Be The Catalyst: Fill & Download for Free

In my opinion, some of the most respected scholars in Pakistan include:Shaukat Aziz, MBA : An economist and financier who, after serving as Executive Vice President of CitiBank in 1999, also served as Finance Minister of Pakistan from 1999-2007 and as Prime Minister of Pakistan from 2004-2007. For the first time in Pakistan's history, all goals and revenue collection targets were met in his tenure, and allocation for development has increased by about 40%. Moreover, despite a series of internal and external distresses, the economic situation of Pakistan improved significantly and reserves increased to US$ 10.5 billion on 30 June 2004, compared to US$ 1.2 billion in October 1999. In terms improving Pakistan's economic landscape and bringing in a very talented support staff, it is hard to say that any Prime Minister has done even a fraction of what Mr. Shaukat Aziz was able to accomplish.Dr. Abdul Hafeez Shaikh :An economist of international repute with over 30 years of experience in economic policy-making, management and implementation. He earned his doctorate from Boston University and later went on to become a Professot at Harvard University.His work experience includes:World BankMinister for Finance, Planning and Development, SindhMember of the Senate of PakistanFederal Minister for Investment and Privatization, PakistanGeneral Partner, international investment fundAfter leaving the Government, Dr. Shaikh was General Partner of an international investment company, headquartered in New York, which set up a $1.38 Billion fund for investments in Asia.Atta-ur-Rahman, FRS, D.Phil.,(King's College, Cambridge) TI, SI HI, NI, : a leading scientist and scholar in the field of organic chemistry, especially renowned for his research in the various areas relating to natural product chemistry. With over 909 publications in the field of his expertise including 116 books largely published by leading publishers in Europe and USA and 27 patents, he is also credited for reviving the higher education and research practices in Pakistan.Positions heldProfessor at H.E.J. Research Institute of Chemistry at Karachi UniversityFederal Minister of Science & Technology (2000–2002)Federal Minister of Education (2002)Former Federal Minister/Chairman, Higher Education Commission, Pakistan (resigned due to govt issues)(2002–2008)Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Science and Technology(2002–2008)Honorary Life Fellow, Kings College, Cambridge University (2007–present)Member Board of Governors, Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver, Canada (2010–present)Distinguished National Professor International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences at Karachi University (2011–for Life)Professor Emeritus, University of Karachi (2011- for Life)Patron-in-Chief International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences at Karachi University (2009–present)Dr Prof. Anwar Nasim : a molecular geneticist and molecular biologist. Anwar Nasim is a scientist in the field of biochemical genetics and genetic engineering. Nasim published more than one hundred Scientific papers in prestigious international Journals World wide since 1965.Nasim started his career as a Lecturer in Govt. College, Multan and then Government College, Lahore. In 1962 he got scholarship and went to Glasgow, Scotland. In 1966 he got Ph.D in Biochemical Genetics from University of Edinburgh. From 1966 to 1973 he was a Research Officer in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. From 1973 to 1989 he was Senior Research Officer in National Research Council of Canada. During this period he passed a Sabbatical year (1978–79) at Max Planck Institute, Tübingen, Germany, and the Biology Department of Stanford University. From 1983 to 1989 he taught as Adjunct Professor in Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Ottawa and from 1984 to 1989 as Adjunct Professor in Department of Biology Carleton University, Ottawa. From 1989 to 1993 he worked as Principal Scientist and Head, Molecular Genetics Group, Biology and Medical Research Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.From 1994 to 1996 he was Executive Secretary in Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Islamabad. In August 1996 he was appointed as Adviser Science, COMSTECH, IslamabadJavaid Laghari, PhD ( University at Buffalo, The State University of New York), An electrical engineer and science administrator who is currently serving as the chairperson of the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.Laghari previously worked in the United States as a researcher at NASA, the Air Force Research Laboratory of AFOSR, the Office of Naval Research, the Naval Research Lab, the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Strategic Defense Initiative, Hughes Aircraft and the Boeing Aerospace Company. He was Chairman of the 1992 IEEE International Conference on High Voltage Engineering and has organized numerous International Conferences and chaired a large number of Sessions and Workshops in the United States.Shahid H. Bokhari, PhD (University of Massachusetts Amherst) : a highly cited researcher in the field