Reblogged from source: http://crazzfiles.com/turnbull-pushes-mandatory-vaccination-rollout-but-has-lucrative-shares-in-big-pharma/ with thanks
March 11, 2016
Malcolm’s Message To Australian Families is, Vaccinate Vaccinate Vaccinate $$$$$$$.
Our No Jab, No Pay policy has seen vaccination rates improving rapidly.
Ensuring Australia has a herd immunity will keep children and communities safe that’s why we’re aiming for 95% of children to be immunised.
Families currently receiving Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate have just over a week left to get their child’s immunisations on track by 18 March 2016 to avoid the risk of losing child care payments.
Malcolm Turnbull has shares in pharmaceutical companies and cigarette maker British American Tobacco.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has been controversially targeted by Labor over his extensive offshore investments, has updated his pecuniary interests to include a European investment fund that holds shares in pharmaceutical companies and cigarette maker British American Tobacco.
The Australian newspaper reported this week that two of Mr Turnbull’s other investment funds hold shares in Japan Tobacco, maker of Camel cigarettes.
Turnbull’s office declined to comment but anti-tobacco campaigner Simon Chapman said it was difficult to know exactly where funds invest their money but said he would expect Mr Turnbull might consider “pulling out” of those particular funds. Read More:
What’s on Malcolm Turnbull’s Register of Interests?
First, there are the listed companies and funds*. Among them is the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust [NYSEARCA:SPY]. Over the last two years, SPY is up by nearly 40%.
This ETF is relatively popular because it offers exposure to big-name stocks, whilst being balanced and accessible.
The Trust’s top 1445522814945ten holdings are Apple Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Exxon Mobil, Johnson & Johnson, GE, Wells Fargo, Berkshire Hathaway (Class B), JPMorgan, Amazon.com, and (Pfizer Inc).
Apple is the most substantial holding, at 3.8%.
To put that in context, Microsoft comes next at 2.03%. So it’s very tech heavy.
But perhaps not as tech heavy as Vanguard Information Technology ETF [NYSEARCA:VGT], which Turnbull bought in July last year.
VGT’s top five holdings are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and IBM.
images Lucy Turnbull sticks with Prima BioMed:
Lucy Turnbull will remain Chair of Australian biotechnology company Prima BioMed.
Prima BioMed is a clinical stage immuno-oncology company, currently in product collaborations with Novartis and GSK.
Ms Turnbull said she would reassess her corporate commitments following her husband’s elevation to the prime ministership in September.
She has subsequently stood down as deputy chairman of Australia’s largest private ferry operator, SeaLink Travel Group, but was yesterday re-elected Chair of Prima Biomed at its Annual General Meeting yesterday.
“The Board is delighted that Lucy is standing for re-election,” said Non-Executive Director Russell Howard.
“Despite her considerable new responsibilities, she remains committed to development of Prima’s immunotherapy products for the benefit of cancer patients, as well as Prima shareholders.
ucy has made a highly valued contribution to the Board over the past 5 years. We have her ongoing support and counsel going forward.” http://biotechdispatch.com.au/lucy-turnbull-sticks-with-prima-biomed/#sthash.m4LC4oOI.dpbs
Among the more unusual investments detailed by the register were the Minister’s positions in ETFs based on the commodities platinum and palladium, and his wife’s keen interest in pharmaceutical companies. http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/11/why-is-lucy-turnbull-dodging-australian-equities/
Tax avoidance inquiry calls on nine ‘big pharma’ bosses to explain tax contribution
The bosses of nine of Australia’s largest multinational pharmaceutical companies will appear in front of a Senate committee investigating corporate tax avoidance.
Representatives from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohne have all been requested to appear at public hearings on July 1.
The next phase of the tax avoidance inquiry comes months after the headline-grabbing appearance of executives from Google, Apple and Microsoft who struggled to explain why those companies pay so little tax in Australia.
The move on “big pharma” came after Australian Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan told a Senate estimates hearing this month that at least four large drug makers are being audited by the tax office. “Clearly there are [ATO] investigations happening in that industry,” he said.
Mr Jordan, who has said that the pharmaceutical industry displays “some of the attributes of the tech industry”, said the importation of drugs manufactured overseas and the payment of royalties for the intellectual property behind them made tax minimisation possible for the industry.
It also comes after Fairfax Media revealed that the five biggest suppliers of publicly subsidised medicines in Australia recorded sales of nearly $5 billion last year but paid an average of just $10 million each in company tax.
Research by the Parliamentary Library disclosed the tax contribution of multinational pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca, makers of common cholesterol drugs Lipitor and Crestor, respectively.
It found Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis both reported losses in Australia in 2014. Those companies received a combined $1.1 billion from the taxpayer for supplying medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
In total, the top five pharmaceutical suppliers to the PBS received $2.8 billion in public money. Their total Australian sales were $4.8 billion. But the research found their combined profits were a slim $50 million. They paid $53 million in tax between them – or roughly 1¢ in tax for every dollar earned in Australia. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tax-avoidance-inquiry-calls-on-nine-big-pharma-bosses-to-explain-tax-contribution-20150619-ghrzw6.html
12814395_969913573058276_5879952735085109604_nHarvard Trained Immunologist Demolishes California Legislation That Terminates Vaccine Exemptions
The following open letter by a PhD Immunologist completely demolishes the current California legislative initiative to remove all vaccine exemptions. That such a draconian and cynical state statute is under consideration in the ‘Golden State’ is as shocking as it is predictable. After all, it was mysteriously written and submitted shortly after the manufactured-in-Disneyland measles ‘outbreak’.
vax_ill_collThe indisputable science that is employed by Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD ought to be read by every CA legislator who is entertaining an affirmative vote for SB277. Dr. Obukhanych skillfully deconstructs the many false and fabricated arguments that are advanced by Big Pharma and the U.S Federal Government as they attempt to implement a nationwide Super-Vaccination agenda.
When the California Senate refuses to consider authoritative scientific evidence which categorically proves the dangerous vaccine side effects on the schoolchildren, something is very wrong. Such conduct by the Senate constitutes criminal action that endangers the lives and welfare of children. Their official behavior must be acknowledged for what it is — CRIMINAL — and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology
Re: VACCINE LEGISLATION
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin,the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.
The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #2). The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.
Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters (see appendix for the CDC document, Item #3), meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae(types a through f).These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4). The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.
In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?
It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established thatvaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).
When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.
Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?
Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:
“THE APPARENT PARADOX IS THAT AS MEASLES IMMUNIZATION RATES RISE TO HIGH LEVELS IN A POPULATION, MEASLES BECOMES A DISEASE OF IMMUNIZED PERSONS.”
Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.
Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.
Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.
It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals. – 
Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.
Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?
The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15. Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.
Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism. The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.
Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).
In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.
Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.
~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, is the author of the book Vaccine Illusion. She has studied immunology in some of the world’s most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Stanford University in California.
Dr. Obukhanych offers online classes for those who want to gain deeper understanding of how the immune system works and whether the immunologic benefits of vaccines are worth the risks: Natural Immunity Fundamentals.