Is GlaxoSmithKline Behaving Badly in Argentina?

Parents Allege Pharmaceutical Giant Tricked Them With Experimental Vaccine

Protocol Compas is the name of the study designed to test the efficacy of Synflorix, GSK’s experimental pediatric pneumonia vaccine, which can also ward off the bacteria that causes meningitis and ear infections. Synflorix is still in the preapproval stage.

 

 

GSK compares Synflorix with Wyeth’s hugely successful Prevnar vaccine, which has proved effective in the United States. Besides Argentina, trials are also being conducted in Panama, Chile and Colombia.

 

In 1997, the United States conducted 5 percent of its clinical studies outside of the United States and Western Europe, according to a study conducted by Tufts Center for Drug Development. By 2007, that number had climbed to 29 percent.

Because of the multinational business of major drug companies, and how Americans fit in as U.S.-based employees and stockholders of GSK, as well as consumers of drugs that will be available in the U.S. market, there are global ramifications of clinical testing being conducted around the world.

The lion’s share of drug studies has gone to regions with “emerging markets”: Eastern Europe and Central Europe, Latin America, and south and Southeast Asia. In order for a region to be of use to a legitimate drug company, the country has to maintain a minimal level of infrastructure, says Mary Jo Lamberti, director of market research at the Boston-based Center Watch, a consulting firm that bills itself as the “Global Destination for Clinical Trials Information.”

Some parents say they didn’t know that their children were participating in a study at all. Others claim to have been coerced into participating — a suggestion rebutted by Ruttiman, who told ABCNews.com that participation is always voluntary and that parents “are informed, clearly and in a language they can understand, by experienced medical investigators.”

They are informed not only about the benefits, he says, such as round-the-clock access to medical care and vaccinations against diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus and hepatitis, but about potential risks.

He adds that “the vaccines used in this study may cause adverse reactions unknown up to now. … As with any vaccine, unexpected adverse events can arise, including allergic reactions.”

Trading participation in a medical trial for health care has become the standard operating procedure for drug companies and/or their medical contractors, according to Shah. Some see it as win-win, but Shah views the trade as nearly as coercive as the dramatic threat Ester alleges she received.

“The argument I make is that the drug companies are going [abroad] because people have less access to health care,” said Shah. “So they offer incentives and the choice is, ‘participate in the trial or your children won’t get health care.’ That’s not a choice. Being in an experiment is not the same as standard care. In an experiment [the drug] might work, you might get a placebo or it might be worse than nothing. They might suffer some terrible unforeseen consequence.”

It’s impossible to say whether the 12 babies’ deaths are due to the vaccine or not, because half of the [total number of] children were given a placebo,” the pediatrician told ABCNews.com through a translator. “But the way the study has been conducted is reprehensible.”

A large part of the problem lies in the consent form, says Marchese. The language in the 12-page document is so convoluted, she charges, that even she had to read it more than once to fully grasp its meaning. Another problem is how subjects say they were recruited, Marchese says.

Ovejero, who works as a part-time disc jockey, alleges the couple was misled by the “agente saniterio,” a kind of nurse’s aide, who told them about the study. “She did not say it was a test. She said it was a vaccine for his lungs that would keep him from getting worse.”

The Nigerian state of Kano is one well-publicized example. In 2004, Kano’s government refused to take part in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative sponsored by the World Health Organization out of fears that the immunizations constituted a plot to reduce the country’s Muslim population.

According to The Associated Press, the boycott was initiated after Pfizer faced accusations made by families and human rights groups of putting about 200 children at risk during what they claimed was a poorly managed meningitis study 11 years ago.

Eleven children died, while others suffered brain damage, according to the Nigerian government, which this summer filed suit against the London- and Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company. The case is still pending.

 

More

 

 

 

 

IPV and OPV History

1954 Francis Trials

  
The 1954 Francis Trials were unique. The trial was comprised of three groups of children: vaccinated, injected Placebo controlled, and observed placebo controlled. Observed meaning that observed children were not injected with anything, just simply watched. What was the outcome?

 
Keep in mind that 84 test areas in 11 states used the textbook model where the injected children were “blinded” so no-one knew who had been given the vaccine or the placebo (dummy) shot. 127 areas in 33 states used an observed control, where children either received the vaccine, or were just watched.  In other words, there was no placebo (dummy) injection given in 33 states. The eleven state trials were needed to define the vaccine, whereas the other state areas were added to maintain public support for the vaccine, because some states were annoyed that they might miss out. According to BMJ:

 

“If the Salk vaccine trials were to succeed, it was essential that they be a great national event, enlisting volunteers, doctors, and parents in one united effort that represented the culmination of 15 years of work and faith.”  

  
The trial was part medical and part public relations.  
 
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association :  

158 paralytic and non-paralytic cases in 422,473 vaccinated (33 states) or 0.04%

705 paralytic and non-paralytic cases from 1,407,173 controls (33 states) or 0.05%  
 
71 paralytic cases out of 422,643 receiving vaccine or 0.02%  

614 paralytic cases out of 1,407,173 controls or 0.04%  
 
42 non-paralytic cases out of 422,643 vaccinated or 0.01%

 
136 non paralytic cases out of 1,407,173 controls or 0.01%  

 
The comparative percentage figures (11 states): 

33 paralytic cases out of 200,745 SALK vaccinated children or 0.02%  

115 paralytic cases out of 201,229 dummy injections or 0.06%

 
122 paralytic cases out of 347,262 observed (no injections) children or 0.04%  

 
The most useful finding is that in calculating the efficacy figures, the no injection children were missed out (0.4%). No account was taken of the provocation polio clearly evident amongst the placebo vaccinated children. Efficacy was calculated by comparing the 0.06% from the placebo (dummy) injected, with the 0.02% from the vaccinated.

 

Dr.Francis might even have had some reservations, because he said:  
 
“…from these data is it not possible to select a single value giving numerical expression in a complete sense to the effectiveness of the vaccine as a total experience – it may be ‘suggested’ that vaccination was 80 – 90 percent effective.”  

 

 This figure was given by comparing the attack rate of 41 cases of polio per 100,000 vaccinated children with 81 cases of polio per 100,000 placebo injected children. However, if you compare 41 cases per 100,000 vaccinated children, with 54 cases per 100,000 “observed” children, the vaccine only reaches a 13% margin of effectiveness.  
 
A more interesting comparison is this based on the official U.S. figures:  
 
37,000 cases of polio in the remaining 163,000,000 population of the U.S. or 0.023%.  
The Francis Trials showed 1,013 cases in 1,829,916 subjects, or 0.055%.  
 
So it works out this way:
 
The Francis Trial resulted in 1 case of diagnosed polio for every 1,806 people in the study.  The rest of the untouched USA had 1 case of diagnosed polio for every 4,406 people in the country.  
  
Now, if you just compared the vaccinated, with the rest of USA:  
 
33 paralytic cases out of 200,745 SALK vaccinated children or 0.02%
37,000 cases of polio in the remaining 163,000,000 population of the USA, or.0.023%
 
The vaccine efficacy of the vaccination group was only 0.003% greater than that of untouched U.S.  This vaccine was the touted ‘success’ that saved the world from Polio?
  
Look at what some of the newspapers reported:
 
United Press :  
 
33 paralytic cases out of 460,000 vaccinated or 0.001%  
115 paralytic cases out of 1,369,916 controls or 0.001%  
425 combined cases (paralytic and non paralytic) out of 749,236 in 11 states or  0.05%  
585 combined cases (paralytic and non-paralytic) out of 1,080,680 in 33 states or 0.05%  
 
Associated Press :  
 
71 paralytic cases out of 440,00 vaccinated or 0.02%  
445 paralytic cases out of 1,400,000 controls or 0.03%  
42 non-paralytic cases out of 440,000 receiving vaccine or 0.01%  
305 non-paralytic cases out of 1,400,000 controls or 0.02%  
 
Time Magazine :  
 
57 combined cases of polio out of 440,000 receiving vaccine or 0.013%  
142 combined cases of polio out of 210,000 dummy injections or 0.07%  
664 combined cases of polio out of 1,180,000 controls or 0.06%  
27,000 blood samples using 2,000,000 test tubes or (74 tubes/B. sample)  
  
Numerically, the results are the same.  Yet the Time stated that “still more encouraging statistically, the unvaccinated had 3 ½ times as many paralytic cases” The problem being that this was a 3 to one ratio, when according to their own figures, 440,000 were vaccinated, and 1,390,000 were not a 3-1 ratio.   The public bought it and the vaccine was the ‘miracle’.

 

 After polio, a new condition now causes crippling pains… and doctors can’t treat it

 

Mary is one of around 120,000 Britons who suffer from post-polio syndrome. Despite the numbers affected, very few doctors know much about it.

They’ve assumed, like most of us, that as the polio virus itself has now been eradicated in this country, it is a health concern of the past.

But the long-term effects of the disease — rife in the UK in the Fifties — can be as debilitating as the disease in its early stages.

Post-polio syndrome is the name for a collection of incurable symptoms — including muscle wastage, muscle and joint pain, and mental and physical fatigue — common to many who have suffered from the full-blown disease.

When the symptoms recur, it may be 20-40 years after the initial disease. Circulation may be impaired and breathing can become difficult due to weakening chest muscles.

Another possible cause is inflammation in the nerve cells, brought on by the immune system’s response to the original infection.

Sometimes it can be caused by a complication of the earlier polio — for example, the spine may have been left twisted, which causes premature ageing of the vertebrae.

As a result, up to 70 per cent of post-polio syndrome sufferers live in constant pain, according to a survey soon to be published by the British Polio Fellowship, a charity set up to support people with polio or post-polio syndrome.

The complication in Mary’s case was that she wasn’t officially diagnosed with polio as a child.

She was nine when she contracted a mystery virus that had caused a high temperature, a stiff neck, an aching head and partially paralysed her left side — all classic symptoms of polio.  

 

OPV vs. IPV

 

OPV works fairly well. IPV may protect against the virus invading your central nervous system and causing paralysis. But it does nothing to prevent gut infection.  No one really knows how well IPV works to prevent paralytic polio either. The IPOL package insert lists original Salk data for its effectiveness information. OPV is an oral vaccine that’s live. It’s living, replicating polio that was adapted to animal tissue for a while, but then it evolved and “forgot” how to cross over from the gut to the brain in humans.

 

History

 
ALL of the original IPV effectiveness stats were an illusion. During the clinical trials, they injected everyone with an ineffective dose of live, unattenuated, wild polio. When the children were paralyzed, they made excuses and counted the children as unvaccinated. The manufacturers then figured out that Salks’ formalin inactivation method didn’t work. They then ‘cooked’ the viruses longer, and diluted the shot.  This resulted in “antibody mediated enhancement” http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301notes4b.html in the vaccinated. The vaccinated children fared worse when they were exposed to the virus later. All killed virus vaccines run this risk. If the viral load you inject someone with isn’t high enough, you’ll make people half-immune. Since they knew something was wrong, they changed the diagnostic criteria to artificially drive the numbers down for a time, while they hurriedly got an OPV approved.  The IPV we use today is manufactured in a different way, so you get more dead viruses per dose than there was in the original IPV. However, the new one hasn’t really been tested for effectiveness. Its effectiveness is simply an elaborate assumption with a little circumstantial evidence.

