Sample Letter Of Intent To Become Supplier: Fill & Download for Free

SOURCES AND INSTRUMENTS FOR FINANCIAL TRADE1. Sources of trade finance2. Instruments of trade finance3. Impediments/Challenges in accessing trade financeFinancing trade is different than regular bank lending. It includes innovative financial products and services that assist importers and exporters fulfill their financing needs. Trade Finance is a source of working capital for many traders in need of credit lines to purchase, process or manufacture products for sale in the future. These financial instruments can be important for individual traders and firms trading internationally, because it can shape competitiveness on their terms of trade contracts. As a market expands so is the need for financing instruments that facilitate transactions across borders.Any nation that does not have access to financial instruments can be considered blocked from trade. Importers or exporters not having access to trade finance, have limited opportunities to offer competitive terms to their vendors or buyers such as instruments of credit and payment assurance. Exporters will also have difficulties penetrating a market, because importer may prefer to buy on open account, or on deferred terms, the exporter may not be in position to accept/offer such terms if trade finance is unavailable.Commercial Banks are the main source of trade finance.1. Provide pre-export financing (Term Loans)2. Help in the collection process3. Issue and confirm letters of credit4. Book acceptance and discounting drafts5. Offer fee-based services such as credit and country information on buyers.6. Taking foreign exchange risks (spot, forward, swap and so on)7. Taking market risks (options, futures)8. Discounting documents under letters of credit9. Advance under red clause letters of credit10. Structured FinanceFor example a supplier can offer credit to a buyer by releasing goods against bills of exchange, by which a seller can pay at a specified future date.Specialized trading institutions purchase from exporters receivables without recourse at a discounted rate to allow them access to financing before maturity of the bill. In this case the receivable becomes a tradable securityGovernments and other institutions like World Bank, regional bank, community bank can be good source of trade finance especially in less developed economies where financial markets and money markets are not easily available.Such financial facilitation include:1. Establish scheme of guarantees to support exporters2. Establish floating line of credit to support imports for and exports from specific sectors3. Establish guarantees schemes for small companies or micro group4. Support trade facilitation policies, e.g. tax deferral for export/import on extended termsSources of Trade Finance: Government and other related institutions1. Letters of Credit (Documentary Credit)2. Bank Guarantees3. Pre and Post shipment finance loan facilities4. Buyers and Sellers credit5. Bills Acceptance6. Structured Finance7. Leasing8. Factoring and Forfeiting9. Counter-tradeA Letter of Credit is a document issued by a bank (issuing bank) stating its commitment to pay a seller (beneficiary) a stated amount of money on behalf of a buyer so long as the seller presents specific documents and conditions.Letters of Credit can be issued as “Revocable” or “Irrevocable” form and are either “Unconfirmed” or “Confirmed”, payable at “Sight” or at a deferred period “Use”Letters of Credit can also be special types, namely: Revolving letters of credit, Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC), Red Clause letters of credit, Transferable letter of credit, and Back-to-back letters of credit.Letters of credit issued against L/C facility allows importer to delay payments to exporter, thus easing cash flow problems and interest expenses. It allows supplier to access credit against presentation of documents at the counters of negotiating bank without waiting for goods to reach the buyer. It allows buyer to obtain credit terms from a seller under active period or differed L/C terms whereby the bank books acceptance for payment of bills to be made at future agreed date (maturity date).Supplier can discount documents and obtain credit before due date.Red clause Letters of credit allows exporter to obtain pre-export advance paymentA Letter of guarantee is a written promise issued by the Bank to compensate the beneficiary (third party, local or foreign) in the event that the obligor (customer) fails to honor its obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions of the guarantee/agreement/contract. Types include Bid, Custom, Payment, Performance, Advance payment, Government export guarantees etc.Advance payment guarantee allows its beneficiary to access advance payments to facilitate procurement or production of goods for delivery to the intended partyCustom Bonds allow a buyer or seller to postpone payment of tax until the goods are soldCustoms Bonds for Temporary Transit facilitates movement of goods on transit or sent abroad for a trade fair, or goods, which are imported with intention of re-exportation without paying related custom duties.Structured finance refers to transferring risks in trade financing from parties less able to bear those risks to those better equipped to bear them in a manner that ensures automatic reimbursement of advances from the underlying assets.Some examples of structured finance include:1. Inventory/Ware house financing2. Receivable financingLeasingFactoring and forfeiting are both forms of receivables discountingA specialized financial firm pays up-front for the amounts due to them by their customers.While forfeiting is mostly used for international transactions, factoring is mostly used for domestic trade. Factoring is the assignment to a third party receivables from its customers for a discounted factor (fee) in different ways:Advance-based factoringMaturity-based factoringCollection-based factoringForfeiting is a term generally used to denote the purchase of obligations falling due at some future date, from deliveries of goods and services-mostly export transactions-without recourse to any previous holder of the obligation.In a forfeiting transaction, an exporter/seller remits guaranteed debt, which