The following exchange between the NZ Ministry of Health and Jane Burgermeister strongly suggests that The Hon Mr Tony Ryall has been factually incorrect in the most serious way possible in his answers to questions about the H1N1 vaccine. Moreover, he might well have lied about circumstances surrounding the NZ govt’s purchase of the vaccine from Baxter International, the company that contaminated the Seasonal Flu Vaccine with LIVE BIRD FLU VIRUS.
Please give this your urgent attention. We believe that there is no issue more serious than that of toxic vaccines being injected into the people of this country, and the UNTESTED, TOXIC (Mercury, Squalene, Polysorbate 80, etc) H1N1 vaccines must never be permitted to be administered to New Zealanders.
Around half of all doctors, nurses and other health professionals worldwide are now refusing to get vaccinated with the H1N1 vaccines. They KNOW it’s neither safe nor effective.
It’s time New Zealanders woke up to this potentially LETHAL scam.
Jon Eisen, Editor, UNCENSORED
Katherine Smith, Associate Editor, UNCENSORED
Jane Burgermeister Confronts Tony Ryall
Ed Note: Jane Burgermeister (www.theflucase.com) is the investigative reporter who blew the whistle on Baxter International, the vaccine manufacturer who contaminated 72 kgs of Seasonal Flu Vaccine with LIVE BIRD FLU VIRUS, thus nearly sparking a worldwide LETHAL pandemic early in 2009. New Zealand has ordered 300,000 doses of Baxter’s H1N1 vaccine.
Tony Ryall is the NZ Minister of Health who has served on the Executive Board of the WHO since 2007.
Dear Tony Ryall,
I am writing to you concerning claims made in an email by Dr Janice Wilson from the New Zealand Ministry of Health that your ministry has carried out an investigation into Baxter’s contamination of 72 kilos of vaccine material with the live bird flu virus — supplied by WHO — in February in Austria, so nearly sparking a global bird flu pandemic.
Dr Wilson wrote an email in response to a query on the incident.
„The Ministry has investigated allegations that Baxter Healthcare Limited supplied H5N1 contaminated seasonal influenza vaccine, and is satisfied that this allegation is not true.”
But how can the Ministry claim to have investigated the allegation and found it not true when Baxter itself admitted that it manufactured and distributed live bird flu contaminated seasonal influenza vaccine as confirmed by media reports around the world?
To quote just a few reports:
“Baxter Sent Bird Flu Virus to European Labs by Error (Update2),” Bloomberg report, Febuary 24th.
”Officials investigate how bird flu viruses were sent to unsuspecting labs,” Canadian Press report, Febuary 25th, 2009.
„Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic.“ the Times of India, March 6th, 2009.
“Pharmakonzerns Baxter, hat vor einigen Wochen mehrere mit dem Grippevirus kontaminierte Impfproben an Labors im In- und Ausland verschickt. Wie sich jedoch herausstellte, haben die für wissenschaftliche Tests vorgesehenen Proben versehentlich das gefährliche Vogelgrippevirus H5N1 beinhaltet. Die Panne fiel zuerst im tschechischen Labor BioTest in Konarovice auf, wo es zum unerwarteten Sterben von Frettchen kam, an denen der Impfstoff aus Österreich getestet wurde. Eine Untersuchung brachte die Diagnose: Vogelgrippe,“Nach Berichten tschechischer Medien wurden ähnliche Tests auch in Slowenien, Deutschland und Österreich durchgeführt – mit dem gleichen Ergebnis,“ von Aureliusz M. Pedziwol.
„We intended to send a pure virus of common flu for testing to the Czech Biotest; by accident, we sent the bird flue virus. The experimental material got mixed up,” said Baxter spokesperson Richard Tischler.
Specific process that was used during the production of this testing material will be never used again, he said, but without giving any details of what the specific processes were or how the use of those specific processes would be discontinued.”
In einem Interview mit Lifegen.de am März spricht Frau Jutta Brenn-Vogt (Manager Communications Baxter Deutschland) von einer einmaligen Kombination von Prozessen, technischen und menschlichen Fehlern als Ursache für den Vorfall. “The root cause of the incident has been identified. It was due to a unique combination of process, technical and human error in a procedure used for this specific research project in our facility in Austria (Orth).”