 

Polio Statistics

 The 1955, Journal of American Statistical Assn 50: 1005- 1013, stated of the Francis report:

 

59% of the trial was worthless because of lack of adequate controls. The remaining 41% may have been alright, but contains internal evidence of bias in favour of the vaccinated.

 

 The initial decision (later changed) to vaccinate all willing second graders and to use the non-volunteer second graders and all first and third-grade children as un-inoculated controls nearly invalidated the 1954 trials…” Placebo-inoculated volunteers experienced significantly more disease than did age-comparable unvaccinated non-volunteers”

 

A reviewer, Mr. Brownlee, also stated that the National Foundation had proclaimed gamma globulin effective after similar trials, but it had been proven useless later.

  
In BMJ, April 30, 1955, it stated about the Francis Report, that large sections of the trial were subject to doubtful procedures and open to criticism; for instance:

 

1) Inoculated children in one large section were not the same age as the un-inoculated controls.
 
2) Children to be inoculated were those whose parents agreed to have it done. It is recognized amongst statisticians involved in similar assessments that the social position and care in volunteer families are usually superior to that in controls.

 

In an article in Scope Weekly, January 21, 1959, page 4, it cited studies illustrating the unpredictable immune response of children given a full series of Salk inoculations. Five months after the third dose, 44% were without demonstrable antibody for Type 1 poliovirus, while 53% were without type 3. In terms of serum levels sufficient to yield antibody in nasopharyngeal excretions, inadequate titers were found in 78% for Type 1, and 84% for Type 3. 
  
In the Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 163, No 2, January 12, 1957 stated that:

 

An analysis of the figures (Salk Polio Vaccine) shows that the incident of paralytic cases among the vaccinated children who had poliomyelitis was 40% as compared with 44% among the unvaccinated children.

 

The statistics from the Polio Surveillance Units stats are now classified. But what they show is that:
 
In 1955 there were 7,886 cases of paralytic polio, 15% of them, were vaccinated. 
 
In 1956, 7210 paralytic cases, 16% vaccinated. Non paralytic polio, 6027 cases, 32% vaccinated. 
 
In 1957, 2172 cases paralytic polio, 30% vaccinated, 2,603 non paralytic polio, 54% vaccinated. 
 
In 1958, 3122 paralytic polio cases, 33% vaccinated. 
 
In the medical literature, it states that only 36% of USA’s population had been vaccinated with the first 3 primary doses. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 2, No 2, March – April 1980, pages 277-281 ‘Eradication of Poliomyelitis in the United States: A commentary on the Salk Reviews’ by Dr. John P. Fox. Notice that it was also required that booster doses be given every year. The article also pointed out that most of the available evidence for antibody persistence after either IPV or OPV is of questionable validity.
 
In 1959, 5,594 paralytic polio cases 50%+ cases vaccinated which equals 3726 cases, of which 928 had had three or more doses.
 
In 1960, 2,545 paralytic polio cases, 210 deaths, 77% fully vaccinated with four doses. 

 

In 1956, Vaccine satellite cases were dropped. The Polio Surveillance Units didn’t accept these as vaccine related and they were listed under unvaccinated. In 1960, with the introduction of Sabin vaccine, satellite cases were once again reported and classified as vaccine induced. In 1957 the UPSR Supplement, no 15, was the first recommendation that no longer should Polio which was caused by other agents, such as echoviruses, coxsackie viruses or any other cause other than polio virus, be listed under polio. In order to be defined as polio, the patient not only had to have the virus, but also had to have residual paralysis 60 days later. 
 
In 1958, the CDC formally adopted the “Best available paralytic poliomyelitis case count” or BAPPCC.

 

“Cases must be clinically and epidemiologically compatible with poliomyelitis, must have resulted in paralysis, and must have a residual neurological deficit 60 days after onset of initial symptoms. .. the BAPPCC does not include cases of nonparalytic poliomyelitis, of those in which paralysis is more transient. The original purpose of developing these criteria was to omit cases possibly due to enteroviruses other than polioviruses.”

 

“Several generations of transmission of poliovirus can occur after importation since most infections are subclinical.”….”the poliovirus isolated from a patient with paralytic disease may not always be the virus causing the patient’s disease.” (Lancet, December 8. 1984 pages 1315 – 1317, “Poliomeylitis” by Robert J. Kim-Farley et al)

 

 
The definition changes were so radical, that many doctors publicly stated in medical journals, that it effectively eliminated 90% of what had previous been accepted as paralytic polio. 

  
In 1973 Lancet 2: 899 – 900 (1973) Red D et al, “Poliomyelitis – A gap in immunity?” found that only 49% of nursery school children studied had antibody to all three types, and 54% of the children with a history of immunization lacked any immunity at all. 

 
In 1977, Lancet 2: 1078 “Protection against polio”, Codd A and White E, found that among children 1 – 5 years of age, only 43% had antibody to all three types, and 25% lacked antibody to any. Among those 5 – 19 years, 40% had antibody to all three types, and 17% had no antibodies to anything. In all adult age groups, except those 30 – 39, at least 15% entirely lacked polio antibodies, and the proportion of people with antibodies to all three types ranged from just under or just over 50%. 

  

 I

n the American Journal of Public Health, Volume 26, 147, 1936 by M. Brodie, it showed that only 0.6% of all children in the age group 1 – 10, showing no antibodies, would ever came down with polio even when the disease was present in epidemic proportions. 
  

 

 

 In the Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1958, 108:605 – 616, by Dalldorf and Weigand, it showed that in monkeys, poliomyelitis may result from simultaneous infections with an attenuated poliovirus and polio-like virus, such as a coxsackie virus. Neither virus alone induced paralysis, but together they did.  

 

 “In about 95 percent of polio cases, infection from the polio virus causes no symptoms or serious effects. In about 5 percent of cases, the polio virus manifests in a mild form (abortive polio) with flu-like symptoms, in a non-paralytic form (aseptic meningitis) or in a severe form called paralytic polio. People who have minor or non-paralytic forms recover completely. …” 

 
 
Before the polio vaccine, there was very little viral polio. There was paralysis, but its cause was not a polio virus but DDT pesticide poisoning. The chemical that likely poisoned FDR while swimming in a lake in upstate NY. Where DDT was produced, you also saw that it was exactly the region where the epidemic was.  DDT was banned at the same time the polio vaccine was introduced, making the vaccine seem as though it were the cure of the disease. With the introduction of the OPV we created the most crippling viral polio ever. This tells the story.   
 

 In Human Genome Research and Society Proceedings of the Second International Bioethics Seminar in Fukui, 20-21 March, 1992. From pp. 205-210,Director, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, USA:

In most infections only a rare individual becomes ill or suffers rare complications, and that individual may be genetically predetermined, it usually is. For example, HTLV-1 infects 1-2 million Japanese, but only one in over a thousand gets adult advanced T cell leukemia after 40 years, and fortunately only about one in a thousand gets HAM, HTLV-1 associated myolopophy. Those unfortunate rare individuals are the problem, not the problem of the innocuous, or carriers, the other one thousand who die without ever knowing that they had it, and having no ill effect. The same can be said for poliomyelitis, where it takes 1,000 infected cases in order to induce a paralysis, the others don’t know they were infected.

 
Dr. Vivian Wyatt talked about genetic predetermination with regard to Polio, which can be shown in families, but Dr. Sandler showed that weakness could be fixed with diet. 

 

Medical Citations: 
 
Epidemiology of poliomyelitis: Natahnson et al 1979, American Journal of Epidemiology, 110(6): 672-692.

 

 

 An  introduction to the enigmas surrounding the appearance and disappearance of paralytic polio. These questions are still being debated today. The basic point is this: polio virus has been around forever yet epidemics of paralysis have only been around since the late 19th century. This is not natural evolution. 95% of polio cases occur without symptoms and the rest have only a mild fever except for that tiny fraction of 1% where the virus penetrates the blood-brain barrier and causes paralysis.

 
Provocation poliomyelitis: Wyatt 1981, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 55:543-557.

 This discusses the many scientists from 1914-1950 who observed the phenomenon that injections can cause outbreaks of polio. Most of these papers observed that paralysis correlated to the limb that was injected and then spread from there. 

  
Strebel et al 1995, The New England Journal of Medicine, 332(8):500-506.

 

Reviews more current literature and adds some of its own observations. They point out that intramuscular injection within 30 days of immunization with oral polio vaccine increases the risk of vaccine-induced paralysis. At least 86% of paralysis cases were caused by injection and the higher number of injections correlated to higher frequency of paralysis cases. 
 

  
In the Indian Journal of Pediatrics, Special Supplement, January-February 1998; Volume 65: Number 1, ‘Poliomyelitis in India, Past, present and Future’ by H.V. Wyatt. As early as 29 June, 1990, the Indian medical profession, and politicians knew that the huge increase of polio in India in the previous 60 years, for which he had evidence, was due to unsterile injections which he predicted would lead to an enormous political row. When I asked him to clarify that, he wrote back and described one study in Pondicherry they had just finished:

 

Our work shows that injections almost certainly cause three quarters of the 200,000 cases of polio each year in India – unnecessary injections as well as DPT causing provocation paralysis, given to children with diarrhoea, or fever – given unsertile , of unsuitable drugs, for gain.

 

 The WHO, have several papers “The buts and bolts of Immunization, and the 11-13 June 1997 SAGE report, which back this up.
  
The Sage Report:

 

3.3 Injection safety 
 
Information suppled to WHO and UNICEF consistently highlights widespread unsterile injection practices… which can result in infectious complication such as the transmission of blood-born pathogens… the community at large is at risk when injection equipment is not safely disposed of, and because of its commercial value, is reused, sold, or recycles. Alarmingly, this situation is widely tolerated by health management…previous attempt by EPI to raise health officials’ awareness of the importance of injection safety have been met with skepticism, or, at best, noncommittal acknowledgement that “something should be done.” The problem however, is so broad and involved so many participants in the public and the private health sectors that no solution has so far been found.”

 

There is a need to determine what role EPI should play in raising awareness and improving the quality and safety of the injections indespensable for the deisease control initiative it promotes. Can this challenge be met by focussing on the safety of immunisation inections alone? Should EPI take a more proactive role in promoting safe injections throughout the health sector and lead a coordinated and concerted drive for safer injections?…GPV should pursue the development and implementation of technologies for safe injection including injection devices and disposal systems…

 

 During the time of the Salk vaccine, a study said this:

 

“During the Salk vaccine difficulties of the 50′s and 60′s an epidemiologist at New York State health Department concluded that if each infant had to travel two miles to get a shot there would be more disabilities caused by vehicle accidents than what the Salk vaccine itself would have prevented, to say nothing of therapeutic misadventures. (Letter to the New York Times, June 21, 1996, by Dr Herbert Ratner.)