results from a sale on credit, to a forfeiting company.The forfeiting company pays a seller up-front for the face value of the debt minus a discounted factor.The debt has to be enhanced through guarantee from a bank or other financially strong institution.Once the debt has been accepted by the forfeit er, the exporter is no longer liable for a failure of the buyer to pay-the forfeit er, except where there was fraudulent transaction.Counter-trade involves the exchange of goods and/or services as a condition of purchase, or as financing of purchases as in bartering.Under such arrangements valued goods are exchanged at an agreed value without cash or credit terms.This method of trade is particularly valuable in markets where there is a shortage of foreign exchange reserves, where the currency is not freely convertible, or where there is difficulty in obtaining export credit. It is method for a range of reciprocal or compensatory trade mechanisms including barter, compensation, counter-purchase, buyback- offset, switch trading and tolling.

Special Report: How Korea trounced U.S. in race to test people for coronavirusSpecial Report: How Korea trounced U.S. in race to test people for coronavirusChad Terhune, Dan Levine, Hyunjoo Jin, Jane Lanhee Lee[[SEOUL - In late January, South Korean health officials summoned representatives from more than 20 medical companies from their lunar New Year celebrations to a conference room tucked inside Seoul’s busy train station.One of the country’s top infectious disease officials delivered an urgent message: South Korea needed an effective test immediately to detect the novel coronavirus, then running rampant in China. He promised the companies swift regulatory approval.Though there were only four known cases in South Korea at that point, “we were very nervous. We believed that it could develop into a pandemic,” one attendee, Lee Sang-won, an infectious diseases expert at the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told Reuters.“We acted like an army,” he said.A week after the Jan. 27 meeting, South Korea’s CDC approved one company’s diagnostic test. Another company soon followed. By the end of February, South Korea was making headlines around the world for its drive-through screening centers and ability to test thousands of people daily.South Korea’s swift action stands in stark contrast to what has transpired in the United States. Seven weeks after the train station meeting, the Koreans have tested well over 290,000 people and identified over 8,000 infections. New cases are falling off: Ninety-three were reported Wednesday, down from a daily peak of 909 two weeks earlier.The United States, whose first case was detected the same day as South Korea’s, is not even close to meeting demand for testing. About 60,000 tests have been run by public and private labs in a country of 330 million, federal officials said Tuesday.As a result, U.S. officials don’t fully grasp how many Americans have been infected and where they are concentrated - crucial to containment efforts. While more than 7,000 U.S. cases had been identified as of Wednesday, as many as 96 million people could be infected in coming months, and 480,000 could die, according to a projection prepared for the American Hospital Association by Dr. James Lawler, an infectious disease expert at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.“You cannot fight what you cannot see,” said Roger Klein, a former laboratory medical director at the Cleveland Clinic and previously an adviser to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on clinical laboratory issues.How the United States fell so far behind South Korea, according to infectious disease experts, clinicians and state and local officials, is a tale of many contrasts in the two nations’ public health systems: a streamlined bureaucracyversus a congested one, bold versus cautious leadership, and a sense of urgency versus a reliance on protocol.The delayed and chaotic testing in the United States will cost lives, potentially including those of doctors and nurses, many medical experts predict. Already more than 100 people have died overall, and fears of rampant spread have led to extraordinary restrictions on social interaction, upending the U.S. economy, schools, hospitals and everyday life.“It makes me feel like I’m living in a farce,” said Dr. Ritu Thamman, a cardiologist and clinical assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Even hospital staff who may have been exposed can’t get a test, she said. “We are a rich country but we don’t have these kinds of things?”The administration of President Donald Trump was tripped up by government rules and conventions, former officials and public health experts say. Instead of drafting the private sector early on to develop tests, as South Korea did, U.S. health officials relied, as is customary, on test kits prepared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some of which proved faulty. Then, sticking to its time-consuming vetting procedures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t approve tests other than the CDC’s until Feb. 29, more than five weeks after discussions with outside labs had begun.Meanwhile, in the absence of enough kits, the CDC insisted for weeks on narrow criteria for testing, recommending it only when a person had recently been to China or other hot spots or had contact with someone known to be infected. As a result, the federal government failed to screen an untold number of Americans and missed opportunities to contain the spread, clinicians and public health experts say.South Korea took a risk, releasing briskly vetted tests, then circling back later to spot check their effectiveness. By contrast, the United States’ FDA said it wanted to ensure, upfront, that the tests were accurate before they went out to millions of Americans.