Tag Archives: Risks

ACC paid out $325,221 to NZers for vaccine injuries during the period mid 2017 to mid 2018

An OIA request reveals that during the period 1-July-2017 to 30-June-208 a sum of $325,221 was paid out in NZ for vaccine injuries. The intent of pointing this out is to draw your attention to the  claim that injuries from vaccines are extremely extremely rare. Whilst that my once have been the case, currently the stats in the US are recorded by CDC as 1 in 39. Not by any stretch of the imagination ‘rare’. Having this information is crucial when making the decision to vaccinate. Do ask for the inserts to the vaccine to learn the risks of side effects or risk of injury as frequently these are not pointed out. There is many a testimony online of people who became injured and wish they had asked. This all of course is called informed consent. Very important when using the precautionary approach to all things health. Bear in mind also that many injuries are not reported.

Below is a copy of the OIA request for your perusal:

vac injury oia

 

2 acc payouts for gardasil

The NZ health issue you probably never heard about that’s causing pain & suffering for 100s of men & women – medical malpractice & the medical mesh debacle

“A clear theme that emerged was the lack of accountability for mesh-injured patients – many of whom, in hindsight, had not been given adequate information about the surgery they were having and whether their surgeons were properly qualified to be undertaking procedures in the first instance”

“Patients injuries and needs have rarely been acknowledged or validated by those in the health system, leaving them feeling desperate and, in many cases, contemplating suicide”

New Zealand Surgical Mesh Restorative Justice Report Finally Released.

Tangible Concrete Commitments… Where Are They?

The use of surgical mesh for medical procedures has come under increasing scrutiny around the world because of high complication rates and problems with patient safety.

Consumer advocacy group Mesh Down Under has been lobbying since 2012 for practical help and changes in health care based on patient safety and rights.

The report, written by the Victoria University Restorative Justice research team dedicated to the 7-month long surgical mesh project (https://www.restorativehealth.net/), was published today by the Ministry of Health.

The researchers analysed feedback that was provided by both patients and surgeons who contributed anonymously to the report. Several surgeons said when they tried to raise concerns about a colleague’s ability to perform mesh surgery, they were severely bullied. That has perpetuated a culture which fails basic patient care and safety standards.

Even more devastating it was noted that when patients have been injured, they have found their original surgeons unable to fix injuries caused by surgery. Their concerns, injuries and pain were reported as often dismissed and labelled as “being in their head”.

That harm continues when the patient then deals with state agencies. Hundreds of patients detailed obstructive and protracted claims processes with the ACC. When they tried to raise concerns with the Health and Disability Commissioner regarding the medical treatment that had led to their injuries, the process was also arduous and difficult.

A clear theme that emerged was the lack of accountability for mesh-injured patients – many of whom, in hindsight, had not been given adequate information about the surgery they were having and whether their surgeons were properly qualified to be undertaking procedures in the first instance.

The report encapsulates the sometimes harrowing details and personal stories from hundreds of men and women in New Zealand who have been harmed by the use of surgical mesh in their treatment.

Stories regale poor health information, surgical incompetence, medical negligence and an alarming lack of accountability among health professionals and other agencies which are supposed to put patient rights and safety first.

Mesh Down Under fully supported this Restorative Justice process. It was an extremely significant and important step to take, although it is several years too late. We commend the way that this process has been undertaken, finally giving the mesh injured community to share their lived experiences of what has been going on behind the scenes.

While the report identifies a raft of proposals, we would like a clear commitment from the Government on these. There is no need for further consultation or review, as they have been identified to be in patients’ best interests and safety numerous times, including as part of the Health Select Committee report three years ago.

The continual delays in the progress of the necessary initiatives and changes that had previously been identified as urgently needed have been reiterated once again within this report. Seeing the same proposals come up yet again, for the specific help that we have been asking for several years, has resulted in a great deal of distress for some of our members.

After a summation meeting in Wellington, last month, Mesh Down Under was told that the relevant individual health agencies would be contacted by the Restorative Justice Team to confirm their commitments to action.

We are yet to see these commitments in full but will continue to push for robust funding. Without it, we wonder how the Government can support these agencies to make any meaningful progress on the proposed programs or ensure change is implemented with urgency.

We are pleased with the few measurable, tangible concrete commitments and timelines identified and we will be watching closely to ensure these promises of action are kept.

Mesh Down Under believe that these questions need to be asked of the government-

1. Will implementing the actions identified in the report meet the needs of those already harmed and prevent future harm?

2.Will the government provide the funding that will be required to implement the actions identified and when?