 

Salk And Sabin
 
Dr. Jonas Salk never developed his vaccine at all. He had the idea, but did none of the work. Dr. Bennett, who used to work with Dr. Jo Smadel at Walter Reed, left there because Jonas Salk, who was a Professor at the University of Pittsburg, offered him a job of joining him in making the first successful polio vaccine. His idea for the vaccine was simple but extreme; to just grow the virus, and inactivate it with formalin. This by the way was the same idea that he had for the AIDS vaccine. Dr Bennett did all the work and the theory had a fatal flaw. Formalin doesn’t inactivate in a straight line, but Salk thought it did. Right from the start, the media, the politicians, etc, acclaimed Salk as the Savoir and he took all the credit for work he had never done. He refused to acknowledge that Dr. Bennett had made the vaccine, not him, which led to a nasty feud and Dr. Bennett committed suicide. 
 
By 1956 and until the Sabin vaccine was used, doctors who tested every single batch of the vaccine for the FDA (then the DBS) found every single batch, not just the Cutter batch, was live. The vaccine was consistently paralyzing the monkeys, with every batch. The solution of the DBS was to dilute down the vaccine, so that there was less likelihood of live virus causing problems. This caused a further problem, that the already low efficacy became even lower still. But Salk thought that it was do-able.  This was to never become public knowledge.  The illusion in the public’s mind was that the Salk vaccine would solve the polio problem at all costs and would continue. That situation existed right up until the Sabin vaccine was introduced. Even though they diluted the vaccine, the testing consistently paralyzed the monkeys.  
 
When thing had been going wonderfully for Salk, he was happy taking the glory.  When things went bad, and the inactivation was shown to not work, first he blamed Cutter, and all the laboratories, insisting they had followed his instructions. It took another year to go back over all the manufacturers’ records and show that they had indeed followed his instructions, and that the only possible reasons were that his instructions were incorrect. He then privately, tried to  blame Dr. Bennett. Debate raged about whether the Salk vaccine was worth continuing with. Real debate started after a letter in JAMA, volume 163, No 2, January 12, 1957 reported that in England the analysis of the use of the U.S. made Salk Vaccine in England showed that the incidence of paralytic polio in the vaccinated was 40% compared to 44% in the unvaccinated children. 
 
Time Magazine, January 19, 1959 reporting on the “Scientific Symposium on Poliomyelitis Vaccine’  held at University of Michigan School of Public Health stated that much of the material used in about 200 million United States inoculation “has been no good”. 
 
Dr. Albert Sabin (Scope Weekly, page 4 January 21 1959) cited studies illustrating the unpredictable immune response of children to a full series of four Salk vaccines. Five months after the third dose, 44% were without demonstrable antibody for Type 1 poliovirus, while 53% were without Type III. In terms of serum levels sufficient to yield antibody in nasopharyngeal excretions, inadequate titers were found in 78% for Type 1 and 84% for Type III.  
 
Dr. Salk’s response to that (Medical News Page 2, January 28 1959) was to say that the failure of his vaccine to date was due to “individually defective immuno-mechanisms, a non-bloodstream route of virus spread, or waning immunity.” 
 
In 1958, Dr. Bernice Eddy noticed that there was something in the Salk vaccine which was having some nasty effects on all her laboratory animals, and caused vacuolation in culture medium. http://www.ghettodriveby.com/vacuolation/. She became very concerned about what that virus did with the immune systems of animals.  They knew by this time, that many monkey viruses had been found in the Salk vaccine, and they were also just starting to look into another called Mason Pfizer Monkey virus (which causes AIDS in macaque monkeys which it does not originate from). Although she did not know it at the time, the principle virus she was seeing was the effects of SV40.

Bernice Eddy was working with certain batch numbers of the vaccine, which caused greater problems, than other batches. One doctor in Illinois was getting very worried about the Salk vaccine. He took it upon himself to keep some of those batches under correct storage, and for long term storage. What concerned him was that certain batches of the vaccine were causing clusters of leukemia. It turned out that these batches of the vaccine were the same batches as the ones Bernice Eddy was worried about. 
 
This started to worry many people, who wanted to know what this thing was that caused vacuolation, why were these animals getting tumors, why did they become immunosuppressed, and why was it that hamsters had unusual symptoms (Pg. 60 in Bernice Eddy’s 1969 monograph on Polyoma Virus) which now we call some sort of AIDS. Salk simply told everyone that Bernice Eddy was wrong; the “thing” couldn’t be defined, so it wasn’t there. Salk’s colleagues were fed up with Salk at this point and permanently and privately “disowned” him. However, they were in a bind as to what to do with this useless vaccine, so most of the support and impetus was then put behind Sabin. That further infuriated Salk, and led to him setting up the Salk Institute. 
 
SV40 was not defined until the 1960′s, and by that time, over 100 different monkey viruses had been indentified from the supernatant from the Salk vaccine. By 1968, 149 monkey viruses in the polio vaccine had been identified.  Europe and the U.K. were very slow to use the Salk vaccine. The reason was that European scientists were warned that there was something unknown and not right with the vaccine. Furthermore, their tests had also shown that the Salk vaccine sent to Europe was in fact live. They decided to develop their own inactivated vaccines using different base strains, and not using the straight line formalin theory. Their vaccines were not ready for release until the end of the 50′s, and ironically, the rates of polio in Europe fell at identical rates to that of USA. But, they also adopted all the sequential redefinitions of polio as well, so in relation, all the graphs are pretty much identical.  The Europe graphs are actually very useful. One question to ask the medical establishment is why polio dropped to the same numbers in Europe, without a vaccine, as it did in U.S. with a vaccine. 
 

Sabin actually did some serious work. He attenuated type 2 and 3 himself, and Dr. Lee developed the type one vaccine. Sabin put all three together, but had the decency to given the credit for the type 1 to Dr. Lee. Unfortunately, Sabin could not identify the virus we now know as SV 40 either.  It remained in some batches of the oral vaccine until the mid 1960′s, and now there is suspicion that mutants of it, have been in more recent vaccine since then. The Sabin vaccine did work, but unfortunately has carried other and future different dangers, not only to us, but to our children.  

 
In 1990, the Illinois doctor handed over some vials of the Salk vaccine to a Dr. Robert Bohanon, a molecular virologist, who found that the vials contained not only SV40, but also the simian immunodeficiency virus, which was unknown until the end of the 1980′s. 
 
An entry in the Federal Register, Volume 49, No 107, Friday, June 1 1964, Rules and Regulations (pertaining to polio vaccine manufacture and previous technical deficiencies) where it states on page 23007:

 

 

“…any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives”

 

The link between asbestosis cancer and SV40 which was also discovered in 1990 by Dr. Michael Carbone, Assistant Professor of Pathology at Loyola University in Chicago, which has been confirmed by Dr. Fernanda Martini of the Institute of Histology and General Embryology in Italy.  
 
This work showed that SV40 is found in a variety of brain tumors including 85% of choriod plexus papillomas, in 73% of ependymomas, in 46% of astrocytomas, in 50% of glioblastomas, and in 14% of meningiomas. Furthermore, the nature of SV40 is that it is a stealth virus, and a piggy back virus. This was confirmed in the 1960′s when SV40 was found to have hybridized with adenovirus, which formed a new virus and was undetectable to SV40 tests. It was this very feature of the SV40 virus that made it the key virus which they used to start up bioengineering and genetic modification laboratories. Many different SV40 hybrid viruses had been identified from brain tumors in the mid 1970′s and published in various cancer monographs at the time. 
 
SV40 has appeared in 61% of all new cancer patients too young to have received the vaccines. So further studies were done, which found in the U.S. that SV40 is routinely found in 23% of blood samples, and 45% of sperm samples, proving that it is transmitted both horizontally and vertically. We also know, according to work published by Dr. Howard Strickler, National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland that people in Massachusetts and Illinois who received indentified lot numbers known to be SV40 contaminated are now demonstrating ten times the rate of osteosarcoma bone tumors than those who received vaccine free of the SV 40 virus. Work published by Professor Mauro Tognon stated that SV40 is one reason for the 30% increase in brain tumors in the U.S. over the past 25 years. Being that not all batches had SV40 in them, that is a large increase.  Dr. Keerti Shah, gave a presentation at National Clarion Hotel Arlington Virginia in May 1988. At his talk called “A review of the circumstances and consequences of simian Virus 40 contamination of human vaccines“, some French scientists stated that with using new technology, they had retested the 1950-60’s polio vaccines and found that many of the vials had higher concentrations of SV40 than poliovirus, and much higher rates than the earlier technology had shown. The rates of polio had remained the same, but rate of detection of SV40, had increased dramatically owning to better “sensitivity” of the newer tests. 
 
What does SV40 do exactly in order to cause cancer? It switches off a protein that protects cells from becoming malignant. It is not cancer-type specific, but cell function specific. Not everyone who is infected with SV40 will get cancer. A variety of assaults are usually required on the immune system to combine to trigger malignancy. Children are more vulnerable to any modifying factors, because they are growing, their immune systems are slightly different than adults, and their hormonal balance, which has implications for the immune system, is different. It is now thought that it was the function of the SV40 in switching off the protein that protects cells from becoming malignant, in children who had potential to develop leukemia, which caused the clusters of leukemia at the time, and according to some doctors has been responsible for the explosion in childhood leukemia since that time.  

 
Some of the documentation that documents much of the suppressed information, can be researched and found in a case in the United States Claims Court of the Special Masters, Diane Lynn Armbrust Mosley, petitioner vs. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, No. 91-0201V, dated October 1, 1992. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

  The Salk and Sabin vaccines continued:
 
On April 12, 1955 The Foundation for Infantile Paralysis organized a meeting at Ann Arbor Michigan, at which Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Thomas Francis, told the world that the Salk vaccine was safe, potent and efficient. Nearly every American newspaper declared that Dr. Salk had abolished poliomyelitis. Only 13 days after the vaccine had been acclaimed by the American Press as one of the greatest medical discoveries of the century, came the first news of disaster. By June 23rd there had been 168 confirmed cases of poliomyelitis in the vaccinated, 6 deaths, and 149 cases amongst the contacts. 
 
In JAMA, 1935, 105; 2; 152 had an article from a Dr. J. P Leake, then medical director of the United States Public Health Services, in which he reported 12 cases of poliomyelitis in children who had been vaccinated with a chemically treated anti-poliomyelitis vaccine (Kolmer vaccine and Brodie vaccine the later being inactivated the same way as Salk’s vaccine), he stated “Many physicians will feel that these cases make undesirable the further use of poliomyelitis virus for human vaccination at present.” The media said it was only in six batches, but a copy of United States Claims Court of the Special Masters, Diane Lynn Armbrust Mosley, petitioner vs. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, No. 91-0201V, dated October 1, 1992 proves that every single vaccine contained live virus, and that the myths surrounding that, and which are  perpetuated in recent books, simply are not true.  
 