“There are always opportunities to learn from situations like this one,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, who has been on the job only three months, told Reuters. “But one thing I will stand firm on: We cannot compromise on the quality of the tests because what would be worse than no tests at all is wildly inaccurate test results.”In a statement, CDC spokesman Benjamin Haynes said, “This process has not gone as smoothly as we would have liked.” But he said “more and more state labs have come online, increasing our public health system’s ability to detect and respond to cases.”Bombarded by criticism amid a re-election campaign, Trump vowed on Friday to ramp up production of test kits in partnership with private companies and to make the diagnostic tests more widely available at hospitals and in-store parking lots. This week, the FDA said more than 35 universities, hospitals and lab companies had begun running their own tests, under the agency’s revised policy.But it may be weeks before enough tests are on hand to fill the need.“The idea of anybody getting (tested) easily the way people in other countries are doing it, we’re not set up for that,” Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told a House committee last week. “That is a failing. Let’s admit it.”It’s a problem many Americans, accustomed to hearing they have the most advanced medical care in the world, find hard to fathom.“I don’t know how we messed this up so badly,” said Ruth Blodgett, 65, whose husband of the same age couldn’t get a coronavirus test on Saturday in an urgent care clinic outside Rochester, New York, even though he was coughing and the doctor ordered one for him. “We got caught flat-footed. For America, that’s unacceptable.”‘HURRY UP AND DEVELOP THE KITS’At the pivotal Jan. 27 meeting at the Seoul train station, South Korean government leaders told companies they were cleared for takeoff.“They were told that the ‘emergency use authorization’ would be coming, so hurry up and develop the kits,” said Lee Hyukmin, head of the coronavirus task force at the Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine, who was at the meeting.One of the companies was Kogene Biotech Co Ltd, whose test kit was the only one to work initially. The government announced its approval on Feb. 4.“The government acted quickly,” said Myoah Baek, an executive director at Kogene. The Korean CDC “disclosed information on test methods so test kit makers were able to speed up development.”Lee Hyukmin of the Korean laboratory society said the government was swift - but not reckless.“Of course, a kit that’s approved in one week isn’t as good as one that goes through a year of clinical trials,” he said. So in the early days, Lee said, the government cross-checked cases to ensure the tests were working properly.Cross-checking involved verifying that labs got the same result the government did on an initial pool of patient samples. As of last week, nearly 100 labs were available to perform tests nationwide, according to government figures.South Korea’s rapid response to the new coronavirus resulted from scars of the past.In the aftermath of the 2015 outbreak of MERS, short for the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, critics slammed then-President Park Geun-hye and her administration for a slow response and a lack of transparency. Public confidence waned in Park, who was impeached in 2017 following an unrelated corruption scandal.The country had 186 MERS cases, more than anywhere outside the Middle East, including 38 deaths.“We can’t ever forget the incident. It is engraved in our mind,” the Korean CDC’s Lee Sang-won said. “We were hurt so much, and we felt remorseful.”‘A REAL FOUL UP’On Jan. 31, only days after the Seoul train station meeting, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared the novel coronavirus a public health emergency, citing a similar pronouncement from the World Health Organization.HHS oversees the separate operations of the FDA and CDC, key agencies involved in responding to the pandemic. The CDC was responsible for developing the initial test kits for the virus. Then, under longstanding protocols, the FDA needed to approve the test before it could be sent to state and local labs around the country. Private labs and large hospitals could develop their own tests or work off the CDC version.On Feb. 3, amid the preparations to address the emergency, the FDA hosted an all-day conference at its headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, which had been scheduled well before the outbreak. Regulators, researchers and industry representatives gathered to discuss the general process for putting diagnostic tests cleared under emergencies on the path to permanent approval by the FDA.Though coronavirus was now the hottest topic in global medicine, a broadcast of the meeting conveyed little sense of urgency about the epidemic sweeping the globe. It was mentioned in passing but regulators mostly stuck to their Powerpoint presentations.In his remarks, Dr. Timothy Stenzel, who oversees the FDA’s review of diagnostic tests, spoke broadly about the agency’s mission to protect public health: “It’s our goal to be first in the world wherever possible to authorize new tests.”Carolyn Hiller, a program director at the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, which hosted the event alongside FDA, said there were discussions with the agency about postponing the meeting because of the coronavirus outbreak, but both sides opted to go ahead.“The whole coronavirus thing blew up in real time while this was happening,” she said.Stenzel did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, the FDA acknowledged that the coronavirus was not a “specific topic on the agenda.” But it said the agency already was talking to test developers and “the conference was timely and addressed issues important” to firms and institutions looking to produce a test.The following day, Feb. 4, the FDA greenlighted a CDC test kit for the virus.Weeks of chaos would follow.By Feb. 8, some states and other public labs were complaining that the CDC’s test wasn’t working because of a flawed component that gave inconclusive results. Three days later, the CDC told the labs that it was manufacturing a new component.As of mid-February, the federal government remained stuck in first gear. The CDC was the primary supplier of tests across much of the country, and other labs couldn’t immediately deploy their own without the FDA’s blessing.HHS said it has assigned a team of outside scientists to examine what went wrong with the CDC’s initial batch of tests, such as whether there was a manufacturing defect, flawed design or contamination in the agency’s lab. The precise problem has not been identified.The CDC didn’t send out new test kits until late February. Meanwhile, public health experts say, a crucial window was closing on containing the virus, which by then was known to have infected more than 60 people.The U.S. emergency declaration issued in late January created additional hurdles that hindered a wider expansion in testing, according to former federal officials and lab professionals.The declaration eased the way for drugmakers to pursue vaccines and antiviral treatments for COVID-19. But public health experts said that the same declaration made it harder to expand diagnostic testing outside the CDC.That’s because the declaration required diagnostic tests developed by individual labs, such as those at hospitals or universities, to undergo greater scrutiny than in non-emergencies - presumably because the stakes are higher.