathological substrate for a secondary multiple sclerosis, which is the currently accepted diagnosis.
The medical examiners were unable to establish a direct causal link with GARDASIL ®, stating “that there are no scientific grounds to incriminate GARDASIL ® as the only causal factor for the demyelinating inflammatory pathologies of the central nervous system.”
They did however feel that “the vaccine-induced demyelinating inflammatory cascade from which the plaintiff suffers presents all the objective characteristics of medical and legal imputability.
They concluded, after completing a conscientious examination of all the items in the file and substantiating their observations with information from scientific literature, that there is a definite causal link between the first injection of the vaccine and the onset of an acute inflammatory reaction in the central nervous system which then later, after the second injection, led to decompensation of a latent immune process.
They felt that total imputability of the observed damage to the vaccination could be assessed at 50%.
It was not up to the Tribunal to make a general pronouncement on whether the vaccine was defective since a discussion of the public health benefits and risks of the vaccine in question was not on the agenda but it was however expected to determine whether, given the defective nature of the doses administered, the facts before it represented serious, specific and corroborating evidence regarding both Mlle Bourguignon’s personal situation and the specific circumstances (French Court of Appeal, 1st civil, 10 July 2013. Appeal # 12-21314).
In the case in point, the medical examiners had observed that Mlle Bourguignon presented with a family history of genetic vulnerability making her susceptible to the potential onset of a dysfunctional immune demyelination of the central nervous system.
Her sensory and motor disorders were triggered two weeks after the first injection and then regressed. Later, two months after the second injection, a cerebral-vestibular syndrome and a sensory-motor condition appeared.
According to the medical examiners, given the substrate of the central nervous system, the vaccination as an immunity stimulator played a role in the onset of the dysfunctional immune and inflammatory cascade. Stimulation of the immune system by the antigens in vaccines can indeed trigger an autoimmune pathology when there is a genetic predisposition against a particular hormonal and environmental background.
What stands out from the two reports therefore is that there is specific and corroborating serious evidence based not only on chronological sequence but also on factors specific to Mlle Bourguignon. This is sufficient to establish the link between the two injections of Gardasil which Mlle. Bourguignon received and the onset of her multiple sclerosis.
The patient was not informed of the possibility of such a risk and was therefore not granted the safety she could lawfully have expected. The vaccine package insert does not mention the risk of central nervous system inflammation while this risk has been scientifically established by medical experts and was known at the time of vaccine authorization. This is an unusual risk inherent in the vaccination act itself, which does not always result in multiple sclerosis but in the case in point, the risk was real, and due to a predisposition, multiple sclerosis was triggered.
The manufacturer is therefore deemed responsible as per articles 1386-1 and 1386-4 of the French Civil Code.
Sanofi Pasteur MSD’s insurance company must therefore make an offer of compensation for the injury caused.
4. The Injury:
Mlle. Bourguignon has not recovered her health.
The injury, with the exception of her two-year absence from school, was totally and properly assessed as is by the medical examiners. The examiners formally excluded any temporary aesthetic injury.
According to the examiners, 50% of the injury sustained was due to a pre-existing condition.
Judgment:
Article 1: Sanofi-Pasteur MSD’s insurance company, Marsh S.A. must make Mlle. Bourguignon an offer of compensation amounting to 50% of her claims as specified below:
– Temporary Total Functional Disability: 73 days from 13th March to 2nd September 2011, dates as specified by the medical examiners.
– Temporary Partial Functional Disability:
Category IV: 41 days from the 22nd March to the 1st April 2011, then later from the 9th April 2011 to the 8th May 2011.
Category III: 10 days from the 27th May to the 5th June 2011
Category II: 62 days from the 1st March to the 18th August 2011, then later from the 3rd September 2011 to the 30th October 2012 which was the day of the medical examination.
– Assistance of an Unskilled Third Party Assistant (her mother):
3 hours per day during the periods of category IV temporary functional disability,
2 hours per day during the periods of category III temporary functional disability,
1 hour per day during the periods of category II temporary functional disability.