In the previous year, six vaccine manufacturers had orders from the Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to manufacture enough vaccine to inoculate 9 million children and pregnant women. Two hours after the announcement at Ann Arbor the U.S. government licenced the vaccine and released it for distribution to all the states that agreed to use it. The public was ready and waiting. The British were more sober saying in the Lancet, April 23, 1955, page 864: 

 
Even before details of the elaborate and, I believe, careful experimental work had been presented to any competent scientific society, television, radio, banner press headlines, and four complete pages of the New York Times have informed the public of its wonders… Already anxious parents are demanding the vaccine for their children and worried administrators are requesting Presidential action to ensure its fair distribution. It is difficult for laymen here to see the risks of poliomyelitis in their correct perspective … The risks of a child being killed or maimed by car accidents is incomparably greater.” 
 

 
In England on B.B.C. (London Calling, June 16, 1955) Dr. F. Kingsley Sanders stated:

 

“There is still some doubt whether universal vaccination  for that is what it would have to be – is the best way of preventing polio in the long run….to protect each individual who actually needs protection we must vaccinate a very large number who would never have become paralyzed. In the American trial the figures show that it would be necessary to vaccinate nearly 4,000 individuals to protect each potential paralytic. And in a European country such as Britain where the overall paralytic rate is lower than in the USA, even larger numbers of vaccinations would be necessary to protect each vulnerable individual. Not only would the cost of such a program be very great, but among the 4,000 vaccinated we might expect sixteen reactions to inoculation.” 

 
In the British Medical Journal, March 13, 1954, pg 636,  Dr. McHammon gave some startling figures. He stated that even in an epidemic area it would be necessary to inoculate 11,000 children to prevent one fatal or paralytic case, and in a non-epidemic area perhaps 50,000. 

 

The actual risk figures from the Registrar General for the years 1943 – 1953 showed that the monthly attack rate in Britain was 6 per million. In Public Health March 1955 Dr. Dennis H Geffen OBE., MD., DPH, said “We are apt to forget that poliomyelitis is the least serious of all infections diseases, with the exception of that one complication or extension of the disease which destroys motor cells in the brain and spinal cord and causes paralysis. Apart from this it appears to be a mild infection lasting a few days, the symptoms of which are probably less serious than a cold in the head and from which recover is complete and immunity lasting. If we could be sure that an individual contracting poliomyelitis would not become paralyzed then there might be much to be said for spreading the disease in order that a community might develop natural immunity.” 
 
 
Comment from Dr. C G Learoyd, MRCS, LRCP in Medical World February 1954: 

 
“In the USA they have tried and are trying huge experiments with gamma-globulin and various vaccines. There are definite drawbacks to mass injections and there have been some nasty accidents; also there is something rather unconvincing about immunizing a one in a thousand chance. For God’s sake – and I say that reverently, – lets try the simple things thoroughly first.” 

  
The Sabin vaccine  did what it was designed to do, which was to stop the spread of the wild virus in the community by interfering with its spread, and produce gut immunity in a baby, before anything else could go wrong which might cause the baby to get polio. So if you vaccinate a baby before it starts eating a sad diet, or have a tonsillectomy, other injections, etc., it’s a win-win. However, there has been a trade-off which is not talked about. The people who were vulnerable then, are still vulnerable now, but to something else, maybe not polio. 

 

If you make the decision to use the vaccine today, you aren’t in the same situation they were in 1955. Today, they say the IPV is properly inactivated, and there is no other spread of polio virus which the CDC currently knows of, or is admitting to. That doesn’t mean there isn’t. What is of interest is that parents who had major reactions to polio vaccines; their  children have had some major reactions to Neisseria Meningitis vaccines.  So what is the connection? Something genetic, some passed down “weakness” or that 1 in a thousand thing?

 

 
You can get very significant reversion when using OPV between the mouth and the anus of the original recipient, which is why direct VAPP exists.  Reversion depends to a degree on the gut flora competition of the recipient, and their immunocompetence.  Furthermore if you give OPV to babies with immunodeficiencies, those babies can spill out constantly mutating virus for over a year, and the virus they spill out in the first month, will be genetically quite different than the virus in the last month. They are basically ‘walking laboratory incubators’.

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 
CBER-NCI-NICHD-NIP-NVPO 
SIMIAN VIRUS 40 (SV40):  A POSSIBLE HUMAN POLYOMAVIRUS WORKSHOP   
MONDAY, 27 JANUARY, 1997  

 

DR. RATNER: I’m Herbert Ratner, the former Health Officer of Oak Park, Illinois, and the announcement was made April the 12, 1955, Tommy Vance has reported that the vaccine was safe and effective. And within a few days the National Foundation had this vaccine — I won’t go into the past history of that vaccine — but it was delivered throughout the United States so that every 1st and 2nd grader, as a free gift of that vaccine — every 1st and 2nd grader — and in the next week or two, that vaccine was given to every 1st and 2nd grader.  
I think Oak Park was probably the only one who decided to sit down that free gift, vaccination gift, just to see how things were going along. There were other reasons, too. But I decided that before parents signed an authorization slip, which makes it possible to get the vaccine, that I should make available to them — which I did in 11 talks that week — be willing to answer questions that they had in terms of the risk of polio that summer, etc.  
By just taking a neutral position at that time, you had all the pressure from the Foundation to get that vaccine going because of an impending summer polio epidemic — the usual summer epidemic — and that was the only thought in people’s minds: how fast, how well do mothers love their children? They didn’t rush to get the vaccine, and things like that.  
And in the midst of my talks — I had two days of my talks — my community got very upset that where everybody else was giving the vaccine, we were holding out. And it caused quite a consternation in the Chicago area. It got to the science — Art Snider who was the Science writer for one of the major newspapers — he said Herb, what’s going on there? I said, well come out and listen to my talk, etc.  
I have the talk on Tuesday and Wednesday he called me up and said, you’re more right than you know. Because they just got the first report of the Cutter vaccine situation where six cases in San Francisco and one in Chicago area, both from the same manufacturer, both from the same lot number, and we were in consternation three.  
I had to postpone — actually, I was about the only one in the country that was in a position of not having anybody in my community immunized, and so I could sit it out. And I made one appointment to use the vaccine, to give that, give to their parents — one week later or two weeks later, whatever it was — and after that, the Cutter situation got worse.  
And the local paper, as a result, had a story, checked around, in which they thought I had a very unique opinion that I hadn’t given the vaccine.  
MODERATOR FRIED: I think we’re going to discuss the vaccines more tomorrow. I mean, this is mainly for the techniques, so —  
DR. RATNER: Can I have about a minute more?  
MODERATOR FRIED: One minute.  
DR. RATNER: Yes. Keep up my same thought. The day that the local paper came out with the backing of all of the — everybody in the community, kind of — Seeley, the Surgeon General, called up the program because he wanted to make a safe vaccine safer was his exact terms.  
They had to stop that thing because of the difficulty of the vaccine. And if all of you knew the difficulties they had with the Salk vaccine, whose position on inactivation turned out to be false — universally accepted as false — and how they kept packing it up and packing it up and packing it up, and they had to keep the program going and going.  But I’m telling you that every 1st and 2nd grade child in the United States, which represented about 85 or 90 percent, got a vaccine which had live polio viruses in it, definitely established, and at that time they found out that the SV40 was —  
MODERATOR FRIED: I —  
DR. RATNER: Just one sentence, please. That the SV40 was not activated, and so that meant that there was SV40 in all of the vaccines around the country, and that was confirmed by — this is my last sentence — that was confirmed by anybody who focused epidemiologically. There were cases popping up all over the States — and this was confirmed by the German Health Ministry who were doing the same thing in Germany — that polio virus was being distributed. And if you people could see —  
MODERATOR FRIED: I think I have to stop you, because we —  
DR. RATNER: Could I just have a half-a-sentence?  
MODERATOR FRIED: You’ve had a half-a-sentence.  
DR. RATNER: If you people sit here and say that the vaccine didn’t pass on polio or SV40, you don’t know what happened in those times. And I’m talking about 1955, for the next ten years or more. It’s strange to me, as an epidemiologist working right on the field, to hear people somehow deny the vaccine — one more sentence, please.  
Harry Francis was attacked right after his report —  
MODERATOR FRIED: I think — why don’t you save this for tomorrow?  
DR. RATNER: Okay.

 

What about other countries? When the French re-tested their polio vaccine, it had 40 times the level of SV40 in it than previously thought, and the level of SV40 was HIGHER than the level of polio virus. Connaught only admitted in 1973 that the New Zealand polio vaccine which they provided had anywhere between 150 – 1700 TCD-50 of SV40 in every dose. That is the highest known contamination level of any where in the world.  

 

Books:
 

 
“The Kenny Concept of Infantile Paralysis and its treatment” by Dr John. F. Pohl, Bruce Publishing Company, Minneapolis, 1943. 
 
Two books by Sister Kenny are “And they shall Walk” and “My battle and Victory”. 
  
“Over my dead body” by Jean Opie.
 
“Diet Prevents Polio” Dr Benjamin P Sandler, Lee Foundation, 1951. 
 
“Low Blood sugar and You” by Drs Carlton Frederick and Herman Goodman. 
  
“Polio, the American Story” by Oshinsky. 
 
“The Polio Paradox” by Richard L. Bruno.
 
‘The Virus and the Vaccine’ by Debbi Bookchin and Jim Schumacher. 

 

 

 

IPV and OPV

Polio Basics:

 It is impossible for a totally non-immune person to produce antibodies to all three types of polio virus, from one IPV injection. The body only processes one type at one time. After the second injection, the body selects one of the two types that it hasn’t processed before, and deals with that, and after the third injection, it deals with the third type. But there is a caveat to that. The body only does that if there are no interrupting enteroviruses in the body at the time. If there are, the body just ignores the vaccine altogether. Which is why a minimum of four shots is required. And even after five shots, some people show no immunity to one or sometimes more than one type of vaccine virus. 

 

In the past, there was no laboratory analysis. A case was defined on sight by a doctor and the family was put into quarantine for a long period of time. Even if paralysis was transient, and only lasted 3 days with no residual damage, the case was classified as paralytic polio. Once the vaccine came into play, you had to have three criteria for proof. One was a verified sample of a polio virus. This was due to figuring out that there were other viruses like coxsackie viruses, echo viruses, and other, and chemicals which caused identical clinical symptoms to polio viruses. As you may know, people with West Nile Virus, have identical symptoms of paralysis as the early polio people had. Two, you had to have had paralysis for 60 days or more. Anything less and it wasn’t paralytic polio any more.  Third, you also had to have residual neurological damage, after the 60 days. 

 

 This new criteria skewed the statistics. The new definition eliminated nearly 90% of paralytic polio under the old diagnostic criteria.  Any cases of polio in the vaccinated child could now be swept under the rug by blaming the circulating wild virus, or a coxsackie virus, or an enterovirus 71, etc. If you look up aseptic meningitis in the old literature it was pretty much non existent until it was decided that diagnosing non-paralytic polio in vaccinated people wasn’t ok. Many non-polio viruses were grouped with polio, because they caused the same syndrome. Non-paralytic polio data is no longer collected. It was avoided after 1959. You could have anything but it would not be labeled non-paralytic polio. Some of the biggest outbreaks of non-polio virus paralysis followed in the decades after the OPV vaccine was used internationally. Viral displacement happened when they used the adenovirus vaccine. In the case of the adenovirus vaccines, it was dropped from the civilian population specifically to re-establish the normal circulating adenoviruses because the newer ones were more virulent. 

