CFS and vaccination - secret papers deny funding.

[Firestormm]

Hi Currer,

I would find it helpful if you could pop some dates next to these extracts please. Thanks.

It is perhaps unfortunate that problems with memory, concentration, word finding, "that term where you can't select things and put them in their right hole", etc. do indeed attract this term Neuropsychiatric, perhaps. Useful to remember that Alzheimer's is also one of those diseases that do and there was a study some time back - small sample size of course - that compared people with ME and those with Alzheimer's if I recall correctly. I believe that 'we' came out as comparable to mild/moderate to Alzheimer's.

As the following from that great resource of credence, Wikipedia, demonstrates, this discipline preceeded Neurology and Psychiatry - as an interesting aside - and there are - as you know - many calls for the two to become one, once more. Indeed this has I understand pretty much occurred in all but name - even in name - in some parts of the Western World including the US of A.

Neuropsychiatry is the branch of medicine dealing with mental disorders attributable to diseases of the nervous system. It preceded the current disciplines of psychiatry and neurology, in as much as psychiatrists and neurologists had a common training.[1] However, psychiatry and psychology subsequently split apart and are typically practiced separately. Nevertheless, neuropsychiatry has become a growing subspecialty of psychiatry and it is also closely related to the field of behavioral neurology, which is a subspecialty of neurology that addresses clinical problems of cognition and/or behavior caused by brain injury or brain disease.

Edit:

Ah ok have read Red's post now. Duplicate posting of Wiki definition. Never 'mind'.

 

[natasa778]

Of fish and men, or what can a salmon tell us?

Vaccination-induced systemic autoimmunity in farmed Atlantic salmon

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21316456
Polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia and autoantibody production induced by vaccination in farmed Atlantic salmon

I don't have full access to this one but it sounds very interesting:

... In the present study, we examined whether vaccination-induced autoantibody production in farmed Atlantic salmon is a mere result of polyclonal B-cell activation. Sera were collected from 205 vaccinated and unvaccinated Atlantic salmon (experimental, 7 farms) and wild salmon. Total IgM levels and autoantibodies to salmon blood cell (SBC) extract in sera were measured by ELISA and the relationship between hypergammaglobulinemia and autoantibody production was analyzed. Comparison of endpoint titers vs levels/units using a single dilution of sera in detection of autoantibodies to SBC showed near perfect correlation, justifying the use of the latter for screening. Both total IgM and anti-SBC antibodies are increased in vaccinated salmon compared with unvaccinated controls, however, they do not always correlate well when compared between groups or between individuals, suggesting the involvement of antigen-specific mechanisms in the production of anti-SBC autoantibodies....

 

[elbosque]

elbosque, each dose of vaccine gives you additional adjuvants, which are immune activating agents. If you have a virus, and multiple adjuvants, operating at the same time, then the combined effect will be a huge signal to the immune system - similar to having multiple viruses at the same time. For some of us that appears to be way too much, and our immune systems go into overdrive.

I wish there was a way to take it out of overdrive. I was on one immune modulator for over 3 months. After more blood work showed no change to my immune activation, I was taken off it. My doctor continues to remind me not to take any vaccines. I find it interesting that I have not gotten a cold or flu since getting sick. My wife is bringing them home all the time from the daycare she works at. Why is it that I don't get sick? My kids always seem to end up getting her bugs. And what's the difference for people with ME/CFS from being exposed to the virus via vaccine as apposed to in a vaccination?

On a side note, while I was getting the rabies vaccinations, I already had bad brain fog. For a while there I was stressing out I had rabies or had in fact contacted the Semian B Herpes Virus - both have initial mental symptoms that might be construed as brain fog. I only knew that my brain wasn't working right. It was a stressful time. ME/CFS would have been a welcome diagnosis in contrast to the other two possibilities.

 

[Wifi123]

Both Dr. Lipkin, who is a board certified neurologist, and Dr. Hornig, who is a board certified psychiatrist, stress that while they believe ME/CFS is a neuropsychiatric disorder because of the problems with concentration, memory and autonomic nervous system involvement, they do not consider it psychosomatic. “It’s very difficult in my mind to make this a psychological disorder,” said Dr. Hornig,“We do patients a disservice if we focus solely on secondary phenomena of being disabled or being unable to carry on life to your capacity – that shouldn’t ever be viewed as being the primary problem.”​

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/me-a-neuropsychiatric-illness.19792/

Why is it that WHO classified ME/CFS as a disorder of the central nervous system, and everyone points to nueropsychiatric disordeor a phsychological disorder, when it's a breakdown of the CNS?