“Paradoxically, it increased regulations on diagnostics while it created an easier pathway for vaccines and antivirals,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “There was a real foul-up with diagnostic tests that has exposed a flaw in the United States’ pandemic response plan.”Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said the CDC and FDA stuck to their conventional playbook for too long.“Traditional public health thinking is,’Don’t create widespread panic and don’t go over the top. Keep the testing narrow in a precision rifle approach rather than a mass, shotgun approach,’” Schaffner said. “That failed in this instance. This virus acted differently and it overwhelmed the U.S. system. South Korea had a much better sense of what was happening.”In a statement Tuesday, the CDC said: “After finding out that some labs could not fully verify the test, CDC began working on a solution and identifying the source of the problem …. CDC, in conjunction with FDA, determined how to move forward and shared this information immediately with public health labs.”The CDC statement also suggested that the agency was not exclusively responsible for testing delays.The CDC was “not an impediment” to getting large-scale commercial testing started, according to the statement. That was the role of the FDA, and as the initial U.S. cases were being detected in late January and early February, CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield highlighted the need for that agency to act, according to the CDC statement.Alberto Gutierrez, who led the FDA’s office overseeing diagnostic testing from 2009 to 2017, said the agency proceeded with caution because it saw itself as the last line of defense against opportunistic companies looking to cash in on threats to public health. “There is money to be made in an emergency, and a lot of people try to take advantage of that,” Gutierrez said. “The problem the FDA faces is, do you let it become the Wild West?”“The FDA had good intentions,” he said.RAMPING UPAs U.S. efforts faltered, South Korean officials cleared a test from a second company, Seegene Inc, on Feb. 12.With many more tests in hand, health officials were well armed to attack a fast-moving virus and aggressively track down people who may have been exposed. This testing-backed offensive helped South Korea reduce the number of new cases over a matter of weeks, serving as a model for other countries grappling with the pandemic.In mid-February, cases spiked at a secretive church in the southeastern city of Daegu. On Feb. 26, Daegu city officials said they would test every single member of the church, including those without symptoms.As of March 10, Daegu said that it had tested almost all of the 10,000 members of the church in that area, and about 40% came back positive. The city, which now accounts for about three-quarters of total infections in South Korea, has seen new cases sharply drop. On Wednesday, officials announced 46 new cases compared to a peak of 741 cases on Feb. 29.The country went from two approved test makers on Feb. 18 to five as of last week, according to the Korean CDC.Slideshow (3 Images)“To my surprise, test kit makers were able to boost production quickly,” Korean CDC’s Lee Sang-won said.PLEADING WITH WASHINGTONBy Feb. 24, state and local labs in the United States were pleading with the FDA to relax its rules so the nation no longer had to rely so heavily on the CDC for testing. They asked Hahn, the FDA commissioner, for “enforcement discretion” so they could use their own lab-developed tests.“We are now many weeks into the response with still no diagnostic or surveillance test available outside of CDC for the vast majority of our member laboratories,” Scott Becker, chief executive of the Association of Public Health Laboratories, and Grace Kubin, lab services director at the Texas Department of State Health Services, wrote to Hahn on Feb. 24 in a letter reviewed by Reuters.In an interview, Becker, whose group represents more than 100 state and local health laboratories, called the letter a “Hail Mary” pass, an act of desperation.“The entire lab community was really coming unglued. We knew we could develop tests and were very capable of doing that, but we felt hamstrung” Becker told Reuters.He said labs wanted FDA to make more tests available so they could run more patient samples at a faster pace.Two days after receiving Becker’s letter, the FDA commissioner said his agency was ready to approve new outside tests quickly - if its requirements for accuracy were satisfied.