 

Polio was essentially a disease caused by a combination of things such as poor nutrition (too much sugar), bottle feeding, poor sanitation, and the rest being doctors treatment, injections, overuse of  antibiotics, tonsillectomy, which made an individual 600 times more susceptible to bulbar polio, and the huge increase in use of toxic chemicals. Thalidomide was associated with polio in Germany. (medical article by Dr.V Wyatt)

 

“A 1992 study, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, validated earlier findings. Children who received DPT (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) injections were significantly more likely than controls to suffer paralytic poliomyelitis within the next 30 days. According to the authors, “this study confirms that injections are an important cause of provocative poliomyelitis back to previous levels and polio cases returned to “normal.” [26:146; 29]. 

 

Also:

Provocation Polio and DTP in India

The polio vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy, and long-term health-related consequences

 

 

 Polio in India:

 

The polio vaccine targets three strains of Polio-P1, P2, and P3. There were 66 cases of Polio detected in 2005, 62 were the P1 strain. The government then introduced the monovalent vaccine which targets the P1 strain. Despite the new vaccine, 16 new cases of P1 were detected in 2006.

 

Most of the cases of polio are reported from the high risk endemic areas of UP and Bihar. This is a clear indicator of the fact that in the effectiveness of the vaccine is under question where issues of nutrition and sanitation are not being addressed alongside.  Associate Professor, JNU Ritu Priya, says, “You need a twin approach. Vaccination plus sanitation, nutrition and clean drinking water. Only vaccination will not curb polio.”

 

 The tragedy is that polio will continue in India, as has been evident even after 6 oral polio vaccines are sometimes given, because the interference from other enteroviruses is so large in that environment.

 

 The politics of polio

 Even the appropriate WHO document clearly states that there is evidence that OPV has not worked in developing countries.

 That Sabin’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) has not been able to eradicate polio in our country, is now well established (inter alia, Economic and Political Weekly, 4-11-06, p. 4538-4540; and 23-12-06, p.5229-5237; Tehelka, 11-11-06, p.8-9; The Hindu, Hyderabad, November 13, 2006, p.11; Down to Earth, 31-12-06, p.24-31; Conclusions Recommendations of a National Consultative Meeting organised by Ind ian Medical Association in New Delhi on May 14, 2006; Editorial in the Indian Journal of Medical Research, (IJMR), January 2007, p. 1-4; and numerous other articles in some of the world’s best known scientific journals, such as Science.)

Not only that the cases of non–polio acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) in those vaccinated with OPV have shown a dramatic rise. It appears that in 2005, in Uttar Pradesh alone, 4,800 had residual paralysis, or died after acquiring non-polio AFP, in comparison to the all-India figure of 4,793 polio cases in 1994; the 2006 data, after six doses of monovalent OPV, are worse. The infructuous expenditure on the OPV programme would probably run into thousands of crores.

The pity of it is that all this was anticipated (Bhargava, The Hindu, December 12, 1999 ), and that we could have easily eradicated polio from our country by now. We did not do so because our successive governments and those who worked for them in responsible positions such as Secretaries and Joint Secretaries in the Ministry of Health, Directors-General of Medical and Health Services and even of the ICMR, were primarily (exclusively?) committed to personal and certain foreign interests and not to the cause of polio eradication.  

 

Two types of vaccines:

There have been two types of vaccines available against polio: the injectable Salk vaccine (IPV) and the oral Sabin vaccine (OPV) using an attenuated live virus. Till the early 1980s, OPV was used in the developed countries to maintain the polio-free status that had been largely achieved through the use of IPV beginning the 1950s. By 1988, Jonas Salk had developed an enhanced potency injectable vaccine (M-IPV).

 

Evidence against OPV

Overwhelming evidence was presented at a meeting held in Delhi in March 1988, convened by Sam Pitroda, the then Adviser to the Prime Minister for National Technology Missions, that OPV had not worked in India.(Bhargava, The Hindu, December 12, 1999 ). There was a clear decision to shift to IPV. From the official minutes of this meeting:

“Expedite establishment of M-IPV programme. On moral grounds and considering the involvement of the lives of our children, cost shall be no consideration. Indigenous production of IPV before 1991 shall be aimed at.” “Whenever children in large numbers are dying, getting afflicted with polio, the empty and hollow argument of their being used as guinea pigs cannot be accepted.” “As new M-IPV programme ramps up, the OPV will ramp down.” Although IPV has always been more expensive than OPV, this is compensated by the fact that one may need to take only one or at most two doses of IPV whereas, in the case of OPV, the number of doses could be above ten.

It was clear that, for some time, OPV will continue to be with us. In fact, the then Secretary of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), S. Ramachandran, had been earlier to the Soviet Union and, with their help, a factory (BIBCOL) to produce OPV was set up in Bulandshahr.

In keeping with the decision of the 1988 meeting — the only meeting of experts and concerned people so far convened by the government in regard to polio vaccination programme — another company called Indian Vaccine Corporation Ltd (IVCOL) was set up with a capital outlay of Rs. 90 crores. Both DBT and the Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. of Baroda had equity in it even though the majority shares belonged to Institute Merieux, one of the world’s largest, most reliable and respected vaccine producers that was committed to produce M-IPV which was far more heat-stable than OPV.

 

WHO Involvement

 

The West had decided to replace OPV with M-IPV. Therefore, market had to be found for OPV. WHO advised that developed countries use IPV, while developing countries use OPV. To oblige WHO, two steps were necessary:

(1) BIBCOL produces no OPV of its own

(2) India reverses its decision to gradually shift to IPV.

 

Both steps were taken. BIBCOL did not produce a single dose of OPV, and the Ministry of Health decided soon after the March 1988 meeting, without any further consultations, to shift permanently to OPV. Consequently IVCOL was closed down after incurring substantial expenditure, and some senior officers of the above Ministry received U.N. jobs with tax-free dollar salaries, after retirement. In January 1992, at a conference jointly organized by the International Comparative Virology Organization and the WHO in New Delhi, experts from all over the world indicated the preference of IPV over OPV for any plans of eradication of polio in developing countries.

 

An article by V.K. Bhasin in January 2008 issue of Nature Biotechnology. The article states that in 2006, there were 1,600 cases of OPV–induced polio plus a large number of cases of AFP from which virus was not cultured. So, the problem continues.

 

 One polio problem solved, another created

 P3 virus resurfaces in a major way in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar (3/2008)

The polio type-1 (P1) virus may have been contained, but another, less dangerous p3 virus is wreaking havoc in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

This has put a question mark on the government policy that singularly focused on eradicating P1, neglecting other forms of the polio virus.

In a policy shift, the government is using the monovalent oral polio vaccine 1 (mOPV1), instead of the regular trivalent polio vaccine that immunises children to all polio types.

As a result, no fresh cases of P1 have been reported in the last one year. But the neglect of other polio viruses has led to an unprecedented outbreak of P3. Eighty-two cases of P3 have been reported since January 2008 – 69 in UP, Bihar (12) and Haryana (1) and the virus is replacing P1.

Health ministry officials agreed that P3 cases were on a sharp rise due to the singular focus on P1, but said that since the latter was more virulent it needed to be checked first.

 Though P3 too disables, it can be contained easily as the virus doesn’t spread fast. However, the health authorities have to be on guard and quickly start immunisation rounds for P3 too,” said Dr Raju C Shah of Indian Pediatrics Association (IPA). Shah has been part of the IPA polio immunisation programme.

Of the three polio viruses, P2 has been eradicated from the world, but P1 and P3 are still active. Between the two, P1 is the most dangerous. It not only spreads rapidly, but also can’t be killed easily and persists in the human chain for long. P3 spreads slowly, doesn’t cause severe paralysis and has a low disability rate. Health experts, however, say it can be a cause of worry in the future.

The trivalent polio vaccine immunises children against all three polio types. However, since monovalent oral polio vaccine produces higher immunity as compared to trivalent, MoPV1 was used in high-risk districts and states.

 Outbreak of Polio in the Amish

 None of the Amish children had any clinical evidence of infection and were only proven to be carriers by virtue of virus in the fecal samples. The doctors would never had known they had contact with the virus, if it hadn’t of been for the hospital doing

an actual test on the fecal matter of an Amish baby admitted with an immunodeficiency, and an infection which wouldn’t resolve, which was not polio. The baby did not have any clinical symptoms of polio, so the finding of the virus was an accident. At the time they were not even thinking it was polio. The CDC said that the polio virus had been circulating for 2 years. The baby, the CDC admits on their website, picked it up in the third hospital she was in. The Amish baby picked it up from vaccinated people and her family picked it up from her. The only reason none of them got polio was because the toxicities in their lives, and their genes, meant that they weren’t susceptible.

 

 

Hillman, Hernando and Alomia, and Doull, Hudson,and Hahn have all reported on the rarity of paralytic poliomyelitis among the natives in the Philippines, before World War II, where poliomyelitis was considered to be a disease of white people. During World War II, when the incidence of poliomyelitis among American troops in the Philippines was exceptionally high (88 and 43 per 100,000, respectively, in 1944 and 1945), repeated investigations of the native population in the affected areas revealed either no cases or rare instances of paralytic poliomyelitis among Filipino children.

 …The high incidence of poliomyelitis antibody among such groups as well as the high incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis among American or British adults stationed in these countries has indicated not only that poliomyelitis infection can be widespread where poliomyelitic paralysis is not, but also that the viruses do not lack virulence in the countries with a low incidence of poliomyelitis in the native population.

 

Serological surveys furthermore have brought forth more than suggestive evidence that the incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis is inversely proportional to the extensiveness of viral dissemination. In general, the poorer the population, its standard of living and sanitation, the more extensively is poliomyelitis virus disseminated among them and the lower is the incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis when virulent strains of virus come their way.

 

Polio was considered the white man’s disease. But what they didn’t realize until they adopted certain aspects of the white man’s lifestyle was that the reason they never needed to consider herd immunity is that their diet, their way of farming, the substances they used in cleaning and other areas of life, didn’t harm the gut lining in such a way that the polio virus became dangerous. The developing countries later learned that the Western way of life is such that certain people with a genetic susceptibility will be susceptible to polio in the presence of arsenic and other toxins. This too makes it very hard to eradicate Polio in India.

 

 

 

 

 The OPV can provide herd immunity to break transmission everywhere all at once, but it doesn’t prevent transmission over a period of time, therefore, the vaccine can also be a disease creator if the toxins are high enough and the person’s immune system weak enough. The herd then doesn’t protect them, because OPV can’t stop the spread and neither can the IPV. 

 A 1951 article shows Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1951 Oct; 41(10):1215-30 those developing countries didn’t have paralytic polio at the time when the developing world was starting to have serious epidemics. 