– Permanent Functional Disability at the minimum rate of 5%
– Absence from School: loss of two academic years
– Suffering experienced: assessed at the minimum rate of 4/7
Article 2: If Mlle. Marie-Océane Bourguignon does not receive an offer within four months from receipt of this notice, it will be her responsibility to request ONIAM (Office National d’Indemnisation des Accidents Médicaux, the French National Medical Injury Compensation Authority) to come up with an alternative offer.
Article 3: This notice will be sent to all interested parties, to ONIAM and to the lawyers and insurance companies concerned, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt.
A copy will be sent to Mlle. Marie-Océane Bourguignon’s medical team within her local Social Security unit.
Presiding Judge
Patrick Mairé
(A special thanks from the SaneVax Team to Helen Kimball-Brooke for providing the translation of this document.)
Marie –Océane, thank you to you and your parents in leading the way for so many other families affected by Gardasil/Silgard/Cervarix injuries. It is great news that French authorities have granted an award for the difficulties, and congratulations for taking the next step with a criminal court. How considerate and gracious of your family to think of others at such a challenging time, and make efforts to get the word out to other families so they do not incur these same difficulties.
Your actions speak highly of you, and I have included a video clip as a little gift. I find that uplifting entertainment is good for the soul. I hope you and your family enjoy the following clip.
Don’t these stories just make you laugh? CDC, WHO, and pharmaceutical industry sponsored research such as: old moms and old dad’s cause autism, living next to a freeway causes autism, autism begins in the womb, or this new research that shows autism may be connected to a woman’s use of antidepressants during pregnancy?
Two things are clear: one is that toxins play a role in the autism epidemic and the other is that autism is a man-made epidemic.
Maybe older parents today have accumulated more toxins because the corporate world and our governments are dumping more and more of them on us than happened to parents 100 years ago.
Maybe it is because living next to a freeway, or a coal plant, or other big industry that spews toxic pollutants increase a person’s toxic exposure and load.
Maybe it is because women are now pushed to receive flu vaccines (oftentimes mercury laden ones) and other vaccines
while they are pregnant…
My business involves advising portfolio managers about asset allocation in global financial markets. During my career, I have observed several extreme speculative bubbles, including the Japanese stock market in the late 1980s, the NASDAQ frenzy in 1998–2000 and the U.S. housing bubble from 2006–2008.
These bubbles all ended in tears. I see the same elements now in the pharmaceutical industry’s preoccupation with vaccines. I coined the term “vaccine bubble” (in the book Vaccine Epidemic) to describe the economic and psychological factors that are driving the obsession with and over-investment in vaccines. The psychology of making big profits is causing a lemming-like rush into vaccine research and production. Ultimately, many of these companies and vaccine products will likely turn out to be flash-in-the-pan nobodies and nothings that simply waste investment and get discarded on the ash heap of medical history. In the meantime, families and individuals need to educate themselves and make informed decisions about vaccine acceptance or refusal.
The business model of vaccine manufacturers relies on compulsion—you must take their product, or else.
Investing in Health
Taking pharmaceutical company advice about vaccine safety and efficacy is like trusting a stockbroker or real estate agent to tell you the market is in a bubble. As investors and homeowners have learned the hard way, those with corrupt financial or professional incentives cannot be relied upon to provide trustworthy advice.
From a financial and industry perspective, here is what you need to know. Vaccines are licensed by the FDA and recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Vaccine manufacturers perform (or outsource) their own efficacy and safety studies, so there is plenty of wiggle room for juggling the data. Manufacturers can choose their own placebo to either flatter efficacy or safety. If you think vaccine safety studies use saline solution for a placebo, think again.