“False diagnostic test results can lead to significant adverse public health consequences,” Hahn wrote to the Association of Public Health Laboratories in a Feb. 26 letter, “not only serious implications for individual patient care but also serious implications for the analyses of disease progression and for public health decision-making.”Under increasing pressure, the FDA relented and removed many of the bureaucratic obstacles. On Feb. 29, the agency said public and private labs, including academic medical centers, could start using their own tests before the FDA had completed its full review. Laboratories had 15 business days to submit a completed application, which could be approved retroactively.That same day, the Trump administration confirmed the first death in the United States from the coronavirus, a man in his 50s in Washington state.On March 2, Stenzel at the FDA’s diagnostic testing office hosted a webinar for lab test developers, highlighting additional challenges, including a shortage of viral samples needed for validation of test results. Some labs also have reported shortages of other key supplies and ingredients, as well as the need for more trained personnel.As U.S. regulators rewrote their policies, South Korean municipalities were opening roadside testing facilities across the country, collecting samples in minutes while people sat in their cars.At a closed-door meeting last week in Congress, U.S. Representative Raul Ruiz, a Democrat from California and an emergency-room physician who treated patients during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak, pressed the FDA commissioner and other members of the Trump administration on why South Korea was lapping the United States in its response.“Why don’t we have drive-through testing like South Korea?” Ruiz asked leaders of the president’s coronavirus task force.Ruiz told Reuters the officials said they were working on it. On their own, some hospitals and communities have begun offering drive-through testing in Colorado, New York, Texas and elsewhere.In recent days, as the public criticism grew louder, Trump appointed a testing czar to improve coordination across agencies. The FDA launched a 24-hour hotline for laboratories needing help to accelerate testing, approved two company applications for higher-volume testing and granted states the flexibility to authorize new tests so labs can bypass the FDA.Despite the new moves, Ruiz said he fears America is still weeks away from approaching what South Korea has accomplished. “I think months have been lost here,” Ruiz said. “Maybe we should look into purchasing South Korea’s tests.”That may happen. Both Kogene and SolGent Co, two of the COVID-19 test-makers approved in South Korea, said their companies have an eye on the U.S. market.“The FDA asked us to proceed with applications quickly,” Kogene executive Myoah Baek said.]](Chad Terhune reported from Los Angeles; Dan Levine and Jane Lee reported from San Francisco and Hyunjoo Jin from South Korea. Contributing were Julie Steenhuysen, Josh Smith, Sangmi Cha and Aram Roston; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Julie MarquisOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.)It always seems that throughout history that the United States is always reactive instead of being proactive. World War 2 we ended up reacting to Japan;s attack at Pearl Harbor. On 9/11 we reacted to the terrorists attack, and now we had to react to COVID-19, there is a pattern here that can be learned from. Question is, will we?

Oh please who do you think is behind that fearmongering? For measles lol"Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will. the biggest job of a health department has always been, and always will be, to persuade the unprotected people to get vaccinated. This we attempted to do in three ways: first by education; second, by fright; and third, by pressure.We dislike very much to mention fright and pressure, yet they accomplish more than education, because they work faster than education, which is normally a slow process.During the months of March and April we tried education, and vaccinated only 62,000. During May we made use of fright and pressure, and vaccinated 223,000 people.Our educational program consisted of warnings in the daily papers, small-pox posters on the streets, in stores and factories, special small-pox bulletins for all large places of employment, and special letters to all large employers from the health department and the association of commerce, calling their attention to a threatening small-pox epidemic. The radio was also made use of in this work.As the conditions grew worse, we felt justified in using stronger measures. We had some good pictures taken of patients suffering from the confluent type of small-pox, and had posters, showing these pictures, distributed all over the city. The moving picture theatres cooperated at this time by issuing warnings on the screen.The newspapers published daily the names and addresses of people dying from small-pox. A second letter was sent to all factories, stores, and other places of business, informing them of a rapidly approaching small-pox epidemic, and advising them to have their employees vaccinated immediately, and thereby prevent a serious financial loss to the city, which might occur if a real epidemic developed.At this time the department was vaccinating thousands of people daily, but there were still too many who could neither be educated nor frightened into vaccination. Cases and deaths each amounted to a considerable number, and we now felt justified in using all of the power a health officer has, and if that was not enough, to get more.We sent out a third letter to all employers requesting them to have all of their employees vaccinated and at the same time informing them that if a small-pox case developed in their place of employment in the future we would consider their place of business a menace to the health of the community and very likely place the entire establishment under quarantine until it could be cleaned up and made safe for the public. Putting this responsibility on the employer drove in thousands of anti-vaccinationists who could better afford to get vaccinated than lose their jobs. All employees co-operated very bravely with this last request, although in a few instances it was necessary to lay off old, reliable and valuable employees."-----Declaration by Dr. John P. Koehler, Commissioner of Health of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in an article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, November, 1925."Dr. med Martin Hirte writes on page 20 of his book 'Vaccination--Pro and Contra': "To create fear among parents to strengthen their motivation to vaccinate is an important part of the publicity used to promote vaccinations. A whole branch of research is examining the question: 'What level of fear needs to be created to appear as convincing as possible?'"