 

Polio

What are your chances of Polio?

 
Susceptibility of Polio was determined by several things. Sick kids never got polio, as weird as that sounds. People who are the ‘life of the party’, over-worked, or who run on never-ending batteries, were dead sitting ducks for polio, but was also dependent on their diet. Healthy people, who if incubating Polio got stressed, pregnant, were overworked, or got vaccinated, could come down with Polio. Immunodeficiency could potentially make polio more fatal. Tonsillectomies guaranteed a higher chance of getting polio. In 1994 it was finally known that Selenium status made a difference.  Cuba got struck with what was first thought to be polio, but which was eventually found to be a coxsackie B virus. Certain sectors of Cuba did not get any paralysis at all, though they were found to have the same infection quota of the virus. Studies found that the mineral and vitamin content of the food people ate had protected them against the paralysis factor of the virus. There are some viruses, like coxsackie, that give guinea-pigs an identical syndrome to polio.

In guinea pigs it is known that there is an epigenetic factor, which means, that if a guinea pig with that gene susceptibility is exposed to that virus in certain nutritional deficiency situations they will get that disease. Polio does not need a human host. See Pubmed.

 

A serological indication of the existence of a guineapig poliovirus.

 

Attempts were made to clarify whether laboratory guineapigs may harbour a poliovirus which, in 1911, was described as the cause of a disease called guineapig lameness. By the use of ELISA for antibodies against the poliovirus, Theiler’s murine encephalomyelitis virus (TMEV), it was shown that two pet shop guineapigs suffering from lameness had extremely high titres against poliovirus, while healthy guineapigs from the same pet shop were negative. Clearly positive results were also found in 35 out of 152 laboratory guineapig sera. Positive results were found in only two out of six breeding centres, but in three out of three experimental units, all of which purchased guineapigs from one of the seropositive breeding colonies. The diseased guineapigs recovered fully after treatment with vitamins in the drinking water, a treatment used for guineapig lameness by small animal practitioners. A theory that vitamin C deficient guineapigs are, due to an impaired steroid secretion, predisposed to succumbing to infection and develop demyelinating disease similar to that in TMEV infected mice is discussed briefly. Guineapig sera were also tested serologically for other infections. Antibodies against lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, Clostridium piliforme and Toxoplasma gondii were not found, but one breeding colony was infected with adenovirus, pneumonia virus of mice, reovirus type 3, Sendai virus, parainfluenza (simian) virus type 5 and Encephalitozoon cuniculi. Two other breeding colonies were infected with both reovirus type 3 and E. cuniculi. In all three experimental units infection with adenovirus was observed, and in two of these Sendai virus and E. cuniculi antibodies were also found. The pet shop guineapigs were infected with adenovirus, reovirus type 3 and E. cuniculi.

 

Nutrition was the primary prevention and doctors used nutrition programs to get people over polio. All is dependent on how malnourished your body is, amount of toxins and pesticides, and other your system is full of. The higher the Vitamin C deficiency, the more devastating the disease can be.

 

Polio and Herd Immunity

The polio vaccine in U.S. was not attributed to herd immunity. Research done prior to the use of the vaccine stated that in any epidemic 98.2% of people already had antibodies. Only 36% of people in the USA had had the primary 3 shots of SALK by 1958. The majority of these people did not need the vaccine, and the small herd effect of 36% of the population that was vaccinated is also negligible. The AMA removed all copies of the Polio Surveillance Units Reports which clearly showed that up until 1962, the percentage of paralytic and non-paralytic polio was more in the vaccinated community than the unvaccinated. 

 

 
Let’s go back through time and take a look at some issues …

 

If you look at the oldest graphs, they show that most polio disappeared by the time less than half the U.S. had been vaccinated the first time, yet everyone had to be revaccinated?  

How did the definition of paralytic polio differ in 1953 from the one in 1955, 1956 and 1959? Why were those changes made? 
  

When vaccinated people got polio within 30 days of a vaccine it was not considered to be related to the vaccine, when the allowable incubation time is relevant? 
 
All Salk vaccine were Live, not inactivated. The primary use of OPV during epidemics isn’t to create herd immunity. It is used to disrupt the circulation of all enteric viruses by filling a gap and to try to prevent the spread.

 

 Symptoms of Polio

 

Headache and general malaise; gastro-intestinal disturbance (i.e. diarrhea, vomiting); sore throat; stiffness of neck and back; aching muscles. On the fourth or fifth day, if muscles are affected, paralysis may spread during the following 36 hours. Coughing, swallowing or speech may be affected. As with any disease, susceptibility is the key.

 

Treatment and Prevention

The number one preventative measure is to avoid contaminated food and water. The second most important preventative measure is to ensure a healthy digestive system. Rest in bed; physiotherapy can help muscles recover; homeopathic remedies can treat many of the symptoms associated with Polio. Gelsemium is the main homeopathic remedy, for its action on muscles and motor nerves. Recovery occurs in most cases.

 

 

 

 

Hiding Polio:

 

Viral or aseptic meningitis, Guillaine-Barré Syndrome (GBS), Chinese paralytic syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, encephalomyeloradiculoneuritis, post-polio syndrome, acute flaccid paralysis.

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME: THE HIDDEN POLIO EPIDEMIC by Dr. William Campbell Douglas

 

CFS, also known as, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Myalgic means Muscle and encephalo means brain. myelitis means inflammation of the covering of the nerves.

polio is contracted from ingesting the virus, which then goes to the small intestine and reproduces there. With VACCINES, particularly the OPV Sabin vaccine, the traditional polio viruses were replaced by other members of the same family called Coxsack e viruses.

When the Coxsackie viruses were isolated from cfs patients, they didn’t realize that it was a new form of polio. This new polio was caused by the replacement of the polio viruses with their partners, the Coxsackie viruses. the researchers didn’t get the connection at first. the new polio cases were labled post-polio syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, or myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Modern genetics has confirmed the genetic similarity between polio viruses, Coxsackie, and a group called the Echo viruses. Before the invention of the Salk and Sabin vaccines, there were only three polio viruses. Now, with the alterations of the human gut over the years as a result of these vaccines, there are at least 72 viral strains that can cause polio-like diseases.

the evidence of Polio Changing rather than the elimination of IT is not new.  After the introduction of the vaccines, the trends of NEW polio INCREASED and it has been recognized by neurologists for 40 years. The terms atypical and abortive polio have been kept quiet because it would point to the fact that polio is more common than lead to believe and caused by polio vaccination.

infantile paralysis as polio was called then, has become in the modern era adult paresis (muscle weakness).  Dr. Elizabeth Dowsett, a microbiologist from Britain. states: True CFS “strikes one clinically as being polio-like and it has often been diagnosed as ‘nonparalytic polio.” Dowsett says the term chronic fatigue syndrome was “an unfortunate mistake” because it is a neurological disease and the doctors waiting six months before doing anything so they could label it “chronic,” reuined the chances of identifying the virus. the patient now has chronic new-age polio that will not be amenable to treatment.

 

If CFS is a form of polio, and 72 viruses are in everyones intestine, then why doesn’t everyone come down with CFS? NOT EVERYONE will come down with a disease simply because they are exposed to it. Some people have stronger immune systems than others and that is where good nutrition and hygiene come in. During the polio epidemic of the ’30s and ’40s, most of the children who had polio, didn’t even know they had it. It was passed off as a cold. Multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, CFS, Tourette syndrome, learning disabilities, Guillain Barre Syndrome, idiopathic epilepsy, and other neurological conditions may very well be forms of polio induced by these vaccines. The Salk and Sabin vaccines opened a Pandora’s box as we now have 72 types of polio rather than three!

 

 DDT

 

In the U.S. DDT was used during polio epidemics. It was thought that polio was spread by flies and mosquitoes. In areas where DDT was used, polio increased instead of decreased. The U.S. was spraying it everywhere, so much so, even cows got polio. The description of polio matched symptoms of DDT poisoning as well. In Sweden and Sicily the same thing happened. Then there is epigenetics. Dr. Wyatt wrote two medical articles which talked about genetic susceptibility to polio.

 

 

 

 

 

Honey

Honey Effective in Killing Bacteria that Cause Chronic Sinusitis

Source: American Academy of Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery

 

 Honey is very effective in killing bacteria in all its forms, especially the drug-resistant biofilms that make treating chronic rhinosinusitis difficult, according to research presented during the 2008 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) Annual Meeting & OTO EXPO, in Chicago, IL.

The study, authored by Canadian researchers at the University of Ottawa, found that in eleven isolates of three separate biofilms (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and methicicillin-resistant and -suseptible Staphylococcus aureus), honey was significantly more effective in killing both planktonic and biofilm-grown forms of the bacteria, compared with the rate of bactericide by antibiotics commonly used against the bacteria.

Given the historical uses of honey in some cultures as a homeopathic treatment for bad wound infections, the authors conclude that their findings may hold important clinical implications in the treatment of refractory chronic rhinosinusitis, with topical treatment a possibility.

Chronic rhinosinusitis affects approximately 31 million people each year in the United States alone, costing over $4 billion in direct health expenditures and lost workplace productivity. It is among the three most common chronic diseases in all of North America.

Mumps Epidemiology and Immunity: The Anatomy of a Modern Epidemic

Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 27(10) Supplement:S75-S79, October 2008.
Anderson, Larry J. MD; Seward, Jane F. MB, BS, MPH

Abstract:
The success of the measles, mumps, and rubella 2-dose vaccination program led public health officials in 1998 to set a goal to eliminate endemic transmission of mumps virus by 2010 in the United States. The large outbreak of mumps in the spring of 2006 has led public health officials to re-evaluate this goal and to recognize that the transmission and epidemiology of mumps in highly vaccinated populations may be different than anticipated. During 2006, a total of 6584 confirmed and probable cases of mumps were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and most of these, 5865, occurred between January 1 and July 31. The peak of the outbreak was in April and seemed to be focused on college campuses in 9 midwestern states with Iowa having the highest attack rate. College campuses with mumps outbreaks included ones with 77% to 97% of students having had 2 doses of a mumps vaccine. Diagnosing mumps proved to be problematic in vaccinated persons (ie, laboratory tests seemed to be insensitive and some apparent mumps cases had mild nonclassic illness). The outbreak demonstrated that mumps can sometimes transmit efficiently in highly vaccinated populations and the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of mumps in vaccinated persons is more difficult than in naive persons. The reason for this mumps outbreak is not clear but probably results from multiple factors contributing to an overall increase in susceptibility and/or transmission.

(C) 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

David Kirby and Mark Blaxill Slide Presentations

HERE is David Kirby’s slide presentation from the Vaccine/Autism meeting in DC. 9/28

Mark Blaxill, briefing on Capitol Hill. HERE are slides from his presentation, titled, Why the Autism Crisis Has Become So Controversial and Why Families Need Your Help.

Politics, Money and Obama

Politics & Money: Pharma Still Bets On Obama

 

*************************************

Obama also doesn’t believe in selective vaccinations. That tells me he doesn’t believe in a parents’ right to choose what is best for their children..hmm..