of parallel and distributed computing. He is a fellow of both IEEE and ACM.Ishfaq Ahmad, PhD, A nuclear physicist, associate professor of high-energy physics at the National Center for Physics, and formerly as science advisor to the Government of PakistanSyed Nawab Haider Naqvi, PhD is a noted of Pakistani economist and scholar (MA Economics at Yale University, PhD in Economics at Princeton University and post doctoral studies at Harvard University)Ishrat Husain, PhD (Boston University) : A banker and economist, who is the Dean and Director of the Institute of Business Administration, KarachiDr. Hafiz Ahmed Pasha (Stanford University) is a distinguished economist of Pakistan who is a member of the country's Panel of Economists, an independent advisory committee for the government.Dr. Sania Nishtar (PHD - King's College, London/ MMBS - Khyber Medical College) - In April 2013, Nishtar was sworn in as Pakistan's Federal Minister for Science and Technology, Information Technology, and Education and Training.In 1999 Nishtar left a lucrative career as Pakistan’s first woman cardiologist to establish the NGO think-tank, Heartfile, which today is a health policy voice and catalyst for health reform in Pakistan.[4] Nishtar is also the founder of Pakistan’s Health Policy Forum and Heartfile Health Financing, a Heartfile program to protect people against health impoverishment.Nishtar is a member of many Expert Working Groups and Task Forces of the World Health Organisation, a member of the board of the International Union for Health Promotion, the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Well-being and Mental Health, and the Ministerial Leadership Initiative for Global Health.Nishtar is also the chair of the Aman ki Asha health committee (a bilateral peace effort between Pakistan and India) and is chair of GAVI’s Evaluation Advisory Committee.Nishtar is the author of Pakistan’s first health reform plan, Pakistan’s first compendium of health statistics,and the country’s first national public health plan for non-communicable diseases. She signed three MoUs with Pakistan’s Ministry of Health, committing her time pro bono to write these documents.Nishtar's book Choked Pipes, an analysis of Pakistan’s health systems, became the blue print for the country’s health policy.Nishtar is the author of 6 books, more than 100 peer review articles and around the same number of op-eds. Her latest, Choked Pipes, was published by Oxford University Press in 2010.Dr. Tariq Rahman (University of Sheffield) - He is an academic, columnist and intellectual.Educated at Burn Hall School (now Army Burn Hall College), he joined the army as an armored corps officer in 1971. However, he decided to leave the army—on the grounds of being a conscientious objector to the military action in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. He finally resigned his commission in 1978.Meanwhile, he had obtained three master's degrees as a private candidate. In 1979, he won a British Council scholarship, enabling him to obtain master's and doctoral degrees from the University of Sheffield in England. He joined the academia as an associate professor in the English Department of Peshawar University in 1985. In 1987, he became professor and head of the English Department in the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Muzaffarabad where he introduced linguistics.In 1989, he also got an M.Litt in linguistics from the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. In 1990, he joined the National Institute of Pakistan Studies. In 2004, he was given the title of National Distinguished Professor by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. In the same year he was awarded the Pride of Performance for research.He was also the first incumbent of the Pakistan Chair at the University of California, Berkeley in 2004-5. In 2007, he was appointed the director of the National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, and in 2010 he was made professor emeritus there. In September 2011—after the end of his tenure as director of the NIPS at Quaid-e-Azam University—he accepted the deanship of the School of Education at the Beaconhouse National University in Lahore.In November 2011, he was awarded the Humboldt Research Award for his research—being the first Pakistani to get the research award—though many Pakistanis had been given the Humboldt fellowship earlier. In the award ceremony on June 20, 2012, Professor Dr. Helmut Schwarz, president of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung said: 'I am delighted to welcome our first research award winner from Pakistan, Professor Tariq Rahman.' This award was conferred on him for his books such as Pakistani English (1990), A History of Pakistani Literature in English (1991), Language and Politics in Pakistan (1996), Language, Education and Culture (1999), Language, Ideology and Power: Language Learning Among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India (2002), Denizens of Alien Worlds: A Study of Education and Polarization in Pakistan (2004) and From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History (2011) besides a large number of scholarly papers, conference presentations, book reviews and citations to his work in scholarly writing.