---Buchwald md (The Decline of Tuberculosis despite "Protective" Vaccination by Dr. Gerhard Buchwald M.D. p104)"There is no doubt, however, that the risk has been, for some years, vastly exaggerated, seemingly to prepare the public mind to accept the new (diptheria) vaccine."---In the Medical Officer, January 25th, 1936, DR. E. A. UNDERWOOD, M.O.H. for Shoreditch, declared: "Fear is the greatest of all propagandists. During the early part of the present year (1935) diphtheria was extremely prevalent in many parts of the country, and reports in the press diffused knowledge of the dangers of the disease" (not, be it noted, of the dangers of inoculation). "The result of this knowledge, which was stimulated by the personal efforts of members of the health department staff, was a very marked increase in the number of children who attended for immunisation." (p. 38; my italics.)“A top spokesman from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last April told doctors that emphasizing "alarm" and "dire outcomes" from the flu increased demand for flu shots, according to an outline of his presentation reviewed by United Press International.That official -- outlining for doctors what he called a "recipe" for increasing demand -- said that "heightened concern, anxiety and worry" drove demand for flu shots......The recipe includes "framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as 'very severe,' 'more severe than last or past years,' 'deadly')."..............A vaccine safety advocate said the CDC's rhetoric does not match the risk from flu. "We have known for several years that the CDC is employing behaviorists and communications specialists to instill fear and anxiety in the public about infectious diseases in order to promote mass vaccination.”“I always know when it's flu season. First, the media begins its usual role as hyterical government press secretary, uncritically trumpeting the same cooked numbers about the coming flu epidemic. ... NBC's Today Show (10/6/04), warn that the flu kills about 36,000 people every year in the United States. .....It's a crock, a lie, and a sham; a conspiracy to generate fear and stampede people to use a vaccine of questionable effectiveness to the benefit of pro-immunization bureaucrats, and big pharma. Sounds harsh, but follow the math and the money. When the major manufacturers of flu vaccine get together with the CDC in a closed door summit with the sole purpose of figuring out how to stick 185 million doses of a questionable vaccine into a population in which less than 1,000 people a year die, what should we call it? Yes, Virginia, it is a conspiracy. Luckily the conspirators are foolish enough to believe that their website is safely hidden amidst all the chaff of the Internet, or else, are so brazen in their contempt for the general population that they think we can't do a little math and conclude "The vaccine doesn't work, and the flu is a flim-flam!" The CDC should concentrate on finding ways to lower the spread, working alternatives to vaccines, and ways to minimizing the severity of the flu, rather than pumping out fake numbers, creating an aura of fear and hysteria, and shilling for profits to huge pharma companies. “"What Jenner discovered, though hardly original in its general principle, was that it pays far better to scare 100 per cent of the fools in the world—the vast majority—into buying vaccine than it does to treat the small minority who really get smallpox and who cannot afford to pay anything. It was indeed a very great discovery—worth thousands of millions. That is why this kind of blackmail is still kept going."--Dr Hadwin"Finally, Dr Nicholson described the campaign as "a gift horse" for the two drug companies, which still had vaccines in stock intended for use with the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)......The stocks of the MR vaccine were still current, but had to be used by autumn 1994, just when the campaign took place. "The campaign provided a very lucky break for the two vaccine suppliers “Mmr is SatanicWe only see measles as a problem due to Allopath fearmongering to sell vaccination"It is well known that measles is an important development milestone in the life and maturing processes in children. Why would anybody want to stop or delay the maturation processes of children and of their immune systems?"--Viera Scheibner"Chronic tendencies, such as recurring respiratory infections, often heal after measles. Chronic health problems disappear, such as psoriasis or chronic kidney problems. The children’s hospital in Basle (Switzerland) used to get children with chronic kidney infections to contract measles intentionally in order to heal them, up until the 1960s . Children susceptible to infections are healthier and stronger after contracting measles; the need for medical treatment clearly decreases . Children in the Third World countries are less likely to contract malaria and parasites after measles . The risk to suffer breast cancer decreases to less than half. MS is also much lower in people who had measles. Hay fever is more rare in children who have older siblings and had measles than in those who were vaccinated against measles . A large African study showed that children who have had measles are 50% less at risk from allergies than those vaccinated,. Furthermore it is shown that experiencing measles protects from diseases of the immune system, skin diseases as well as degenerative cartilage, bone and tumourous diseases."