“Cross-contamination of commercial product, clinical material or other experimental material has been absolutely excluded. The public health authorities in Austria performed an audit at Baxter’s research facility in Austria (Feb. 16) and Baxter’s corrective and preventative actions were found appropriate by the auditors. The contamination occurred only during the process for this specific research project for AVIR Greenhills in Baxter’s facility. Further details about the process will not be discussed as it is proprietary information.
The company has cited propreitary information as the reasonw hy it refuses to divulge details of the way that the contaminated material could have been produced in ist biosafety level 3 laboratories where commeercial vaccine production and clinical and experimental trials presumably take place under high biosecurity conditions to prevent just such a cross contamination. Can we accept this level of secrecy and this superficial investigation which seemed to just rubber stamp what Baxter had done when the contaminted virus posed a real threat to the health of the general public?
LifeGen.de: Will the contamination in Europe lead to management changes in your company? Brenn-Vogt: No.“
In addition to these media reports, the Austrian Health Minister Alois Stöger answered parliamentary questions on the contamination of seasonal flu material with the live bird flu virus by Baxter, further underlining that the contamination is not an allegation as Dr Janice Wilson claims but proven fact.
In answering question 14 and 15, the Health Minister Stöger admitted that 72 kilos of material was contaminated with the live bird flu virus by Baxter.
„The material meant for research purposes – 72 kilos were to be viewed as contaminated – were returned to the company and destroyed under controlled conditions.“ (Das für Forschungszwecke bestimmtes Material – 72 kg waren als kontaminiert anzusehen – wurde in die Firma zurück geholt und kontrolliert vernichtet.“)
However, in another set of parliamentary answers, the Health Minister said that the contaminated material was either destroyed or returned to the manufacturer, Baxter.
That Baxter’s subsidiary in Austria contaminated 72 kilos of vaccine material with the live bird flu virus and then sent it to 16 labs under a false label is, therefore, a verifiable, unambiguous fact, also stated by the Austrian Health Minister in official parliamentary documents.
The Health Minister has given parliamentary answers that are full of contradictions.
For example, in an answer from May 20th, 2009 to the question: „What is the reason why no information has reached the public yet?“, Alois Stöger said “There was and is no reason to inform the general public about the contamination with the bird flu virus (Influenza A/H5N1) of a material produced for research purposes. There was no danger for the general public.”
But how can the Health Minister claim that there was no danger to the general public when 18 people in Vienna were treated preventatively for the bird flu in hospital and the incident nearly triggered a global bird flu pandemi according to experts and the media?
A press release from 11 February, 2008, issued by the City of Vienna said that 18 people had had to be treated preventatively for bird flu in the Otto Wagner Spital.
„Wien (OTS) – Am vergangenen Montag [Februar 9th] wurden im Wiener Otto-Wagner-Spital 18 MitarbeiterInnen eines externen Unternehmens
ambulant behandelt, da vorerst nicht ausgeschlossen werden konnte,
dass sie im Rahmen ihrer Arbeit mit einem Vogelgrippe-Erreger in
Kontakt gekommen seien. Bei keinem der umfassenden Tests wurde eine
Darüber hinaus wurden die PatientInnen umgehend mit einer
Grippe-Vorsorge behandelt. “Weder für die Patientinnen und Patienten
noch für Personen, die mit ihnen in Kontakt waren, bestand eine
Gefährdung. Selbstverständlich haben wir aber alle zuständigen
Behörden informiert”, erklärte Dr.in Susanne Drapalik von der
Generaldirektion der Spitäler der Stadt Wien.“
Underlining the danger, the company Panasonic ordered Japanese employees in some foreign countries to send their families home to Japan because of fears of a bird flu pandemic that same day as an AP press release shows.
“Panasonic to fly home workers’ families over bird flu fears
Feb 9, 2009
TOKYO (AFP) — Panasonic Corp. has ordered Japanese employees in some foreign countries to send their families home to Japan in preparation for a possible bird flu pandemic, a spokesman said Tuesday.”
The firm decided to take the rare measure “well ahead of possible confusion at the outbreak of a global pandemic,” he said.