Power Abuse in the OR: The Support Staff as Targets and Patients as VictimsJeanne Crane July 2015Knowledge is power: In order to protect your interests you have to understand your risks. As an advice columnist and investigative reporter for a Woman’s magazine (WNC Woman), I am committed to being a public voice. I respond to the needs of women who are denied their power or are targets of power abuse. As a pioneer feminist, I confronted power abuse. My challenge broke through the glass ceiling into the executive suite and freed a generation of women from bondage. My plea for reader’s comments revealed that my generation did not flush out all of the bullies.My readers, in the OR’S of the medical community, have advised me that the patriarchs (“A social system in which men dominate and are regarded as the authority within the family and society”) escaped exposure when Corporate America was held to a higher standard, because they hid under the mantle of “Good Works.” Patriarchal Surgeons/Bullies are not held accountable for their destructive patterns of conduct, because they see themselves (and are viewed) as invulnerable and all-powerful.My research disclosed the fact that their impediments are known and enabled. The medical profession has facilitated discrimination/bullying by allowing “Patriarchal” leadership to thrive. It is defined by the 2014 Ketchum Leadership Communication Monitor of England as: “a ‘macho’ model of solitary leadership -- a command-and-control approach centered on one-way rhetoric, obsessively controlled messaging and solitary decision-making.”READERS CORNER:Dr. Julia informs me that all is not well for women in the OR:She reports that in her field of anesthesiology she is outnumbered 15 to 1…She is not treated with the same respect as her male counterparts, and work assignments are discriminatory…She feels that conditions would improve if the ratio of males to females was more in balance.Dear Julia,I chose to address your concerns because they mirrored my experience. Your circumstances have an even greater impact on society than mine. My challenge freed hostages in the workplace. You are working under the domination of Patriarchs, and they abuse their power to the effect of society at large. We need to tell the world that it impacts their safety when they put their very lives in the hands of a team of professionals whose leader dispenses negative and disabling energy. This creates an environment where morale and efficiencies are diminished. There is no greater circumstance where the balance of power should rule the day.I fail to comprehend how the medical community escaped the watchdogs the first time around.OR Nurse Karen reports why the Patriarchal Surgeons have escaped exposure:It is political by nature. The administration and surgeons share a symbiotic relationship—a co-dependency so to speak. Most of the surgeons are in private practice and are granted operating room privileges. The bottom line is: Surgeons are not held to a higher standard, because the administration is reluctant to withdraw operating room privileges; the surgeons are cash cows and provide major revenues. The administrators recognize the pressure that surgeons are under and offer anger management courses which few take advantage of. (Isn’t that interesting? They obviously recognize that the surgeons are bullies.) She added, sardonically, that they do not have a program for gender discrimination…Women still empty the bedpans while men do the “real” miracles.I asked Karen to rank the doctors on power abuse: Of the 35 surgeons that she works with 75% abuse their power in contrast to only 20% of the anesthesiologists. She worked in a hospital in another state that also oppressed women. She added that the women surgeons are team players.|Dear Karen,Thanks for enlightening us. By understanding the dynamics, it draws us closer to a solution.My goal is to enlighten society to the fact that they suffer the consequences of chaos in the operating room. Every single woman should pay very close attention to these revelations, because at some point in time she will be either a surgical patient or an advocate for one. I am incensed when I realize that our lives are at the mercy of emotionally immature bullies. I am reminded of the Hippocratic Oath, “First, do no harm.” When Patriarchs give reign to their egos (more specifically, their super egos) and connect with their negative emotions, they block access to their higher natures and Divine Guidance. In addition, their disruptive behavior impairs the efficiency of their assistants. The patient then becomes a potential victim of their diminished abilities.Victim Speaks OutIt is important to know and understand your antagonist before his forceful tactics can be neutralized. I just finished reading a memoir written by Sandra M. Gilbert titled Wrongful Death: A Medical Tragedy—1995. Sandra’s husband was a surgical patient at a University of California Medical Center and died needlessly in the recovery room because of the irresponsible attitude and neglect on the part of the surgeon. As further proof that Patriarchs are enabled, his negligence