---"In Eastern medical philosophy, poisons are believed to accumulate in the baby's body during life in the womb. After birth, the body at some time attempts to rid itself of the poisons. This leads to the many childhood diseases with eruptive rashes, and in particular, measles. Since the 16th century, it has been realized in Eastern medicine that measles is connected with infection. However the basic function of the disease is the same: the infection is regarded as the necessary agent for poisons to "come out". So, although the dangers of measles are clear, the illness is seen as a step towards overall health.Measles as a transition. The impact of measles can be best understood by observing changes in your child's behaviour, attention and attitude before and after the illness. Often, he or she is restless and irritable for some weeks or months before developing measles as though a storm is brewing. The family and other people around the child often greet the appearance of measles with relief, because at last the cause of the problem is evident. As the rash develops, and the disease goes into its second stage, the child becomes more confused and irrational. This is the most dangerous phase, and it represents the transition point.At this time, the body turns the corner as the poison leaves and the immune system gains the upper hand against the invaders. Then, as the crisis passes and the fever subsides, the child's awareness returns -- but with a different outlook. The negative and irritable behaviour has gone, and he or she is emotionally delicate and open to new influences. The child sees ordinary and familiar things in life for the first time, but through new eyes, as though he or she has had a form of ritual experience.On the physical level, the poisons accumulated during life the womb have been expelled. At the higher emotional and mental levels, negative forces such as greed and selfishness have also been expelled. So a child who has measles is afterwards less self-centered and more openhearted, and often more able to express his or her individuality. The personality becomes rounder and fuller, and more joyful and contented, as a step towards maturity and adulthood.""Children who are fed too frequently or fed improperly, and who are troubled with constipation and the passing of undigested food with the bowel movements, are made susceptible not only to diphtheria, but also to scarlet fever, measles, whooping-cough, etc. Indeed, it can be proved that normal, healthy children--children who have bowels that are regular, and who are not troubled with intestinal indigestion--cannot be made to take any of these diseases."--Tilden 1921"Measles is the manner in which a child's body throws off toxemia. When children are cared for improperly, they become toxemic, and their skin eliminates toxin to a greater degree than does the skin of grown people."--"It is my belief that measles heads the list of the diseases of childhood which are the result of starch and sugar toxemia."-(Food is Your Best Medicine)."I have myself, through Natural Hygiene, over 16 years, treated all forms and hundreds of cases of typhus and typhoid fevers, pneumonia's, measles and dysentery's, and have not lost a single patient. The same is true of scarlet and other fevers. No medicine whatever was given".--Dr Trall 1860.Febrile infectious childhood diseases (FICDs) are associated with a lower cancer risk in adulthood.A Swiss study found that adults are significantly protected against non-breast cancers — genital, prostate, gastrointestinal, skin, lung, ear-nose-throat, and others — if they contracted measles (odds ratio, OR = 0.45), rubella (OR = 0.38) or chickenpox (OR = 0.62) earlier in life:Febrile infectious childhood diseases in the history of cancer patients and matched controls.Chicken pox and reduced rates of brain cancer in adulthood:History of chicken pox may reduce risk of brain cancer later in lifeMumps and reduced rates of ovarian cancer:Mumps and ovarian cancer: modern interpretation of an historic associationMeasles and reduced risk of lymphomasMeasles - Disease Information Statement (DIS) - Physicians for Informed ConsentAnd on the contrary....both the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) and chicken pox vaccine contain human DNA which has been linked to childhood cancers like leukemia and lymphoma, autoimmune diseases and gender identify confusion....Marcella Piper-TerryFebrile infectious childhood diseases in the history of cancer patients and matched controls.#vaccines #measles #cancer #wedid #crazymothers #hearthiswell - Fermented FarmacyAs to treatment it was always safe in healthy children eg my whole school of 110 kids got measles I was first and spent nice few days in sickbay just for isolationAnd safe with all kids under proper medical care even 100 years agoNo one before the vax fearmongering started ever feared measlesThat’s homeopathy and naturopathyWhile nutritional medicine proved vit c made it safe 70 years ago eg Klenner in 1950s"But the ordinary child who gets measles, even the child with a moderate degree of malnutrition and so forth, if you give intravenous vitamin C supplementary to other forms of treatment, the response very often, not always, is absolutely dramatic If you get them early enough. You must get them early. If you delay, and they have been unconscious let us say for days, or a day or two, you cannot reverse it. The damage is permanent. If you get them early, give them this treatment and there is no problem. And that makes me very, very angry, because they talk about "Oh, we must stop these kids getting measles" and so forth. Well, all right, I can fix them if they get measles."---dr k(International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)Vitamin a"Knowing that measles often leads to vitamin A loss, we had begun to wonder if Africa's high death rates from measles might also be connected with vitamin A deficiency. To test this, children hospitalized with measles in Tanzania were given vitamin A capsules. The **measles death rate fell by half**. It was at this point that we discovered, to our astonishment, that a similar experiment had been conducted 50 years earlier in a London hospital - with the same results: medicine too has doors it did not enter, paths it did not take."--Sommer“If a source of vitamin A, such as butter, cod-liver oil or egg yolk formed a part of the diet, infective lesions were never seen in the rats and the addition of these substances to the deficient diets, unless the animals were too severely infected, generally resulted in rapid improvement and ultimate cure.”