3.Will New Zealand finally follow overseas action and suspend mesh procedures whilst mandating high vigilance scrutiny on non-mesh procedures, until all recommendations are actioned and fully implemented?.

We look forward to the Government’s timely response.

Link to report: www.

Excerpts from the report:

“Patients emphasized that a meaningful apology must include acknowledgement of harm…….”The loss of trust they now have in health care providers and institutions cannot be overstated”.

“Restoring trust and confidence in clinicians and the healthcare system was considered a major priority” of this process. But patients identified that “this is dependent on “seeing tangible progress” in rectifying the problems created by surgical mesh.”

“Patients injuries and needs have rarely been acknowledged or validated by those in the health system, leaving them feeling desperate and, in many cases, contemplating suicide”.

ENDS

MEDIA BACKGROUNDER

By 2002 surgical mesh devices were freely available in New Zealand, which had (AND STILL HAS ) no requirements for pre-market testing or proof of safety or efficacy for medical devices. Surgeons recommended the procedure to patients, who received very little information about what the surgery involved. Research showed that very few, if any, were warned about the potential risks of lifelong complications.

In 2008 a statement was released by the FDA, warning of risks from pelvic mesh such as erosion of vaginal tissues, pain, infection, recurrence of POP, and new onset of SUI. At that time New Zealand’s Medsafe had received only 14 reports of adverse events (such reports are not mandatory, and the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) did not share treatment injury information with Medsafe until 2017. After a review, Medsafe concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks.

This all changed in 2012 when the first US court case against a mesh manufacturer concluded in favour of the patient. The gag order came off and media coverage began. Affected people made the link between their pain and suffering and the mesh implant, and realised they were not alone. As Carmel Berry recalled: ‘The feeling of finally being believed was overwhelming. I wanted to talk to other people, share my story publicly and warn others to avoid mesh.’

The formation of Mesh Down Under

Mesh Down Under was initially conceived as an online support group for people to share their lived mesh experiences. From the initial group of six members, numbers grew to over 50 within a few months. Co-founders Carmel Berry, Patricia Sullivan and Charlotte Korte realised that the number of mesh-injured New Zealanders was increasing and that the issue needed to be highlighted to the health sector and lawmakers.

Over the following two years, calling themselves ‘The Three Meshketeers’, they undertook to fully research the scale and scope of the issue, and endeavour to highlight to health authorities the difficulties faced by these patients, as they searched for the recognition of their symptoms and the help they needed.

They doggedly sought help from many organisations and people in the health sector, including Medsafe, Women’s Health Action, representatives of various medical colleges, the Health Quality and Safety Council, Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC), and ACC. Almost every meeting concluded with a recommendation that they pursue another agency or organisation that ‘may be able to help’.

They also regularly wrote to politicians and ministers asking them to investigate the growing number of mesh-related treatment Injury claims. They established relationships with media contacts and got regular coverage by investigative journalists, who were also seeing the global scandal unravelling.

Taking action

By March 2014 they believed they had enough evidence to convince the government to launch a full inquiry into the problem. They launched a petition calling for the Health Select Committee to recommend an independent and transparent inquiry into the use of surgical mesh in New Zealand. This was followed by their supporting submission, providing ‘overwhelming evidence about the use and issues of surgical mesh and … concrete ways to improve outcomes for patients’.

After numerous gruelling sessions where the women were challenged by top health officials, the Health Select Committee’s report was presented to Parliament on 1 June 2016. It included seven recommendations, in three areas: the investigation of options for a surgical registry, improvement in medical practice, and the role of the regulator in pre-market medical device approval. In a report tabled on 24 August 2016, the government carefully considered the Committee’s report and supported all of its recommendations.

8 critical words were part of the Select Committee recommendations was “take note of the petitioners’ and others’ experiences. And that was the basis for kick-starting and implementing the ‘Restorative Justice Mesh Project which finally began in late 2018.

While Mesh Down Under currently has 911 members.

Full story with references can be found here: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/women-together/mesh-down-under
ends

© Scoop Media

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1912/S00228/nz-surgical-mesh-restorative-justice-report-finally-released.htm?fbclid=IwAR1g0YnjmKBsmITgXmWKF3fWUrX0iiMEia4cqXDIUB0f5zWlkGtOnODHAk8

Watch health professionals apply CPR to an infant immediately after injecting her with 3 vaccines … sadly she dies (Philippines)

“Meanwhile, in the Philippines, this infant received 3 vaccines and now they are doing CPR on the child.”  The baby died.