“The bird flu cases reported so far are infections from bird to human, but once an infection between human beings is reported, things can get chaotic with many other companies trying to bring back their employees,” Kadota said.
“We wanted to take action early before it gets difficult to book flight tickets,” he said.”
It is, therefore, a verifiable fact, too, that people had to be treated prevenatively for bird flu in Austria and also in the Czech Republic as a result of coming in contact with this contaminated material and that Panasonic was planning emergency measures to bring its employees back to Japan, underlining that it posed a threat to the general public and to human beings.
It is a fact that a global bird flu pandemic was nearly sparked by Baxter in the opinion of experts and the media such as the Times of India.
The only issue is whether the contamination of the seasonal flu material was deliberate or not.
Because biosafetly level 3 regulations apply when handling the bird flu virus under the European Directive 90/679/EWG on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, the contamination must have been deliberate.
The EU directive 90/679/EWG classifies biological agents in four groups according to how dangerous they are for people who work with them and requries appropriate working conditions meeting four different criteria:
Article 2 makes this clear:
For the purpose of this Directive:
(a) ‘biological agents’ shall mean micro-organisms, including
those which have been genetically modified, cell cultures
and human endoparasites, which may be able to provoke
any infection, allergy or toxicity;
(b) ‘micro-organism’ shall mean a microbiological entity,
cellular or non-cellular, capable of replication or of transferring
(c) ‘cell culture’ shall mean the in-vitro growth of cells derived
from multicellular organisms.
‘Biological agents’ shall be classified into four risk groups,
according to their level of risk of infection:
1. group 1 biological agent means one that is unlikely to cause
2. group 2 biological agent means one that can cause human
disease and might be a hazard to workers; it is unlikely to
spread to the community; there is usually effective prophylaxis
or treatment available;
3. group 3 biological agent means one that can cause severe
human disease and present a serious hazard to workers; it
may present a risk of spreading to the community, but there
is usually effective prophylaxis or treatment available;
4. group 4 biological agent means one that causes severe
human disease and is a serious hazard to workers; it may
present a high risk of spreading to the community; there is
usually no effective prophylaxis or treatment available.“
The bird flu virus has a 60 per cent mortality rate and is, therefore, classified as a group 3 biological agent that can cause severe human disease and present a serious hazard to workers.
In addition, when it is mixed with the seasonal flu as happened with Baxter, it becomes highly transmissbale and presents a risk of spreading to the community.
Baxter has to use biosafety level 3 or 4 regulations when handling the bird flu virus according to the law and Baxter has itself stated it adheres to these biosafety level 3 regulations.
Biosafety level 3 agents such as the bird flu virus require labs with double door entries, biosafety cabinets for all technical manipulations etc.
More details on the kind of special safety features of biosafety level 3 labs can be found here, for example:
BIOSAFETY LEVEL 3
At Biosafety Level 3 (BL 3), facility design plays a significant role in safety. BL 3 activity involves organisms or systems which pose a significant risk or represent a potentially serious threat to health and safety of workers. Such facilities include special engineering design features and containment equipment. These facilities are usually separated from the general traffic flow by controlled access corridors, air locks, locker rooms, or other doubledoor entries. Biosafety cabinets are required for all technical manipulations that involve viable cultures (no work is allowed on an open bench). The surfaces of all walls, floors and ceilings are sealed and, therefore, impervious to liquids that may spill onto them. This means that all penetrations (telephone, lights, plumbed lines for gas, vacuum, electrical lines, electrical switches, etc.) are caulked, collared or sealed to prevent leaks. The collars and seals are also made of material which can be cleaned.
The ventilation system in the Risk Group 3 facility is designed to exhaust more air than is supplied, resulting in a directional airflow from the outer corridors, which are regarded as clean, into the laboratory which is regarded as contaminated. The air is discharged to the outdoors and not recirculated to other parts of the building without appropriate filtration treatment.
This laboratory design is suitable for experiments involving:
· Recombinant DNA molecules requiring physical containment at the Risk Group 3 level including animal studies with BL 3 and some BL 2 agents.
· Microorganisms of moderate biohazards potential such as those in Risk Group 3 or BL 3.