 

[GcMAF Australia]

Hmmm
well immune disfunction, say caused by bacteria or viruses can affect the brain

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

Why is it that WHO classified ME/CFS as a disorder of the central nervous system, and everyone points to nueropsychiatric disordeor a phsychological disorder, when it's a breakdown of the CNS?

The WHO numbering system is simply an agreed classification system that allows disease reporting across the globe to be carried out under common defintions - it has no more diagnostic power than the Dewey Decimal system (http://dewey.info/class/616.8/e23/2012-08-08/about.en). The WHO classification has to be seen as wholly seperate from any diagnostic criteria, although the WHO classification is likely over time to be amended to reflect changes in diagnostic practice. But such changes are only for the purposes of classification, not to reflect medical practice. The WHO codes require no definitive aetiology - otherwise M.E, amongst many other conditions, wouldn't be in the coding system at all.

The WHO categorisation of M.E has been a useful rallying point to argue for M.E/CFS to be taken seriously/not consigned to a psychiatric bunker - but it's a line of argument that has a distinct sell by date, and to keep flogging it beyond a specific point will only attract derision from scientists. With a braod acknowledgement (correct or not) that M.E/CFS is a heterogenous condition, arguments over names and categorisations are going to have to be far more adaptive than simple statements of "it's what the WHO says".

IVI

 

[Wifi123]

The WHO numbering system is simply an agreed classification system that allows disease reporting across the globe to be carried out under common defintions - it has no more diagnostic power than the Dewey Decimal system (http://dewey.info/class/616.8/e23/2012-08-08/about.en). The WHO classification has to be seen as wholly seperate from any diagnostic criteria, although the WHO classification is likely over time to be amended to reflect changes in diagnostic practice. But such changes are only for the purposes of classification, not to reflect medical practice. The WHO codes require no definitive aetiology - otherwise M.E, amongst many other conditions, wouldn't be in the coding system at all.

The WHO categorisation of M.E has been a useful rallying point to argue for M.E/CFS to be taken seriously/not consigned to a psychiatric bunker - but it's a line of argument that has a distinct sell by date, and to keep flogging it beyond a specific point will only attract derision from scientists. With a braod acknowledgement (correct or not) that M.E/CFS is a heterogenous condition, arguments over names and categorisations are going to have to be far more adaptive than simple statements of "it's what the WHO says".

IVI

Thanks for your simple explanation, it make so much sense, thank you!

 

[wastwater]

What did this secret file contain whats the gist of it.Is there anything about vaccines being contaminated with mycoplasma.Can it be found online.update thanks yes I found the document

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

What did this secret file contain whats the gist of it.Is there anything about vaccines being contaminated with mycoplasma.Can it be found online

See post number 2 on the previous page - the file is not secret and the URL is given.

IVI

 

[snowathlete]

http://www.cfids.org/archives/2001rr/2001-rr1-article03.asp

This data (although unpublished) suggests that tetanus, typhoid, influenza, and hepatitis B are the most commonly implicated vaccines in cases of CFS.

I had, at short notice, several vacines at once, a few days before going to India on business. I then got jet lagged, and had a very rough time there. Id say that i went slowly downhill from there for a year or two before getting a diagnosis and having to give up work.

I had POLIO vacine (Revaxis), Tetanus/Diphtheria (Revaxis), Typhoid (Viatin) and Hep A (Viatin). Then the anti-maleria tablets too. I really think this hammered my system and was a factor in my developing ME.

 

[alex3619]

See post number 2 on the previous page - the file is not secret and the URL is given.

IVI

Hi IVI, this is not quite correct. Some of the files in question are still kept secure and only partially released. There are a series of such files. I have read some heavily redacted material relating to this. According to some sources, which so far has proved impossible for me to definitively verify, this all started in 1992 when Behan noted that a vaccine manufacturer in the UK came to him for help. The manufacturer was not named, though perhaps they were in the redacted sections, and they had nearly 100% CFS onset in a vaccine clinical trial. Let me stress again that despite several sources claiming this is true, I cannot find any hard evidence. This is consistent with several explanations. It might be wrong. It might be misunderstood ... or it might be that this is specifically what was redacted. If anyone has documentation confirming or disproving this claim, please send it to me privately if you can.