The deepest condolences to these parents. Absolutely heartbreaking. Watch the video of the medical staff trying to revive the little one they just minutes before injected with three vaccines. Safe? Really? (Note the video is currently pinned to the top of the Rangitikei FB page & you will only be able to view it if you are a FB member.  You will also have to ‘uncover’ it as they have protected you from seeing the ‘violent or graphic content’ … the violence of the staff trying to revive a little one killed with their violent medical procedure). And no disrespect to this dear family who lost their precious baby … I am sure they have posted it as a warning to others. I am re posting it for the same reason.

If you watch Vaxxed testimonies on Youtube you will find many many more examples like this one. Perfectly healthy babies gone for their wellness checks & immunisation only to end up disabled or dead.

The risks for vaccine injury are 1 in 39 and the pharmaceutical companies are exempted from liability. These are frequently explained away as mere coincidence. Heartbreaking reports from parents indicate this may occur minutes, hours or days after the vaccine. Any parent’s worst nightmare. I had a conversation recently with a mother whose baby began to seizure 15 minutes after a vaccine was administered. A vaccine she did not want due to a previous reaction, however she was threatened with child protection services and did not want to lose her child. She had no come back, attempts by her to complain about these health professionals were met with brick walls. This was NZ too.

RELATED:

A 2010 study via US Dept Health & Human Svces revealed one out of every 39 children vaccinated with government-mandated vaccines suffers serious injuries

 

 

Former Salesman for vaccine maker Merck & Co. tells why he would not vaccinate his own son

48.7K subscribers

http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com – “If you believe what you are told by the AMA and the CDC and your doctor, you’re not doing enough research.” In 1991 Scott Cooper and his wife researched vaccine safety and efficacy, determined vaccines are NOT safe or effective, and refused to vaccinate their son. Interestingly, their son was much healthier than his vaccinated peers throughout childhood. At the time, Scott worked as a sales rep for Merck & Co., a large vaccine manufacturer, and he had dived deep into researching vaccines and the risk associated with vaccination. His Pediatrician was befuddled that Scott would not vaccinate, especially because he worked for a large vaccine manufacturer! His son continues to be healthy, and Scott and his wife have no regrets about not vaccinating their son. A STOP Mandatory Vaccination Production Produced by Larry Cook Founder and Director of http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com Contribute here: http://www.gofundme.com/ohwupg The Vaccine Research Library http://vaccineresearchlibrary.com
Photo: screen shot from the video

Did you know NZ is a leader in governmental use of AI?… there’s been a call for an independent regulator here to monitor & address the associated risks of the tech

From theconversation.com

New Zealand is a leader in government use of artificial intelligence (AI). It is part of a global network of countries that use predictive algorithms in government decision making, for anything from the optimal scheduling of public hospital beds to whether an offender should be released from prison, based on their likelihood of reoffending, or the efficient processing of simple insurance claims.

But the official use of AI algorithms in government has been in the spotlight in recent years. On the plus side, AI can enhance the accuracy, efficiency and fairness of day-to-day decision making. But concerns have also been expressed regarding transparency, meaningful human control, data protection and bias.

In a report released today, we recommend New Zealand establish a new independent regulator to monitor and address the risks associated with these digital technologies.


Read more: To protect us from the risks of advanced artificial intelligence, we need to act now


AI and transparency

There are three important issues regarding transparency.

One relates to the inspectability of algorithms. Some aspects of New Zealand government practice are reassuring. Unlike some countries that use commercial AI products, New Zealand has tended to build government AI tools in-house. This means that we know how the tools work.

But intelligibility is another issue. Knowing how an AI system works doesn’t guarantee the decisions it reaches will be understood by the people affected. The best performing AI systems are often extremely complex.

To make explanations intelligible, additional technology is required. A decision-making system can be supplemented with an “explanation system”. These are additional algorithms “bolted on” to the main algorithm we seek to understand. Their job is to construct simpler models of how the underlying algorithms work – simple enough to be understandable to people. We believe explanation systems will be increasingly important as AI technology advances.

A final type of transparency relates to public access to information about the AI systems used in government. The public should know what AI systems their government uses as well as how well they perform. Systems should be regularly evaluated and summary results made available to the public in a systematic format.


Read more: Avoid the politics and let artificial intelligence decide your vote in the next election


New Zealand’s law and transparency

Our report takes a detailed look at how well New Zealand law currently handles these transparency issues.

New Zealand doesn’t have laws specifically tailored towards algorithms, but some are relevant in this context. For instance, New Zealand’s Official Information Act (OIA) provides a right to reasons for decisions by official agencies, and this is likely to apply to algorithmic decisions just as much as human ones. This is in notable contrast to Australia, which doesn’t impose a general duty on public officials to provide reasons for their decisions.