---Mellanby"There is a "cure" for measles. It is called vitamin A... cod-liver oil. As early as 1932 doctors used cod-liver oil to reduce hospital mortality by 58%, but then antibiotics became the treatment of fashion, *(Clin. Infect. Dis., Sept. 1994, pg 493) *and vitamin A was ignored until 1980. A 1993 study showed that **72% of hospitalised measles cases in America are vitamin A deficient**, and the worse the deficiency the worse the complications and higher the death rate. *(Pediatric Nursing, Sept./Oct. 96.) *Yet doctors and hospitals in New Zealand do not use vitamin A."As to the Allopaths solution to measles it can only be described as satanic"AT LEAST 26 families claim their children died as a result of the controversial measles, mumps and rubella jab, the Sunday Express can reveal. In some cases the Government has awarded parents up to £100,000 under its 1979 Vaccine Damage Payment Act. In others, post mortem reports concluded the jab was the most likely cause of death. Despite this, the Department of Health insists no child has ever died from MMR."MMR diseases (Lawyer list many years ago, UK). Legal aid was withdrawn, see MMR legal fundingAutism (287), Crohn’s disease and other serious chronic stomach problems (136), Epilepsy (132), Other forms of brain damage (induding meningitis, cerebral palsy, encephalopathy, encephalitis etc.) (77), Hearing and vision problems (81), Arthritis (50), Behavioural and learning problems (in older children) (110), Chronic fatigue syndrome (41), Diabetes (15), Guillain-Barre syndrome (9), Idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (and other purpuras) (6), Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) (3), Wegener’s Granulamatosis (2), Leukaemia (1), Multiple sclerosis (1), Death (18).how they make the Measles vaccine, start at 5:00. "I found a CDC paper called '*Isolation of the Measles virus*.' If we think a patient might have Measles get some fluid from that patient...and put in fridge. Next, get a marmoset monkey, kill it, take it's cells and put cells in cell culture because they are 10,000 times more responsive to measles than our human cells. The cell culture isn't ready yet to grow measles virus. Next thing is to make the monkey cells cancerous by exposing to radiation. Next give those monkey cells Epstein Barr virus, which is a horrific disease. Next, add a toxin to the cell culture that is so dangerous the advice is to wear rubber gloves, don't let human skin touch it. The CDC says at this point the cells are starting to fall off the sides of the vessel, in other words they are poisoned, they have cancer and EBV and they are falling over, they are ill. Give them 2 days to recover and add nutrients. Now get sample out of fridge and add to these diseased and cancerous cells. Watch with microscope for 2 days. If after this time 50% of the cells are distorted then you have an isolate of measles virus and you are instucted to put in fridge and keep to be used as vaccine. At no point is measles virus seen, at no point is the measles virus proved to cause the illness in the cells. We know they are poisoned, we know they have been given cancer & Epstein Barr syndrome. That is now ready to be made into a vaccine to be put into our kids. This noxious mixture is the basis that can be used in vaccines." Janine Roberts on Vaccines (Janine Roberts on Vaccines)The five stages of vaccine awareness1. Vaccines are safe and effective2. Vaccines are unsafe but effective3. Vaccines do more harm than good4. Vaccines are ineffective and dangerous5. Vaccines are silent weapons for human farming: killing, sterilising, mind control, and disease creation for fear and income. Vaccine advocates are psychopaths or useful idiots“Vaccination is child abuse and a crime against humanity.” - Dr Buchwald MD''Vaccination is not disease prevention - it's a particularly nasty form of organised crime in that it manipulates parents' protective instincts to get them to submit their child into getting poisoned for profit under the guise of disease prevention.'' ~ Erwin Alber."The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization.....There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease."-Dr Robert Mendelsohn (received his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Chicago in 1951. For 12 years he was an instructor at Northwest University Medical College, and an additional 12 years served as Associtae Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health and Preventive Medicine at the University of Illinois College of Medicine. He was also President of the National Health Federation, former National Director of Project Head Starts Medical Consultation Service, and Chairman of the Medical Licensing Comittee of the State of Illinois.)"Parents who allow their children to be vaccinated should be charged with child abuse and sent to prison for a very long time."---Dr Vernon Coleman MB (Coleman's Laws.)"The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors--and certainly not by vaccines.....the decline...has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvements and especially of improved nutrition. Here the role of the potato...deserves special mention.....Consider carefully whether you want to let yourself or your children undergo the dangerous, controversial, ineffective and no longer necessary procedure called vaccination, because the claim that vaccinations are the cause for the decline of infectious diseases is **utter nonsense.**"--The Vaccination Nonsense (2004 Lectures)---**Dr. med. G. Buchwald **“I the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I pointed out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research (as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during their pregnancy.) The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine.” ~ Bernard Rimland (November 15, 1928 – November 21, 2006) was an American research psychologist, writer, lecturer, and advocate for children with developmental disorders. Rimland's first book, Infantile Autism, sparked by the birth of a son who had autism, was instrumental in changing attitudes toward the disorder. Rimland founded and directed two advocacy groups: the Autism Society of America (ASA) and the Autism Research Institute."We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.......Every doctor now essentially in this country has done something as heinous as the Nazis did, unknowingly." ~ Dr Eisenstein MD“I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person with the credentials to understand this research would say that Thimerosal wasn’t most likely the cause of autism……you couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe. It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage." ----Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Kentucky and one of the world's leading authorities on mercury toxicity.