· Oncogenic viruses that have human cells in their host range.
· The production of large volumes or high concentrations of certain Risk Group 2 and all Risk Group microorganisms or viral infected cells (where the virus is infectious for man and requires BL 3 containment).
· Production activity which involves Risk Group 3 and some Risk Group organisms.
There is, therefore, overwhelming evidence that Baxter deliberately contaminated the 72 kilos of seasonal flu with the live bird flu virus supplied by WHO in its biosafely level 3 lab in Orth an der Donau to create a bioweapon that was transmissible and deadly.
This overwhelming evidence was the reason why the Vienna state prosecutor launched an investigation after I filed criminal charges against Baxter and Avir on April 8th.
I filed another set of criminal charges against the Austrian Health Minister for his role in a cover up in June.
Question for Tony Ryall: Have you been in contact with the Austrian police concerning the Baxter investigation? When? With whom? Please give details to substantiate the claim that you have undertaken a proper investigation.
You say; „This investigation found that a batch of virus produced by Baxter Healthcare Limited for research purposes, but not for use in humans, had been contaminated with influenza H5N1. „
What investigaiton are you referring? There was only a prefunctory investigation by a veterinary surgeon and a representative from the department of human medicine belonging to the Austrian Health Ministry that resulted in no action as the Austrian Health Minister himself stated.
No official from New Zealand has ever contacted me concerning my criminal charges.
The Health Minister Stöger said that veterinary rules would be tightened only as a result of this incident. However, veterinary rules do not apply in these case. Biosafetly level 3 rules apply, and there was no mention of these biosafetly level 3 rules being tightened.
In addition, the fact is that the 72 kilos of contaminated material resulted in 36 people having to be treated preventatively for the bird flu, and could have sparked a pandemic.
To classify it as „research material“ is an inviduous classification. Whether material for research or not for research is irrelevant in as far as it almost sparked a pandemic and harmed human beings.
There are credible reports from the Czech lab BioTest that they received the material under the label “seasonal flu” – not research material. Have you investigated those claims?
The unambiguous, verifiable fact is Baxter manufactured and spread contaminated material and nearly triggered a global bird flu pandemic among humans – and it did it deliberately.
Baxter itself said the live bird flu virus was supplied by WHO, implicating the very organisation that you, Tony Ryall, are associated with as a member of WHO’s executive board.
„The batch of virus concerned was not required to be produced under conditions required for the manufacture of products used in humans,“ Dr Janice Wilson says.
However, all material using the bird flu virus MUST be handled under biosafety level 3 regulations irrespective of its alleged end purpose.
Biosafely level 3 regulations means the virus cannot be mixed with any other material or leave a facility irradiated irrespective of whether it is designated for human use or not.
Furthermore, any such material must leave the facilities irradiated and with correct labelling. This did not happen.
„Remedial action has been instituted in conjunction with international regulators, to prevent any future event of this nature,“ says Dr Janice Wilson.
What remedial action? The Austrian Health Minister said he has tightened veterinary laws but, as mentioned before, this was not a violation against the vetinary code. It was a violation against biosafety level 3 regulations.
There was no mention of any contact with international regulators by the Austrian Health Minister in his parliamentary answers. What information do you have on this that the Austrian parliament does not?“
„The Ministry is therefore satisfied that this incident does not suggest any risk may be posed by a Baxter pandemic, or seasonal vaccine,“ says Dr Janice Wilson.
How can the NZ Ministry conclude there is no risk to the people of New Zealand from Baxter vaccines when Baxter is being investigated by the Austrian police for criminal intent in manufacturing 72 kils of seasonal flu material contaminated with the bird flu virus when biosafety level 3 regulations apply? When no credible investigation has taken place?
Why did the Ministry not ask questions about why Baxter patented a vaccine to the H1N1 virus in 2008 long before the so called new virus appeared in April in Mexico City not far from Baxter’s lab?
„In April and May 2009, after H1N1 pandemic influenza developed, the question of a second supply was visited. The Ministry contacted a number of vaccine providers for a review of their products and anticipated delivery schedules. Baxter Healthcare Limited again emerged as the preferred provider and it was decided that the Ministry would enter into a contract with Baxter Healthcare Limited,“ says Dr Janice Wilson.