But even the OIA would come up short where decisions are made or supported by opaque decision systems. That is why we recommend that predictive algorithms used by government, whether developed commercially or in-house, must feature in a public register, must be publicly inspectable, and (if necessary) must be supplemented with explanation systems.

Human control and data protection

Another issue relates to human control. Some of the concerns around algorithmic decision-making are best addressed by making sure there is a “human in the loop,” with a human having final sign off on any important decision. However, we don’t think this is likely to be an adequate solution in the most important cases.


Read more: Automated vehicles may encourage a new breed of distracted drivers


A persistent theme of research in industrial psychology is that humans become overly trusting and uncritical of automated systems, especially when those systems are reliable most of the time. Just adding a human “in the loop” will not always produce better outcomes. Indeed in certain contexts, human collaboration will offer false reassurance, rendering AI-assisted decisions less accurate.

With respect to data protection, we flag the problem of “inferred data”. This is data inferred about people rather than supplied by them directly (just as when Amazon infers that you might like a certain book on the basis of books it knows you have purchased). Among other recommendations, our report calls for New Zealand to consider the legal status of inferred data, and whether it should be treated the same way as primary data.

Bias and discrimination

A final area of concern is bias. Computer systems might look unbiased, but if they are relying on “dirty data” from previous decisions, they could have the effect of “baking in” discriminatory assumptions and practices. New Zealand’s anti-discrimination laws are likely to apply to algorithmic decisions, but making sure discrimination doesn’t creep back in will require ongoing monitoring.

The report also notes that while “individual rights” — for example, against discrimination — are important, we can’t entirely rely on them to guard against all of these risks. For one thing, affected people will often be those with the least economic or political power. So while they may have the “right” not to be discriminated against, it will be cold comfort to them if they have no way of enforcing it.

There is also the danger that they won’t be able to see the whole picture, to know whether an algorithm’s decisions are affecting different sections of the community differently. To enable a broader discussion about bias, public evaluation of AI tools should arguably include results for specific sub-populations, as well as for the whole population.

A new independent body will be essential if New Zealand wants to harness the benefits of algorithmic tools while avoiding or minimising their risks to the public.

Alistair Knott, James Maclaurin and Joy Liddicoat, collaborators on the AI and Law in New Zealand project, have contributed to the writing of this piece.

SOURCE

https://theconversation.com/call-for-independent-watchdog-to-monitor-nz-government-use-of-artificial-intelligence-117589

https://www.biometricupdate.com/201905/academics-call-on-new-zealand-to-regulate-ai-as-brookings-issues-guidance

Image by Computerizer from Pixabay

 

Johnson & Johnson, ovarian cancer risks, and the law

From whenwomeninspire.com

Across America, women are taking the fight to Johnson & Johnson. The massive company behind many of the nation’s favorite products has come under fire amongst claims that their product, talcum powder, can cause ovarian cancer. If you want to take part in this class action lawsuit, make sure you seek out a professional compensation lawyer and get the Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks details here.

About the lawsuit regarding Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks

The claims come after the resurfacing of a study from 1982. As a result of this study, a group of researchers took their findings to Johnson & Johnson. They told them that the results of their research clearly suggested a link between talcum powder and a higher risk of developing cancer.

Twelve years later, in 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition also appealed to the company to ask them to recall the products and stop making talcum powder with its current ingredients.

The group spearheading the lawsuit versus the company claim that the company knowingly ignored the research and never told the public about it. They didn’t put warning labels on their products, and they even advertised that people use the potentially cancerous products on high-risk parts of their bodies.

READ MORE

https://whenwomeninspire.com/2019/11/28/johnson-johnson-ovarian/

How did 274K babies end up on psychiatric meds? (Dr Mercola)

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • An estimated 17.3 million American adults (7.1% of the adult population), experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2017. The highest rates are reported among those aged between 18 and 25
  • The vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told
  • Hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children
  • There’s no scientific evidence to suggest depression is the result of a chemical imbalance in your brain. A lot of the evidence suggests unhealthy living conditions are at the heart of the problem
  • Antidepressants are not beneficial in the long term and antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia

In the U.S., an estimated 17.3 million American adults (7.1% of the adult population), experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2017.1 The highest rates are reported among those aged between 18 and 25.2 However, not only is there evidence that depression is vastly overdiagnosed, but there’s also evidence showing it’s routinely mistreated.

With regard to overdiagnosis, one 2013 study3 found only 38.4% of participants with clinician-identified depression actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and only 14.3% of seniors 65 and older met the criteria.

As for treatment, the vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told.