McCain vs Romney on Pharma Companies

Bernadine Healy

 

Bernadine Healy’s comments in a CBS interview with Sharyl Attkisson.

Bernadine Patricia Healy is a cardiologist and a former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Red Cross. She is a senior writer for US News & World Report.

More than half of US drug safety studies never see the light of day

Only 43% of the evidence of safety and efficacy that the US Food and Drug Administration uses to approve drugs is published in scientific journals. The authors of the survey say this amounts to “scientific misconduct”

The results of more than half of all clinical trials that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of new drugs are not published within five years of the drug going on the market, according to an analysis of 90 drugs approved by US regulators between 1998 and 2000.

The researchers, who traced the publication or otherwise of 909 separate clinical trials in the scientific literature, wrote that the failure of drug companies to publish the evidence relating to new medicines amounted to “scientific misconduct”. They said it “harms the public good” by preventing informed decisions by doctors and patients about new medicines and by hampering future scientific work.

The team also found evidence for a “publication bias”. Trials with statistically significant results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant results, as were those with larger sample sizes.

More

Trust Us We’re the Experts…Or Are We?

What is an expert? An expert is defined as:

An “expert” is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual’s opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.

When it comes to the vaccine issue, is it enough to just listen to the ‘experts’ that the pharma industry or media promotes before us? Are they nonbiased? Do they have really place the publics best interests first? Do they  promote or report the ‘experts’ research as factual and true? Let’s take a look.

How to Sell a Vaccine Program

First we have what is called the ‘Father of Spin’. The Father of Spin can mask an agenda and create illusions that deceive or misrepresnt the true agenda for marketing pruposes. It formulates all the rules or guidelines for creating a public opinion. It’s focus is not on facts, but on emotion. When you focus on emotion, people can be led to believe almost anything. Examples of Headlines:

• Measles cases are rising amid fears of epidemic

• Infant Twins Die From Whooping Cough

• Shingles vaccine shows promise

What they don’t tell you…

• Multiple teenagers got the Measles..were they vaccinated or unvaccinated. If you have read the Trading Places blog section here, you would see the vaccinated are coming down with Measles in this age group at higher porportions than in the pre-vaccine era. But they don’t mention this.

• The Mother of the twins was 15 years old which does make a difference. Again, read the Trading Places blog section and you will see why. Also, they don’t say exactly how old the twins were, nor if they had any other health conditions, if they were treated with antibiotics, or were vitamin C deficient, which all make a difference as well.

• The Shingles vaccine shows “promise”. Where is the efficacy rate? It was also not stated that the reason Shingles cases have gone up is due to the universal Varicella recommendation and mandates for children. The trial patients were followed up on for 3 to 5 years. What happens after that? Was it tested on older persons with an immunodeficiency or other health problems?

Secondly, comes the “Smoke and Mirrors’.  Its objective is to control the public without them realizing it. The public is a ‘herd that needs to be led’. An agenda or concept is put into a favorable light and the public is simply expected to believe and follow it. The vaccine agenda is to get the public to accept the vaccine campaign for the ‘good of the herd’, and in turn, every vaccine recommended or put on the market will be injected without question; whenever the ‘experts’ say so. To accomplish this, they must also reach out to those who do not wish to vaccinate, and try and change their minds, attitudes and behavior. Most of this is done solely through the media. A 1997 WHO publication sums it up nicely:

pg 43: “The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integrated into the ‘health consciousness’ of people and thus, to their daily lives. Media, local leaders, and other partners need to be used to reach this objective.”

 

Who are those ‘other partners’?  Those are the institutions and foundations that are set up and financed by the industries whose products need to be evaluated, trialed, and eventually sold. These so-called independent agencies produce the scientific studies and press materials that create whatever view they want to portray. This can be achieved by creating canned news releases which are molded to the news format. Unless you were to research this yourself, how would you know the difference? Front groups are also created. Their sole objectives are to advance the agenda of the corporations that fund them. Example:

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.

There are two types of ‘experts’. The first are PR ‘spin’ doctors who are behind the scenes, pulling the strings, and are best used when people are unaware they are even being led. The independent ‘experts’ on the other hand, are publically known, cherry-picked, and paid to promote the views of the corporations who pay them. Sports figures, movie stars, etc., are all third parties who are used to promote the agenda.

 

Third, is the money. Corporations bring in or hire new people whose job is to develop new ideas and/or services that can be sold to the public. People are the means to the money and it doesn’t matter how it gets sold as long as it does. 

United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate Fabric of Public Collaboration:

“Vaccine companies, like larger pharmaceutical companies, seek a profit by selling products.”

“…candidate vaccines are more likely to be aggressively developed and evaluated when there is a potential for providing a substantial economic return–vaccines for which there is a large potential market, particularly in the United States and other developed nations.

“This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmental changes, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze on funding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery and development across the board.”

Source: www.dhhs.gov/nvpo/pubs/DELFAB.pdf

 

The NIH, CDC, DOH, FDA, DOD, NVAC, USAID, ACIP, and AAP are all included in the agenda. Money rules in the pharma world.

 

Next, comes the Players. The Players create the credibility by using the 3rd party endorsements that will help create the opinion.  News media does not generally investigate independent experts ties with front groups nor reveal their corportate funding or propaganda agenda. The front groups job is solely to promote the agenda to the public through press releases, molded in the news format. Since journalist do not have to research the subject themselves, how do you know it’s really true? Your expected to take their word for it and they assume you will.

Conventional wisdom can be defined as:

Conventional wisdom (CW) is a term used to describe ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. The term implies that the ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined and, hence, may be reevaluated upon further examination or as events unfold.

 Conventional wisdom is not necessarily true. Many urban legends, for example, are accepted on the basis of being “conventional wisdom”. Conventional wisdom is also often seen as an obstacle to introducing new theories, explanations, and so as an obstacle that must be overcome by such revisionism. This is to say, that despite new information to the contrary, conventional wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional wisdom) view. This inertia is due to conventional wisdom being made of ideas that are convenient, appealing and deeply assumed by the public, who hangs on to them even as they grow outdated. The unavoidable outcome is these ideas will eventually not match reality at all, so conventional wisdom will be violently shaken until it doesn’t conflict reality so blatantly.

The concept of Conventional Wisdom also is applied or implied in political senses, often related closely with the phenomenon of Talking Points. It is used pejoratively to refer to the idea that statements which are repeated over and over become conventional wisdom regardless of whether or not they are true.

 

Lastly, is the ‘Language of Spin’. Some characteristics of good propaganda are:

• use emotionally positive words
• use emotionally negative words or dehumanize the opposition name calling and labels
• Use celebrities, churches, sports figures to talk for you
• Avoid moral issues, only point out the benefits, and don’t say anything memorable
• Stall for time, cover-up, distract, and don’t use plain english

Lastly, is the ‘Language of Spin’.  The scientific manipulation of public mass opinion is extremely important because it must appeal to the ‘unconscious motivation’, and makes people susceptible to leadership. Their job is to keep the public in a state of uncertainty and fear. Fear and Uncertainty keep people coming back for more. The media will rarely report stories which it considers to be against the ‘public health’ agenda of the DOH or the Pharma industry. The agendas or policies can and do change to suit their needs, not the needs of the people.

Modern propaganda creates and influences the information the public are led to believe without question. You have to control what people think, in order to get them to buy into your agenda.

“Scientific accuracy of results is not to be expected, because many of the elements of the situation must always be beyond his control. He may know with a fair degree of certainty that under favorable circumstances an international flight will produce a spirit of good will, making possible even the consummation of political programs. But he cannot be sure that some unexpected event will not overshadow this flight in the public interest, or that some other aviator may not do something more spectacular the day before. Even in his restricted field of public psychology there must always be a wide margin of error. Propaganda, like economics and sociology, can never be an exact science for the reason that its subject-matter, like theirs, deals with human beings.”

 

References:

Propaganda by Bernay

Trust Us, We’re Experts

 

Chickenpox Vaccination Leads To More Shingles

New study UK: Chickepox Vaccine Leads to More Shingles

New modelling research presented at the Health Protection Agency’s annual conference in Warwick confirms that vaccination against chickenpox would significantly decrease the burden of this disease but would lead to more shingles among the elderly.

Researchers also found that vaccinating the elderly against shingles would only partially, but not completely, offset this increase.

Post-vaccination research from countries that routinely immunise their children against chickenpox, including the US, has found an increase in cases of shingles among non-vaccinated age groups.

The Health Protection Agency researchers modelled the impact of vaccinating children against chickenpox (with a two dose schedule) and the elderly (60+) against shingles.

Building on previous modelling data the team incorporated virological, epidemiological and recent data on age-specific contact patterns to see whether a vaccine for the young would impact on the number of shingles in the elderly.

The modelling suggested that a two dose schedule at the levels of coverage likely to be achieved in the UK would lead to an increase of at least 20% of shingles in the medium term (approximately 15-20 years). This increase could be partially, but not completely, offset by introduction of a vaccination against shingles among those aged 60+.

Albert Jan van Hoek, who performed the research for the Health Protection Agency, said; “Our models suggest that vaccination would reduce the burden of chickenpox in the young. However, it will lead to an increase in shingles in the medium term in adults because they will not get that ‘boosting’ effect from being in contact with cases of chickenpox.

“We also looked at whether vaccinating adults against shingles would be of benefit to counteract this. The research showed that a potential increase in shingles could be partly offset by vaccinating the elderly. The success of this, however, depends on uncertain vaccine efficacy parameters, particularly the duration of protection from the zoster virus.

“There are still uncertainties in the research and a lot more work needs to be done examining whether vaccination will be a benefit to all of the population. Also further work needs to be done on the cost effectiveness of any potential chickenpox vaccine before any policy conclusions can be reached.”

Antibiotics and Fever Reducers

Antibiotics cause a stall out or dying off of intestinal flora, which kills the e.coli in the gut. When killed,  the endotoxin located in the e.coli’s outer coating is released, which often causes a cascade of health issues to result. Endotoxemia affects the glutathione biochemical pathways, which are also a key component of the immune system, among other vital functions.

 

“Antibiotics disrupt the normal population of beneficial microbes/bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract of all Human/animals. These beneficial bacteria are the first fine of defense against most diseases, without them the Human/animal is more susceptible to other infections. Antibiotics depress the immune system by decreasing the number of circulating white blood cells. This lowers the Human/animal’s ability to fight infections. Some antibiotics, such as chloramphenicol, can cause irreversible damage to the bone marrow. Many bacteria develop resistance to the effects of antibiotics. This resistance can be passed to other bacteria, The concern is that if humans are exposed to resistant bacteria then the use of antibiotics may be ineffective in treating any resulting disease.”  - Richard J. Holliday, DVM

Link found between use of antibiotics in infants and asthma

 2007 Canadian Report:

Taking a single course of a certain type of antibiotic gives rise to high levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the mouth, an effect that lasts for at least half a year, a new study has found.

…even after a single - and short - course of antibiotics, a person could spread resistant strains of bacteria to close contacts within a household or a hospital for months.

