Although the Spiegel report below is from 2009, there is no reason for us to think that the German practice of a 2-class vaccine system had ended, or that there isn’t one in the U.S. as well, wherein U.S. politicians have access to “safer” versions of the vaccines they inflict on us little people.
From “Second-Class Medicine: Germans Unhappy with Alternative Swine Flu Vaccine for Politicians,” Spiegel, Oct. 19, 2009:
One might think that the arrival in Germany of the first of 50 million doses of swine flu vaccine on Monday might be cause for celebration. But with news breaking over the weekend that top government officials in Berlin will be injected with an alternative vaccine — one widely seen as safer — a debate about an alleged two-class medical system has erupted.
SPIEGEL over the weekend reported that Chancellor Angela Merkel, a number of her ministers and other government officials would receive a vaccine manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Baxter — the same vaccine that the German military opted for, as was reported last week. […]
The controversy centers on an additive included in the vaccine manufactured by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. The additive includes an inactive strain of the entire flu virus as opposed to virus fragments. Critics say the additive can increase the risk of side effects from the flu vaccine such as fevers and headaches.
Supporters counter that the additive is safe, and its use allows the drug manufacturer to quickly produce more doses of the vaccine. […]
An Interior Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL that the Baxter vaccine had been ordered for all ministries and other agencies as well as for the employees of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the authority responsible for approving vaccines.
Merkel’s spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm on Monday denied that Merkel was taking a different vaccine than the one available to ordinary Germans. He said that the Baxter vaccine had been ordered four months ago as part of a deal hammered out one year ago and has nothing to do with recent concerns surrounding the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine [aka Pandemrix]. […]
Leading physicians also complained about the planned vaccination. The head of the Institute for Hygiene and Public Health at the University of Bonn, Martin Exner, said: “The fact that politicians and top civil servants in ministries will be vaccinated with a vaccine other than the people is a terrible sign. Today politicians must take what they recommend.”
Virologist Alexander Kekulé Hall of the University Hospital said the fact “that the members of the Federal Government and the authorities have any other vaccine is a scandal.” […]
Some German politicians have joined Merkel in opting out of the alternative vaccine. Health Minister Ulla Schmidt said in Bild, “I will allow myself to be vaccinated with the same vaccine as the people. It is exactly like the other approved vaccine, safe and effective.”
The weekend scandal has drowned out a second debate which has been raging in recent weeks in the US and which has also found resonance here in Germany: whether such a massive vaccination program is necessary in the first place.
Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, chairman of the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association, has called the planned vaccination campaign a “scandal.” “The health authorities have fallen for a campaign from the pharmaceutical companies, who simply want to earn money with an alleged threat,” he told SPIEGEL.
Meanwhile, I still have not received a response to an email I’d sent 20 days ago to the Editorial Office as well as Editor-in-Chief Joav Merrick of the journal Frontiers in Public Health, inquiring why the journal deleted, without explanation, an article on childhood vaccination and autism after the journal had published it in its 2016 issue (4:270). The article was even scrubbed from Google Cache.
The article was a report by Dr. Anthony Mawson, Dr. Brian D. Ray, Dr. Azad R. Bhuiyan and Binu Jacob, of the findings of their study that found a statistically significant association between childhood vaccination and autism.
In an email, the study’s lead author Dr. Anthony Mawson informed me that Frontiers in Public Health‘s chief editor had pulled the article because of “complaints” based simply on the article’s Abstract, although the paper had been approved for publication by two peer reviewers, Kelly Hsieh and Linda Mullin Elkins, as well as by an editor, Amit Agrawal.
All of which means that Frontiers engaged in post-publication censorship.