 

According to a 2017 study,4 1 in 6 Americans between the ages of 18 and 85 were on psychiatric drugs, most of them antidepressants, and 84.3% reported long-term use (three years or more). Out of 242 million U.S. adults, 12% were found to have filled one or more prescriptions for an antidepressant, specifically, in 2013.

According to data5 presented by a watchdog group, hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children.

Recent studies are also shedding much needed light on the addictive nature of many antidepressants, and demonstrate that the benefits of these drugs have been overblown while their side effects — including suicidal ideation — and have been downplayed and ignored for decades, placing patients at unnecessary risk.

READ MORE

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/19/depression-chemical-imbalance-myth.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1ReadMore&utm_campaign=20190919Z1&et_cid=DM347532&et_rid=711345274&fbclid=IwAR1p6oyziZJewum0Us_A1XTZgL8Q1-pihXlUdiE7m0jhZ3QZWEutA_4Hxzs

California Nurse Gives Gardasil Vaccine to Own Daughter who Develops Leukemia and Dies 10 mnths later

Health Impact News

The VAXXED team interviewed a mother in Long Beach, California, who is a nurse and was pro-vaccine. She explains that all her children were up-to-date on their vaccines before she gave her daughter the Gardasil vaccine at age 16.

As a nurse, she routinely gave vaccines to patients at work, and never questioned these vaccines. She states that she was never taught about their side effects.

So when she heard that Gardasil was a vaccine to prevent cancer, and that her daughter needed to have it before she became sexually active, she did not hesitate to have her daughter come in to the office where she worked, where she herself administered the first vaccine.

After that first vaccine, her daughter was always tired, and they thought maybe she had “mono.” Her body ached all the time, and she had difficulty walking long distances. Prior to the vaccine, her daughter was healthy and active.

Her mother did not associate these symptoms with the vaccine, however. She attributed it to a poor diet and a busy lifestyle.

Because of her daughter’s fear of vaccines, she decided to bring the second Gardasil vaccine home and give it to her daughter in their home.

Soon after the second vaccine, her daughter was diagnosed with leukemia. 10 months later, she was dead.

I want to share my story because it is very important.

This vaccine is horrible. I don’t know if I wouldn’t have given it to her if she would still be here.

And I feel really responsible because I gave it to her physically…

I just thought I was doing what was right to protect my daughter from cancer, and she got cancer!

I tried to protect her…

Watch the entire interview at the link:

https://vaccineimpact.com/2017/california-nurse-gives-gardasil-vaccine-to-own-daughter-who-develops-leukemia-and-dies/?fbclid=IwAR121h5KB-OoZZnhCwfs2gFbngZwOl4mfLrJTdjUTfQjLpu9ZLm2r6lhWj0

The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight

Ten Thousand Chemicals in Food and Food Packaging: What Are These Substances Doing to Our Children?

From greenmedinfo.com

The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just issued a policy statement about the risks to children’s health of the more than 10,000 chemicals directly or indirectly added to food and “food contact materials” in the U.S. with three primary aims: (1) to review and highlight the significant health concerns associated with the chemicals in foods; (2) to formulate recommendations that pediatricians can share with families; and (3) to propose “urgently needed reforms” pertaining to regulation of food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Public health challenges related to the foods that American children eat are a not-infrequent topic of national conversation. With 38% of children either overweight or obese, the childhood obesity epidemic tends to top the list of concerns, along with related issues such as children’s fast food consumption and the damaging effects of junk food advertising.

According to a recent nationally representative survey, about 60% of the calories consumed by Americans come from “ultra-processed” foods and beverages–defined as products resulting from “several sequences of industrial processes” and including additives “used to imitate sensory properties of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product.” Alarmingly, the survey showed that adolescents (10- to 19-year-olds) were among the biggest consumers of ultra-processed foods and that their intake of these foods increased from 2007 to 2012, rising to over two-thirds (68%) of total calories consumed.

Given that teens are relying on additive-filled processed foods for the bulk of their calories, it is noteworthy that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just issued a policy statement about the risks to children’s health of the more than 10,000 chemicals directly or indirectly added to food and “food contact materials” in the U.S. Published in July 2018 in Pediatrics, the AAP commentary has three primary aims: (1) to review and highlight the significant health concerns associated with the chemicals in foods; (2) to formulate recommendations that pediatricians can share with families; and (3) to propose “urgently needed reforms” pertaining to regulation of food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight.

READ MORE

https://www.greenmedinfo.health/blog/ten-thousand-chemicals-food-and-food-packaging-what-are-these-substances-doing-ou?fbclid=IwAR017-CJSSPblpeNJIa0BumMMfPgpY0rEvMrxhP2bv71qLW6sQ0eUECMIss