was covered up. Both Sandra and her husband were professors at the University and colleagues of the offenders. It is a dramatic example of our vulnerability; Sandra declares cynically, “When you enter the operating room it’s a crap shoot” (a Gambling Parlor where the odds are stacked against you).This is not a gender war; males are also targets. Women sustain the most impairment because they represent a wide majority of the support staff. It is the same war that I fought—power v/s force. As David R. Hawkins M.D. states in Power VS. Force: “Power gives life and energy… force takes these away.” My battle was won because Knights—powerful men of honor and peaceful warriors—joined in the conflict. There is a need to employ the help of the Knights in the medical sectors. They are legion; we have all interacted with them and benefited from their sensitivity to our needs. They are also incensed by the Patriarchs who tarnish their honorable profession. My research revealed that surgical Knights are vocal about the need to set standards for a fair, harmonious, and safe operating room. The administrators are obviously not listening, which means that society has to be discriminating when they choose a surgeon. If the surgeon is cold, detached and dismissive (forceful) with the patient, it is more than likely that he treats the OR personnel the same way.Surgeons Speak OutDr. Wen Shen’s very lengthy and insightful article titled Bloody Nice: Is the Quest to Build a Kinder, Gentler Surgeon Misguided?— appeared in a July 14, 2014 article of the Pacific Standard (Page on psmag.com). He is a surgeon at the UCSF Medical Center. The theme of his article was how to tame the Patriarchs without losing their results—how to find a balance between confidence and arrogance, leadership and dictatorship, harmonious teamwork and taking charge when chaos erupts…While he states that the culture has changed and the residents are disciplined if they yell at underlings or throw instruments in the operating room, he does not reveal that the majority of the infractions are by private practice surgeons who are immune to penalties… He admitted that some surgeons come awfully close to personality disorders such as narcissism, obsessive-compulsiveness and paranoia. (The “Faith to Persist” phase of my journey includes my experience with an “Obsessive Compulsive,” and the atmosphere around him was chaotic. Why don’t training programs weed out personality disorders?)...There is also substantial disagreement on how invasive the bullies are. Nurse Karen puts the figure at 75/25 against the odds while Dr. Shen says that there are a little more than half of the surgeons that he would want to operate on him or his family…He asks the question, “Can we carve away the toxic personal qualities that have plagued us for centuries while retaining the guts and perfectionism that are the foundation of our professional ethos?” My answer would be: A tame/emotionally stable surgeon is a healer, because he has an open channel to his Higher Power. God Calling say’s it best: That spirit which, if given a free entrance, and not barred out by self, will enable you to do the same works as I did.Dr. Marty Mackey is a surgeon at John’s Hopkins and an associate professor of health policy at the John’s Hopkins School of Public Health. He helped pioneer the life-saving surgical checklist: Book Summary - The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande, 121912His 2012 book— UNACCOUNTABLE: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You, and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care—holds all of the answers. “This book should be read by all people, not just doctors and health administrators, so they can make wise decisions when it comes to choosing where, when, and who will provide health care for themselves and their loved ones.”He states that Mayo Clinic’s strong hospital culture of quality, safety, and patient-centeredness is rooted in a strong tradition of listening to employees. He adds that not reporting incompetence among peers is part of medical culture that has been around for centuries, and Dr’s and nurses crave administrative crackdowns. He proves the positive affect of anonymous employee surveys regarding competency. When the lower level employees are encouraged to express their concerns, safety accelerates dramatically… Medicine is poorly policed. Getting fired takes an action so egregious or offensive to hospital administration that he has only seen it twice among all of the hospitals in which he worked or trained…State Medical Boards are responsible for disciplining Physicians… the more revenue a doctor brings in, the weaker the hospital’s incentive to look into local allegations (a validation of nurse Karen’s revelation)…A powerful tool in the quest for accountability is the camera. If applied widely, videotaping has the potential to transform medicine by adding accountability to a poorly documented and poorly monitored health system; videotaping gets 100 percent enthusiastic support from nurses.Bully Surgeon Profile“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”—Dale Carnegie.I am of the mind that a goodly proportion of surgeons have personality