The Merck Manual (the pharmaceutical company’s best-selling series of medical textbooks) defines an adverse reaction to a vaccine: “Encephalitis is inflammation of the brain that occurs when a virus directly infects the brain or when a virus or something else triggers inflammation…. Encephalitis can occur in the following ways: A virus directly infects the brain. A virus that caused an infection in the past becomes reactivated and directly damages the brain. A virus or vaccine triggers a reaction that makes the immune system attack brain tissue (an autoimmune reaction).”
Thus, an adverse vaccine reaction that causes brain damage (encephalitis) has the same result as a complication from an infectious disease like measles. In vaccine safety studies, manufacturers can disguise the neurological damage caused by the vaccine they are testing by using another vaccine (or another substance that contains an aluminum adjuvant) known to cause neurological adverse reactions as placebo. The standard language they use is: “Adverse reactions were no different than placebo.” They don’t mention that the placebo causes neurological adverse reactions…
(NaturalHealth365) Over the last few years, newborn babies have been overexposed to aluminum with potential harmful consequences. Babies and particularly newborn babies, are at increased risk of aluminum toxicity because of their immaturity.
According to the World Journal of Pediatrics, researchers looked at the role of aluminum in parenteral nutrition solutions, in adjuvants of vaccines and in pharmaceutical products. The researchers conclude that pediatricians and neonatologists must be more concerned about aluminum content in all products our newborns are exposed to, starting from monitoring aluminum concentrations in milk and soy-based formulas in which they state, there is still too much aluminum….
In aFox News article, singerToni Braxton says: “Maybe it’s just a coincidence that after my son’s first MMR vaccine, I began to notice changes in him.” The article then states she noted “that after that he wasn’t responsive to affection or as high-spirited as he was before the vaccine.”
The Greater Goodsays, what a strange coincidence, the same story has been reported by thousands of parents the world over! How could this be?
Nevermind the literally dozens of scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals documenting and exploring a link between autism and “routine” childhood vaccines. The blogAdventures in Autismhas a running list of this research with the tally now 86 papers connecting vaccines and autism, but health and medical officials have ostensibly not yet learned to read as they claim no such research exists. Go figure.
Interestingly Ms. Braxton also says she has the autoimmune disease lupus. Readers might have noticed there seems to be an epidemic of autoimmune disease in the world today. Wonder what is messing up all these folks’ immune systems to cause this?
Maybe it has something to do with all the vaccines being given today asresearchhas found that a few vaccines in mice can overwhelm the immune system causing autoimmune disease and immune system dysregulation. Surely this could never happen in humans…
Everyone wants to choose what is best for their family when it comes to health care. So…..how do you choose what’s best for your family, given the variety of health care alternatives today? Basically, it comes down to two main categories of health care: the traditional medical model (allopathic) and the alternative natural health care model. They differ greatly in their approach to illness/disease.
MEDICAL HEALTH CARE MODEL
In the medical health care model, disease is the result of genetics and germs. It “happens” is to us; we have no real control over it. The body is made up of parts and each part is cared for by a unique provider who is only interested in that part, rather than the body as a whole entity.
Symptoms and testing determine diagnosis, which is typically treated with medications, surgeries or other treatment therapies/modalities (ie; radiation therapy). What works for one person must work for all, and doctor knows best-so patients are expected to follow all instructions.
NATURAL HEALTH CARE MODEL
The natural health care model, on the other hand, views the individual as largely responsible for his/her own illnesses based upon lifestyle choices, reactions to stress, exposure to environmental factors, etc. This model views the human body as a whole; any threat to one body part is a threat to all body parts.
The body has the ability to heal itself, without drugs or surgery interventions, with the help of natural therapies that work differently for different individuals. Individuals play an important role in maintaining their health which is more than just the absence of disease.
True health is optimal well-being in all aspects of oneself-physical, mental, emotional and spiritual.
WHICH MODEL IS RIGHT?
It is your duty to be informed about the aspects of both health care models so that you can make intelligent decisions about your family’s health care. You may subscribe to one mode and use the other when necessary.
..