On what basis was Baxter selected as the preferred provider in view of its poor safety record not just with the incident in Austria but also in France?
Please give the reasons why Baxter was chosen.
What do you say to the fact that the „swine flu“ vaccine will not be tested for safety or effectiveness before it is released into the general public according to the EU regulators own documents?
Why are adjuvants, which have not been tested for safety on pregnant women and children, to be given to pregnant women and children?
What do you say to the huge body of evidence linking squalene to the Gulf War Syndrome, suffered by 25 per cent of US soldiers given the anthrax vaccine with adjuvants and in doses a million times smaller than those planned for the „swine flu“?
What do you say to the fact that the 1976 US „swine flu“ mass vaccination programme had to be abandoned because it proved so dangerous?
What do you say to two WHO memos dating from 1972 which prove the intentional creation of the killer technology used in the swine flu vaccine by switching off the immune system, loading the body with virus and then switching on the immune system with an adjuvant to create a cytokine storm?
Another important document is the 7/16/09 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled „The Persistent Legacy of the 1918 Influenza Virus”. In this article it is stated that “one of the viruses (in the present H1N1 strain) is a derivative of the 1918 Virus”.
One of the authors is Jeffrey Taubenberger, who is interviewed in the documentary “Killer Flu” which you can obtain from www.pbs.org…in that documentary he describes how he and a team of scientists went to Alaska to dig up dead bodies of people who died of the 1918 flu and then decoded it.
What do you say to that further proof that this present H1N1 virus was engineered in a lab?
Can you explain why WHO said the virus was a not to be called the swine flu but the H1N1 virus because it has nothing to do with pigs?
Why did virologist Adrian Gibbs say it had escaped from a lab?
What do you say to Dr Marc Girard who said this vaccine could kill 60,000 people in France, above all pregnant women and children?
What do you say to a survey showing 65 % of French nurses would refuse the swine flu shot over safety concerns?
What do you say to the fact that nurses in New York would rather face the sack than take this vaccine?
What do you say to the way WHO changed the pandemic criteria in April 27th loosening them to make a pandemic level 6 declaration possible?
What do you say to the fact that pharmaceutical exectives sat as observery on a key vaccinary advisory group of WHO that recommended mass vaccinations on July 7th?
It has come to my attention that you are a member of the executive board of WHO, as mentioned above.
Why is this fact not mentioned in your biography on your website? Are you aware that your concealing this fact from the people of New Zealand might give rises to questions concerning whether you are involved in a conflict of interest?
The French Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot also concealed her 12 years of employment for the pharmaceutical industry from the French general public? Is this acceptable?
What measures, specifically, have you put in place to ensure that the Baxter swine flu is independently tested? Please list all procedures.
Do you have financial or personal links with pharmaceutical companies that sit on WHO’s vaccine advisory board as „observers“? Have you ever worked for them? Do any of your family? Do you own shares in them?
I would like to apply for information on all government files concerning the investigation you allegedly carried out on Baxter’s contamination of 72 kilos of vaccine material because this issue has major implications for the New Zealand public and the public health.
I request that you please provide a copy of all documentation upon which the Ministry of Health is relying which substantiates:
“The Ministry has investigated allegations that Baxter Healthcare Limited supplied H5N1 contaminated seasonal influenza vaccine, and is satisfied that this allegation is not true.“
Although I am not a New Zealand citizen, I understand that I can, and hereby am, formally requesting all information held by the NZ Government / Minister of Health/ Ministry of Health relating to myself, Jane Burgermeister; pertaining to the criminal charges I have filed against Baxter International Inc and Avir, the Austrian Minister of Health and the World Health Organisation in respect of the „bird flu“ and „swine flu“.
Your actions in pushing ahead with mass vaccinations with Baxter’s vaccine with inadequate investigations and safeguards strongly suggests the notion that you are serving not the interests of the people of New Zealand but the interests of Baxter and WHO.
I believe a full inquiry into your actions in respect of ordering the Baxter “swine flu” jabs for mass vaccinations without adequate safety checks would serve the interests of the people of New Zealand.
Regards, Jane Burgermeister