disorders that are attracted to the practice of surgery, because they view it as a profession that they can perform with tight boundaries—limited patient interaction and dictatorship/bullying of the support staff. They misapply the advice that they receive in training that cautions them to detach emotionally from the patient. Their antisocial tendencies and emotional boundaries cause them to disengage from everyone to a point of force if necessary. With that mindset I recognize why the bullies have never been reformed—it is counterproductive to their temperaments and feelings of entitlement. No matter how efficient they are at their profession it doesn’t make up for their emotional inadequacy, because it diminishes the effectiveness of the support staff.Drastic measures of reform have not changed the bullies: appeals by benevolent surgeons, Supreme Court support of litigation against a bully surgeon, wrongful death litigation by a victim’s wife, and pending legislation addressing bullying. The only way to protect the victims of abuse is to be pro-active by forcing reform until hospital administrators establish zero tolerance by monitoring performance and enforcing accountability.The following are examples of how the bullies can be banished as females begin to fill the vacancies: Nurse Karen stated that the female surgeons that she encountered were all team players. Dr. Makey revealed that female surgical students outnumber males, and Dr.Shen acknowledges that a slow shift in the gender makeup of the surgical workforce has resulted in a welcome influx of new perspectives and leadership styles.Bully case verdict a warning to doctors:Excerpts from an article published in the April 9, 2008 issue of the Indiana AuthorityJoseph Doescher was a hospital operating room perfusionist, the person who operates the heart/lung machine during open heart surgery. He alleged that Dr. Daniel Raess, a cardiovascular surgeon, aggressively charged him “with clenched fists, piercing eyes, beet-red face, popping veins, and screaming and swearing at him.” Doescher testified that he backed up against the wall and put his hands up, fearing that Raess was going to hit him. Although Doescher’s legal claims were intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault, the trial strategy was to present Raess as a classic "workplace bully." The jury found for Raess on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, but for Doescher on the assault claim and awarded him $325,000.In a 4-1 decision, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a $325,000 verdict against a cardiovascular surgeon accused of being a “workplace bully.” Previously, the trial and appellate court decisions in the case had received nationwide attention because of the interest in the concept of “workplace bullying.” Raess v. Doescher, No. 49S02-0710-CV-424, Indiana Supreme Court (April 8, 2008).Pending legislation:There are compelling strategies developing to challenge bullies by establishing the destructive effects to the health of the victims of their abuse. It is a proposed state law called the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) that “plugs the gaps in current state and federal civil rights protections.” The bill has been introduced in 29 states. It describes bullying as: repeated, malicious, health harming mistreatment that takes the form of: verbal abuse, threatening, intimidating or disruptive interference or sabotage (I experienced malicious, disruptive and intimidating interference and sabotage.)…Technically bullying is a form of violence—psychological violence.Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie have founded an organization called the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI). History of WBI | Workplace Bullying Institute (a must read). WBI is also the catalyst for the U.S. Legislative Campaign for legal reform, advocating passage of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. Dr. Gary is the National Campaign Director of HWB. The following link is an engaging video by Gary that details the emotional affects of bullying and appeals for support of HWB: http: //www.healthyworkplacebill.org/takeaction/share.php·· UpdatesOn March 12, 2015, the Utah Senate unanimously passed HB 216 on a vote 24 ayes -0 nays -5 not voting. The bill introduced by House Rep. Keven Stratton and sponsored in the Senate by Todd Weiler, sailed through both House and Senate committees and floor votes in both chambers. The bill becomes law with Gov. Gary Herbert’s signature.New York returns to lead the nation with a complete Healthy Workplace Bill in the Assembly — A 3250. The bill provides legal redress for employees harmed by abusive conduct. It rewards proactive employers who voluntarily protect workers with adequate policies and procedures with a litigation prevention mechanism. It defines the phenomenon and applies to employers in both private and public sectors. Our State Coordinators continue to set the highest bar for comparison. A 3250 has 80 co-sponsors. The Senate companion bill is in the works.Bottom LineNothing will change until the medical hierarchy is forced to support the need for rules of conduct. Hopefully my disclosures and visions will attract the attention of the administrators, and they will become willing partners to the regeneration of an honorable profession. A “worst case scenario” (as in my case) will necessitate the need to file a claim of discrimination or bullying. A fire-proof (accurate and specific) lawsuit charging the hospital and surgeon will lead to a peace treaty/settlement offer that will contain a protocol. Once rules for the game are legally mandated, it will set a precedent for the entire medical community.Readers note:If this report raises your consciousness (What I think about, I bring about.—Daily Word), it should confirm the need to do your homework when faced with surgery, and to spread the word.