Does anyone know if the proceeds of the CIBA symposium on CFS, published I think 1993, shows any of this?

For discussion of some of this, please see the first link posted in this thread:
http://vactruth.com/2012/10/06/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-vaccinations/

Bye, Alex

 

[snowathlete]

Has anyone yet tried contacting Dr Behan to hear it straight from the horses' mouth?

 

[alex3619]

Has anyone yet tried contacting Dr Behan to hear it straight from the horses' mouth?

Not that I am aware of, but I am not sure it will help. The Official Secrets Act applies I think. However we wont know till someone tries.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

such info is usually hidden by Non Disclosure Agreements, and other threats of civil proceedings
ie, a company will sue heavily for loss of reputation or sales, or breaking a security contract the other party has WILLINGLY signed etc
in UK, our scumbag government has in the past slapped the Official Secrets Act on anything it damn well wants, including really foul stuff, to cover it up.

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

Hi IVI, this is not quite correct. Some of the files in question are still kept secure and only partially released. There are a series of such files. I have read some heavily redacted material relating to this. According to some sources, which so far has proved impossible for me to definitively verify, this all started in 1992 when Behan noted that a vaccine manufacturer in the UK came to him for help. The manufacturer was not named, though perhaps they were in the redacted sections, and they had nearly 100% CFS onset in a vaccine clinical trial. Let me stress again that despite several sources claiming this is true, I cannot find any hard evidence. This is consistent with several explanations. It might be wrong. It might be misunderstood ... or it might be that this is specifically what was redacted. If anyone has documentation confirming or disproving this claim, please send it to me privately if you can.

Discussion of this whole area needs to be precise if it is not to descend into absurd conspiracyism. The document referred to is not 'secret' in any sense relative to the Official Secrets Act - other than the general application of that Act to public servants prior to 1989. It is highly improbable that any files related to M.E/CFS that date from after 1988 would be in anway subject to the provisions of the OSA as amended in 1989.The 1911 act was certainly a catchall piece of legislation, but it is important to understand that the process was not one of document classification, but of a burden on qualifying persons (public servants etc). This did create absurdities - as in the much quoted "In legal theory, it was a crime to reveal even the number of cups of tea consumed each day in the MI5 canteen" but the 1989 Act changed the position quite dramatically as did the introduction of the 2000 FOI Act. The National Archive does not arbitrate on the basis of the OSA, the NA is primarily guided by the competing provisions of the FOI Act and the 1998 Data Protection Act ( which superceded the 1984 legislation). Any redactions in documents deposited with the National Archive will predominantly be made in accord with the privacy provisions of the DPA, unless the documents pertain to areas falling within the ambit of the 1989 version of the OSA - basically having a defence or foreign affairs relevance where the National Archive would have recieved the documents on the basis that documents were sealed or redacted for a specified period under the OSA.

So - we are not dealing with 'secret' files and we are not dealing with an 'official cover up'. However we are dealing with files which contain material covered by the Data Protection Act, which is legislation designed to protect the privacy of individuals and which the National Archive is duty bound to uphold. Disproving florid claims about what redactions 'mean' is impossible, until such time the redactions become expired (in the case of personal data this is set at 75 years -being an effective individual 'lifetime' ), is impossible. The only reasonable thing to do is work on the balance of probabilities - in the case of the UK National Archive, that militiates strongly against 'Government coverup' . Coverup (if when it occurs) simply means material never gets to the archive because 'officially it never happened.

IVI

 

[SilverbladeTE]

In Vitro
which in theory would be true, but in practice is not
note I did say much of what's "secret" is due to commerciaa and other "confidentiality clauses"...they can get abused too indeed that has become their prime purpose in many cases, see the pharma corp's actions.
this method has becoem one of the favourites of government in recent decades because they can pass the buck that way "Oh we had to sign confidentiality contracts, so we can't tell you anything, not our fualt, sorry!", and lack of the Cold War to support their lunatic secrecy blanket

tons of things get covered up, "just because"
because civil servants fear it would embarass their masters, expose corruption, because they are playing an enormous and absurd game of "pass the buck"...etc
so, they come up with any damn excuse to cover up EVERYTHING they think could cause issues, except when such would screw over a rival or such, and now, try and leave some "nice looking chewy bones" for the FOI to gnaw on
.
the whole of the UK's rotten system is designed to sto slow down to a crawl any attempts to redress, exposure and so on. You DO realize the shit they put the asbestos, nuclear test veterans and MANY others through, hm?
Point of proof: ATOS using the Official Secrets Act to silence whistleblowers.

