Baxter, the vaccine company found to have contaminated 72 kilos of vaccine material with live bird flu virus supplied by WHO in Austria in February 2009, so nearly triggering a pandemic, has announced an increase of 7.9 per cent in second quarter profits and is looking forward to a boost in earnings from the H1N1 flu jab, which has been mandated by WHO in response to the “swine flu” pandemic, reports WSJ and CLG.
It was Baxter executives, along with their counterparts in Novartis, GSK and Sanofi, who participated in the vaccine advisory group meeting of WHO on July 7th that recommended H1N1 vaccines for the world’s population.
These H1N1 vaccines were developed by Baxter scientists based in Austria who also have shares in Baxter, and so stand to make a direct profit from the demand created by WHO’s instructions to governments to vaccinate all their populations against the H1N1.
Aso, Baxter’s Austrian-based science team led by Otfried Kistner filed the provisional application for the H1N1 vaccine in August 2007, reports CLG, almost two years before the HIN1 virus appeared in April and which the Paris based World Organization for Animal Health reported had never been seen before.
The fact that the virus had never been seen before in animal or human strongly suggests the notion that Baxter was instrumental in biosprospecting for and bioengineering the virus in the first place.
That would explain why Baxter was in a position to file a patent in August 2007. The existence of this patent also reinforces the notion that it was Baxter that released the “swine flu” virus in April. After all, where did it this previously unseen virus come from if not from the lab of the company that patented it 2 years earlier? A Baxter facility is close to the location where the “swine flu” first mysteriously appeared in Mexico City.
The Baxter H1N1 application is filed by a team of Austrian, German staff including Otfried Kistner, Ph.D., and P. Noel Barrett, Ph.D., for the Baxter H5N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Clinical Study Team, who also report they have shares in Baxter in a clincial study on that same H1N1 vaccine published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
CLG reports: “Baxter Vaccine Patent Application US 2009/0060950 A1 –’In particular preferred embodiments the composition or vaccine comprises more than one antigen…..such as influenza A and influenza B in particular selected from of one or more of the human H1N1, H2N2, H3N2, H5N1, H7N7, H1N2, H9N2, H7N2, H7N3, H10N7 subtypes, of the pig flu H1N1, H1N2, H3N1 and H3N2 subtypes, of the dog or horse flu H7N7, H3N8 subtypes or of the avian H5N1, H7N2, H1N7, H7N3, H13N6, H5N9, H11N6, H3N8, H9N2, H5N2, H4N8, H10N7, H2N2, H8N4, H14N5, H6N5, H12N5 subtypes.’
Also, Ehrlich, Kistner and Barret published a clinical trial in the New England Journal of Medicine ((Previous Volume 358:2573-2584 June 12, 2008 Number 24)
on the safety of an H5N1 whole-virus vaccine produced on Vero cell cultures and its ability to induce antibodies capable of neutralizing various H5N1 strains, in which they concluded that the use of adjuvants did not improve the antibody response.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/24/2573
And yet Baxter and WHO recommended oil-in-water adjuvants for the H1N1 “vaccines”.
These adjuvants have been associated with many diseases.
“SAGE recommended that promoting production and use of vaccines such as those that are formulated with oil-in-water adjuvants and live attenuated influenza vaccines was important,” says the WHO pandemic briefing note of July 13th.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090713/en/index.html
In addtion, WHO announced on July 16th that countries with “swine flu” cases no longer need to report them.
Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 briefing note 3
Changes in reporting requirements for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus infection
16 JULY 2009 | GENEVA — As the 2009 pandemic evolves, the data needed for risk assessment, both within affected countries and at the global level, are also changing.
At this point, further spread of the pandemic, within affected countries and to new countries, is considered inevitable.
This assumption is fully backed by experience. The 2009 influenza pandemic has spread internationally with unprecedented speed. In past pandemics, influenza viruses have needed more than six months to spread as widely as the new H1N1 virus has spread in less than six weeks.
The increasing number of cases in many countries with sustained community transmission is making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for countries to try and confirm them through laboratory testing. Moreover, the counting of individual cases is now no longer essential in such countries for monitoring either the level or nature of the risk posed by the pandemic virus or to guide implementation of the most appropriate response measures.
And yet the same WHO calims that the “swine flu” has spread internationally with unprecedented speed. How can WHO know this if it drops the requirement for countries to suppply data on the speed and spread of that same virus? How can it track how the virus is mutating without data from countries?
In the July 13th briefing note, WHO places emphasise on collecting data for a “post-marketing surveillance” and so it is justifiable to ask why WHO does not want data for a pre marketing surveillance?
“Since new technologies are involved in the production of some pandemic vaccines, which have not yet been extensively evaluated for their safety in certain population groups, it is very important to implement post-marketing surveillance of the highest possible quality. In addition, rapid sharing of the results of immunogenicity and post-marketing safety and effectiveness studies among the international community will be essential for allowing countries to make necessary adjustments to their vaccination policies.”