To answer this question as accurately as is possible…..an UNKNOWN percentage (of people). Allow me to elaborate.First of all, it is important to be aware that 1 in 6 US children (the US has one of the largest schedules of vaccines used in a first world nation, so we can reasonably compare other countries that have similar schedules and a similar lifestyle/society) has a developmental disability, including, though not limited to - ADD, ADHD, ASD, Hearing Loss, Learning Disability, Mental Disability and Mental Health issues, Seizures, Stammering, Tics etc.Also, 54% of US children now have a chronic, often lifelong illness, including, though not limited to - Asthma, Bone and Muscle Disorders, Chronic Ear Infections, Diabetes, Digestive Allergies, Environmental Allergies, Epilepsy, Arthritis, Auto-Immune Disorders ("A disease resulting from a disordered immune reaction in which antibodies are produced against one's own tissues, as systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis"), Cancers, and Early-onset Menopause.In 1986, the childhood schedule contained eleven injections, and that in that same year, the percentage of children with a chronic illness was 12.8%. In 2017, the number of injections was 53 (and if you are unfortunate enough to live in Mississippi, West Virginia or California, that number will continue to go up, as there are nearly 300 vaccines in Research and Development, and if ACIP makes one of their classic rushed decisions to put any one of these on the childhood schedule, your child is mandated to receive it, even if you are concerned about that particular vaccine, or know that that particular virus or microbe is un-concerning and easy to treat and prevent, like the common cold, for example).No one would say that vaccines could be the only culprit, and no one does, but mass prolonged vaccination should be at the top of the list of culprits. They are the one product routinely used on children that are inherently designed to activate, stimulate, agitate, inflame, aggravate, trigger, prompt and prod the immune system, so when we have a generation of hyper-stimulated immune system dysfunction, which the above illnesses *are*, you'd best believe that vaccines are a top suspect, and it would be highly illogical and unreasonable to say that they are not.Even the Institute of Medicine agrees that they are a suspect - In 1991, the IOM reviewed the DTP vaccine (which was the vaccine most-reported upon to have injured children, being a catalyst for the 1986 indemnification of vaccine manufacturers), so that the CDC could know conclusively whether or not the list of adverse reactions purported to be due to this vaccine WERE due to this vaccine. They found that of the 22 conditions reported, the literature supported causation with six of these conditions. They found that the literature did not support causation with four. They found that for twelve conditions, they noted "Literature Inadequate to Accept or Reject Causation".In 1994, the IOM reviewed the DT (diptheria - tetanus), MM (measles - mumps), Hep-B & Hib vaccines, for the same reason - this time, there were fifty four conditions blamed on these vaccines. They found that the literature supported causation with 12, and that it did not support causation with 4, but that the literature was again insufficient for THIRTY EIGHT conditions, and said to the CDC "The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee", and that the IOM "regrets...this uncertainty" and "urges that more definitive research be done". Basically, "CDC, please shape the f*ck up and do your job - research".In the 2011 Report, the vaccines reviewed were Varicella (chicken-pox), Hep-B, and MMR & T (tetanus). There were 155 conditions reported and studied. The literature supported causation with 16 of them, and did not support causation with five, but of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR, the literature was again "Inadequate to Accept or Reject Causation" - the CDC, after seventeen years, had still not done their job sufficiently....ON VACCINE INJURY (ADVERSE EFFECTS OF VACCINATION) AND VAERS -One needs look no further than the NVICP that represents about 1% of the victims of vaccine injuries, and it has paid out over $4 billion to the families, with most claims for injuries, including death, capped at $250,000. The highest pay out, I believe, was to the Poling family, when daughter, Hannah, had been confirmed as having regressed into autism after vaccination, and that amount