Similar Posts
Are Tamiflu and Relenza safe to use in pregnancy? / FDA
FDA’s website provides the following somewhat contradictory information on swine flu drugs in pregnancy: Yes, they are approved, and CDC recommends their use… but No, they have not been studied in pregnant women. Treatment of Influenza During Pregnancy The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends women in any trimester of their pregnancy who…
My interview with John Matland on TNT Radio (Australia)
https://player.fm/series/tnt-radio/john-matland-show-dr-meryl-nass-23-feb-2022
When FDA inspections of clinical trials discover actionable research misconduct, how is the public notified? It isn’t / JAMA IM
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr 1;175(4):567-77. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7774. Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. Seife C1. Author information Abstract IMPORTANCE: Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and…
CDC: Inept. Stupid. Deadly.
From the CDC website we learn that CDC issues “authoritative guidance directly to Medscape’s physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals.” Want to learn the newest on screening and managing Ebola? Screening for Ebola is not an easy task, since many other diseases can look very much like Ebola. But CDC is here to help doctors…
U.S. doctors, minorities still wary of shots: official (Sibelius)/ Reuters
Men enter the Arlington Convention Center to receive their H1N1 flu vaccinations in Arlington, Texas November 24, 2009. Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi From Reuters: Doctors and minorities still have a dangerous mistrust of vaccines that became painfully clear during the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Monday… In…
David Kelly, ten years on: A spectacular failure of accountability / New Statesman
I have reprinted in full a piece from today’s New Statesman about the death of David Kelly and the surprising calls from prominent liberal members of the media to “let it be”–denying the many questions regarding cause of death and how Kelly’s death related to the (false) justification for the Iraq war. The ten year…
2 Comments
Comments are closed.
It is interesting that the vaccine they approved yesterday for children (ages 5 to 11 years old) has never been used in a clinical trial. The version that was used in clinical trial required extremely cold storage refrigeration. This new non refrigeration version of the vaccine does not require that refrigeration and it's never been validated in a clinical trial. Who in their right mind, does science this way. Correct me if I am wrong, I am aware that manufacturers of vaccines on the infant schedule do not have any liability for death or injuries that their vaccine cause. And I believe there is similar waiver of liability for EUA / Emergency Use Authorization vaccines under some other act (Prep At?).
However, in both situations aren't the manufactures liable for damages if their products cause damages due to a manufacturing error?? Said another way, manufacturers always have to make a product correctly.
Do you see where I am going with this?
The manufacturing requirements that need to be met are established by the original validated product that was used in the initial clinical trial – aka the extreme refrigeration clinical trial. To jab a patient with a non refrigerated product that does not meet the manufacturing requirements of the initial product is to jab them with a product that was fundamentally not made correctly. Thus the manufacturer is liable for any injury resulting from the non refrigerated vaccine injected into a child.
My favorite phrase from this:
"protect the public from the harmful acts of health professionals"
Not something you expect to read, and agree with.