You don't get how much corruption and stupidity goes on :/
"Conspiracy" is the natural way of doing things, in fact. "dirty deeds worked out in an expensive restaurant for mutual gain", not "NWO" etc.
rather not waste my time proving you are wrong, banking bullshit, pharma corps, Camelford etc...

 

[snowathlete]

I think I sit somewhere in the middle between IVI and Silverblade in how I see things.

I dont know enough about these files to know how much is being kept from us, if anything, on an unreasonable basis. But people certainly do take actions to control information availability, often without much regard for what is legal when there is something to gain or lose from that information being unavailable.
Indeed, in my own personal situation battling against the DWP/ATOS I have experienced something along these lines myself where there have been many attempts to hide/lose/get out of providing/provide only part of/misrepresent information.
So it is certainly plausible that there is information that should be made available, but isnt because it might be damaging to someone or some group.

If there is some information about ME/CFS in the archives that isnt being provided access to because of personal information for 70 years then you would think it is still reasonable to expect access to that information with the personal data blacked out. From what I have read (which may be inaccurate) there is a lot of information still unavailable, even in part, for 70 years on the basis that the information contains personal data. If that is true then it seems very suspicious to me that at least part of this information is not made available. I find it hard to believe that such information could not be made available, in part, if it does indeed exist.

In order to make any sense of this we really need to know reliably what information, if any, if not being made available, for whatever reason and have some idea of what this information relates to and how much information we are talking about.

 

[alex3619]

In terms of what has been released from the archived documents I have reported before that in reading them so far as I could see the redactions were consistent with the stated claim that they were redacted to ensure privacy. The issue is about what was not released, as well as the nature of the court argument which led to the restrictions. I do not have a link handy linking back to the original court action.

The UK is considered by some, including journalist Heather Brooke, to be one of the most secretive governments in the western world. This appears to be changing, with more options now available to access material which was previously denied to the public. I am still investigating this.

Working on the basis of probabilities in cases where there is high uncertainty is not the only reasonable thing to do. I consider it highly unreasonable. Working on the basis of alternative scenarios, looking for confirming or disconfirming evidence, and acting only on strong evidence is the approach I favour. Questioning things in relation to alternative scenarios is not only acceptable, I consider it mandatory in a robust democracy or in any scientific endeavour. Acting as though a possible scenario is true is where conspiracy theories originate.

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

In terms of what has been released from the archived documents I have reported before that in reading them so far as I could see the redactions were consistent with the stated claim that they were redacted to ensure privacy. The issue is about what was not released, as well as the nature of the court argument which led to the restrictions. I do not have a link handy linking back to the original court action.

Why would a court action be required to establish restrictions ? The normal processes are set out here: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/legislation/public-records-system.htm and the NA operates under a code of practice: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/dp-code-of-practice.pdf which is defined by legal statutes - notably the the Data Protection Act.

Working on the basis of probabilities in cases where there is high uncertainty is not the only reasonable thing to do. I consider it highly unreasonable. Working on the basis of alternative scenarios, looking for confirming or disconfirming evidence, and acting only on strong evidence is the approach I favour. Questioning things in relation to alternative scenarios is not only acceptable, I consider it mandatory in a robust democracy or in any scientific endeavour. Acting as though a possible scenario is true is where conspiracy theories originate.

Under the conditionality that the defining data is not going to be available for many years (in the case here perhaps another 50 years) your academically sound approach involves suspension of decision beyond the lifetimes of many of those reading this thread. We can of course say 'we don't know and for (us oldies at least) never will.But in practical terms most us of us will need a working hypothesis - assessing certainty is difficult but probability leads us to favour simpler explantions over more complex ones - I'm loath to invoke the much abused dictum of William of Occam but it's useful short hand. Pragmatically the complex scenarios demanded by cover up explantions, are simply unhelpful in working out how to respond in terms of advocacy and engagement with the people and institutions that can actually further the interests of M.E/CFS affected people.

IVI

 

[alex3619]

What were the processes involved in extending the usual 30 year period for archived files at Kew to 73 years? Does anyone have evidence of this process? There is a lot of discussion, but not a lot of evidence that I can see.