was $20 million (along with a gag-order imposed on the family afterwards, but not before Dr John Poling spoke out about the case on national television). However, that amount pales in comparison to the billions of dollars’ worth of autism claims that the vaccine court unfairly dismissed. \Whether intended or not, the end result of the 1986 Act (that indemnified vaccine manufacturers from liability), and the NVICP has been to create a “gold rush” environment that encourages manufacturers to develop even more vaccines, while conveniently exempting them from liability for the injuries and deaths that result from their powerful immune-system-altering products. With no incentive to make vaccines safe and a large and lucrative market guaranteed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s childhood vaccine schedule—as well as a growing effort to foist unnecessary and dangerous vaccines on adults—vaccine manufacturers appear to have it made.The other system we currently have that gives us information on the various injuries and other deleterious effects from vaccination is VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Not too good, at least for the moment. According to HHS, studies confirm that many health providers are unfamiliar with the system for reporting vaccine injuries. The shocking under-reporting of vaccine injuries also fails to account for the fact that one in six individuals who experience an “adverse event following immunization” (AEFI) have a recurrence with subsequent vaccination, often rated as “more severe than the initial AEFI.”There are major problems with VAERS, which the CDC considers the “front line” of vaccine safety. VAERS was created in 1990 by the CDC and FDA as a means to collect and analyze adverse effects that are associated with vaccines. Unfortunately, the failings of VAERS are “kept from the consciousness” not only of the public, but also from the doctors, pediatricians, and nurses that the public rely on to provide reliable information as to the safety of vaccines. I say “kept from the consciousness” rather than “kept secret” because while these failings are publicly disclosed for all the world to see, they are for all intents and purposes BURIED in documents seldom searched out by the average member of the medical community, much less by the average individual. You could say that the information has been very effectively hidden in plain sight.By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast under-reporting of vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks. As I've made mention of in another comment in this thread, the IOM has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported. While one might expect a new program (new in 1990) to have a few bugs that need to be worked out, one would expect that when it comes to being able to ascertain vaccine safety, working out those bugs should be priority number one*. Certainly today in 2019, a whopping 29 years later, the *failure of the CDC to address this monumental danger to public health should be viewed with a skepticism much greater than mere suspicion. That leads us to the interesting case of the CDC and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School a $1 million dollar grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for 3 years and to create an automated reporting system which would revolutionize the VAERS reporting system- transforming it from “passive” to “active.”This project was called Electronic Support for Public Heath- Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). According to the grant final report, the scope of the project was, “To create a generalizable system to facilitate detection and clinician reporting of vaccine adverse events, in order to improve the safety of national vaccination programs.” To accomplish this the team used the electronic medical records at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc, which is described as a “large multi-specialty practice.” Every patient that received a vaccine was automatically identified and followed for 30 days. Within that 30 days the individual’s diagnostic health codes, lab tests, and prescriptions were evaluated to recognize any potential adverse event. Another goal of the project was to evaluate the performance of the new automated system via a randomized trial and to compare this new data to the existing data collected by VAERS and Vaccine Safety Datalink.Just the preliminary description of this program is head and shoulders above the current functioning of the passive VAERS system. In our current system, adverse events are to be spontaneously reported by parents or health care providers. Most parents aren’t even aware the VAERS system exists, much less aware that they are supposed to be reporting to it. Health care providers are “supposed” to report adverse events, but we have no idea of the efficiency level with which this is occurring, and more than a hunch that this reporting is grossly neglected for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, many vaccine adverse events are never reported because either the parent, patient, or doctor is completely unaware that a subsequent adverse event is in fact due to a vaccine. This new reporting system would remove all of these failures from the equation.What were the results?Data were collected from June 2006 to October of 2009 on a total of 715,000 patients. Of those 715,000 patients, 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse reaction. Let’s just take a minute to reflect on that last sentence. Out of only 376,452 individuals that received a vaccine at this Harvard practice, the new automated system identified 35,570 possible adverse reactions in a three year period. How does that stack up to the number of adverse effects reported to VAERS? According to the CDC, only 30,000 adverse events are reported every year for the entire US population, and according to the mainstream media, doctors with no time on their hands to educate themselves, and people who appreciate ridiculous ads like the video above, are "one in a million".To quote the findings directly from the report, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”Think about that - fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccination are exceedingly rare (and predominantly minor). According to the CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? Simple multiplication would yield vaccine adverse events reports numbering 5,911,700.Of course, at this point that figure is nothing but a guess. But, again, why do we HAVE To guess? Because in 29 years the CDC has failed to provide a post- licensure vaccine safety surveillance system that the IOM, FDA, physicians, and the public can have confidence in.The report also states, “Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of the clinician’s usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative. So, WHY aren’t the reports currently being made to VAERS? According to the findings above, clinicians don’t know for sure what a vaccine adverse event is. This isn’t surprising at all considering what we learned from the 2011 IOM report. There haven’t been enough studies performed for highly trained IOM scientists and physicians to even determine whether or not the majority of the currently suspected 158 adverse vaccine effects are indeed caused by vaccines. How could we possibly expect our average pediatricians or general practitioners to know what a team of IOM personnel have determined we have inadequate information to decide? In addition, this report basically finds that your clinician frankly doesn’t have the time to devote to proper VAERS reporting under the current inconvenient system.You would be forgiven for thinking that the CDC would be exceedingly pleased with this outstandingly positive result. The Harvard team just created a proactive, reliable, automated system that would improve the quality of our vaccination program by improving vaccine adverse event detection thereby increasing public confidence in post- licensure surveillance., and public confidence in vaccination in general.So, what did the CDC do with this great news? Nothing.They cut all lines of communication. No more answering phone calls or emails. You heard me correctly, the United States of America Centers for Disease Control ghosted Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc. For those who are unaware, Google dictionary defines "ghosting" as, “the practice of ending a personal relationship by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.” We would all hope that the public could hold an organization like the CDC (and the other Alphabet Agencies that are charged with keeping the public healthy) to a higher standard, but…After a one million dollar grant was paid and three years of research conducted on what appeared to be a very successful upgrade to the passive VAERS system, the team’s CDC contacts went MIA. The ESP:VAERS final report states, “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”According to the final report, the only thing left for the CDC to do was link the VAERS system to the Harvard Pilgrim system in order to transmit the data. The team requested that the CDC do this, “However, real data transmissions of non-physician approved reports to the CDC was unable to commence, as by the end of this project, the CDC had yet to respond to multiple requests to partner for this activity.”What is the public supposed to do with this information? One of the following?1. ("Pro-Vaxxers") You give the CDC the benefit of the doubt, assume deep down they have the safety of the public at heart and chalk up their monumental waste of money, time, and a good idea to bureaucratic incompetence.2. ("Anti-Vaxxers") You stop naively believing that the CDC cares ultimately about public safety and realize that the vaccine industry makes way too much money to allow public confidence in the safety of vaccines to be eroded by a surveillance system capable of giving the public a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of the adverse effects vaccines are actually responsible for."Anti-vaxxers" have now won two lawsuits in the US against HHS and NIH respectively - the "brain-trust" of the science of vaccination. That should alarm you (and every person who finds this out) more than it does, unless...you just didn't know, which is certainly very, very probable. Now you do.