 

Antibiotics in Vaccines

 Neomycin

Streptomycin

Gentamicin Sulfate 

 Vaccines:

Polio

Single mumps

Single Rubella

MR

MMR

Flu

Single Measles

Pentacel Brand 

Rabies

  Fever Reducers:

 Antipyretics, also known as fever reducers, lower the immune system which can set babies and children up for potentially worse problems.  

Paracetamol (fever reducer) may prolong infection and reduce the antibody response in mild disease, and increase morbidity and mortality (death) in severe infection.

 

If you can get rid of the vaccine pyrogens that are causing the temperature, it will come down on its own, and the quickest way to do that is vitamin C (sodium ascorbate). Diarrhea is a sign of gut dysbiosis and is a sign there is a significant immunological disturbance in the body. 70% of the immune system is located in the gut, and if you mess with that, the gut allows vital immunological resources to work elsewhere. Foul smelling diapers are also a very common with vaccine reaction. It’s the most obvious indicator that the body is going haywire.

 

  Pregnant Women Who Take Acetaminophen Could Raise Asthma Risk in Their Kids

 

The findings were presented here at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI).

So what could be happening? While no one knows for sure, Perzanowski says that acetaminophen use may deplete the lung of an antioxidant called glutathione. Researchers think glutathione, which is found in the lining of airways, may play an important role in preventing damage to the lungs.

 

Fever is often a beneficial host response to infection, and moderate fever improves immunity. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to give drugs that reduce temperature to patients with severe infection. I have recently reviewed 1 the results of 9 controlled trials in mammals of the effect of paracetamol or aspirin on mortality or virus excretion. Four trials found that aspirin increased mortality in bacterial or viral infection. Viral shedding was increased by paracetamol or aspirin in 3 studies, possibly increased in one, and not affected in two (one used only pharyngeal washings, and one had only 9 subjects in the aspirin and placebo groups). One study found that antibody production was impaired by both paracetamol and aspirin, but no effect on antibody production was detected in the study with only 9 subjects in the aspirin and placebo groups. This evidence suggests that aspirin and paracetamol increase mortality in severe infection, and that they may prolong the infection and reduce the antibody response in mild disease. 
….It should be explained to parents that fever is usually a helpful response to infection, and that paracetamol should be used to reduce discomfort, but not to treat fever.

 

 

 The Neurologic basis of fever, Saper, Clifford B. The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 330, No. 26. June 30, 1994,  Page 1880:

“The elevation of body temperature by a few degrees may improve the efficiency of macrophages in killing invading bacteria, whereas it (fever) impairs the replication of many microorganisms, giving the immune system an adaptive advantage. 
 
There is a simultaneous switch from the burning of glucose, an excellent substrate for bacterial growth, to metabolism based on proteolysis and lipolysis. The host organism also becomes anorexic, which minimizes the availability of glucose, and somnolent, which reduces the demand by muscles for energy substrate. During the febrile response, the liver produces proteins known as acute-phase reactants. Some of these proteins bind divalent cations, which are necessary for the proliferation of many microorganisms.  
 
The net effect of the metabolic responses activated during fever is to give the host organism an adaptive advantage over the invader.”

 

 Antipyresis and Fever, Barbara Styrt, MD, Barrett Sugarman MD. Arch Intern Med – Vol 150, August 1990, (Archives of Internal Medicine is a peer reviewed paper) Page 1589:

 

“Antipyretic drugs are effective in diminishing fever, but they have significant side effects and may suppress signs of ongoing infection.” 
 
“Antipyretic therapy should not be instituted routinely for every febrile episode but should be based on evaluation of relative risks in the individual case and reassessed if anticipated benefits are not achieved.”

Pg 1594: “The decision to administer antipyretics is frequently made without a documented rational. Current understanding of the mechanisms and pathogenesis of fever suggests that the febrile process has a role in host defense and that routine antipyretic therapy for fever is generally unnecessary and conceivably harmful. ”  
 
“Decisions to attempt suppression of fever should be based in infrequent indications arising in an individual case and should take into account the potential risks of antipyresis as well as its often questionable benefits.” 
 
Pg 1594: ”In the vast majority of febrile illnesses, there is no evidence that fever is detrimental or that antipyretic therapy offers any significant benefit. Indeed, the limited information available on in vitro immune functions and in vivo outcomes would suggest that fever usually does more good than harm.”

 

“In treating fever “symptomatically” one should not lose sight of the fact that elevated temperatures, whatever their physiologic function, do serve as a signal both to the patient and to the caregiver. Nonspecific suppression of fever may deprive one of clues to a need for further diagnostic investigation, or for changes in therapy. Although these clues will often occur in the context of antipyretic use, one study has indicated that patients with a variety of bacterial infections receiving antipyretics experience a significant delay in institution of needed antibiotic changes.”

 

The American Journal of Medicine, volume 88, January 1990, Antipyretic Orders in a University Hospital Stuart N. Isaacs MD et al. Drug used: acetaminophen.

Page 31: “antipyretics are among the most widely used pharmacologic agents. Traditional rationales for their use include relief of discomfort associated with fever, prevention of febrile seizures, avoidance of the high metabolic costs of fever in those who are malnourished or who have cardiac or pulmonary disease, and lessening of brain edema in central nervous system disease or trauma. However, accumulating evidence indicates that fever may be an important defense mechanism.” 
 

 Acta Paediatr Jpn 1994 Aug; 36(4) 375 – 378. Risks of antipyretics in young children with fever due to infectious disease. Sugimura T, et al.

“The objective of this study was to determine whether paracetamol (acetaminophen) affects the outcome of children with fever due to bacterial infectious disease….. the data suggest that frequent administration of antipyretics to children with infectious disease may lead to a worsening of their illness.”

 

Eur J. Pediatr 1994, June; 153 (6) 394 – 402. Treatment of fever in childhood. 
Adam D, et al.

 ”The most commonly used antipyretic drugs are acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) paracetamol (acetaminophen) and dipyrone (metamizol). …Paracetamol is the most common cause of acute hepatic failure… in the light of these findings, the extensive use of antipyretics drugs has been seriously questioned.” 
 
“Page 398: “Paracetamol has a pronounced liver toxicity. In the United Kingdom paracetamol is considered to be responsible for more cases of acute hepatic failure than any other cause.” 
 
Page 399 “the potential for toxicity of ASA and paracetamol, the two most extensively used antipyretics in the febrile child, underlines the constraints within which treatment decisions have to be made. The fact that both drugs are sold as “over the counter” products, while the medication of child fever often occurs without medical control, should be a matter of concern.

 

N Y State J Med. 1971; 71: 2747 – 2754.  Prnumococcal meningitis at Harlem hospital. Richter R W et al. 

 
Result: An increase of mortality with absence of fever in pneumococcal meningitis.

  

 ”In summary, what does the evidence seem to indicate? Fever represents a universal, ancient, and usually beneficial response to infection, and its suppression under most circumstances has few, if any, demonstrable benefits. On the other hand, some harmful effects have been shown to occur as a result of suppressing fever: in most individuals, these are slight, but when translated to millions of people, they may result in an increase in morbidity and perhaps the occurrence of occasional mortality. It is clear, therefore, that widespread use of antipyretics should not be encouraged either in developing countries or in industrial societies.”

(Pediatr Vol 103, No 4, April 1999, 783-784 and 785-790. Infect Med 1999 16 (5):307.

 
Chickenpox treated with Tylenol/Ibuprofen provokes bacterial skin infections into fulminant necrotising fasciitis.  This happens by prolonging inflammation and down regulating the immune system. It can no longer fully activate the adaptive arm of immunity either.

 

 The authors recently observed that frequent paracetamol use was positively associated with asthma and rhinitis in young adults. ….Their associations with national 1994/1995 per capita paracetamol sales were measured using linear regression. Paracetamol sales were high in English-speaking countries, and were positively associated with asthma symptoms, eczema and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in 13-14-yr-olds, and with wheeze, diagnosed asthma, rhinitis and bronchial responsiveness in adults. The prevalence of wheeze increased by 0.52% in 13-14-yr-olds and by 0.26% in adults (p<0.0005) for each gram increase in per capita paracetamol sales. These ecological findings require cautious interpretation, but raise the possibility that variation in paracetamol usage may explain some of the variation in atopic disease prevalence between countries.

 

Asthma morbidity after the short-term use of ibuprofen in children. 

 
“However, the risk of an outpatient visit for asthma was significantly lower in the ibuprofen group; compared with children who were randomized to acetaminophen, the relative risk for children who were assigned to ibuprofen was 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Rather than supporting the hypothesis that ibuprofen increases asthma morbidity among children who are not known to be sensitive to aspirin or other nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, these data suggest that compared with acetaminophen, ibuprofen may reduce such risks. Whether the observed difference in morbidity according to treatment group is attributable to increased risk after acetaminophen use or a decrease after ibuprofen cannot be determined.”

 

 According to the FDA:
 
Safety Anaylasis of Acetaminophen   

Drugs with Limitations - limitations on their use (warnings, dose restrictions, monitoring):
Niaspan Extended Release Tablets (niacin)
Dantrium (dantrolene)
Tylenol (acetaminophen)
Normodyne (labetalol)
Cylert (pemoline)
Felbatol (felbamate)
Zyflo (zileuton)
Tasmar (tolcapone)
Trovan (trovafloxacin, alatrofloxacin)

  
What WHO has to say about Fever and antipyresis
 

 In addition to the probability that antipyretics may prolong the course of mild to moderate infectious illnesses, what other deleterious effects might they have? Russell et al. point out that little is known about the pharmacokinetics of these drugs in poorly or malnourished children. Even in developed countries, all available methods of antipyresis must be treated with respect. Warning labels became required for paracetamol recently and for aspirin in the more distant past. In addition to acute poisoning, the former has been implicated in the development of chronic renal disease, and perhaps liver failure, when repeatedly administered over prolonged periods of time . Perhaps more important is the fact that antipyretics mask symptoms or signs; children with pneumonia, for example, may not receive a proper diagnosis because their respiratory rate decreases (4) or because, when the body temperature starts to fall, the child may be considered to be on the way to recovery and thus needing no further observation. Finally, of course, the costs may consume a significant amount of resources that, in developing countries, could be better devoted to specific diagnosis and therapy.

Other potential benefits of reducing fever are sometimes cited to justify the use of antipyresis. A common assumption is that these drugs make patients feel better, but no clear evidence shows that this is so. Parents and physicians consistently cannot distinguish between the effects of placebo and paracetamol in most circumstances. Perhaps the exceptions are conditions accompanied by pain, for which the analgesic effects of the medication provide the benefit. When fevers rise above 39.5 ^oC, a reduction in body temperature is sometimes accompanied by an improvement in subjective symptoms, but this is inconstant, with young children seeming to benefit more than older children.

 The major problem when evaluating the subjective effects of antipyretics is that they have an enormous placebo value – as various studies have shown. Despite the firm belief in the effects of antipyretics, children do not feel any better, eat better, or become more active after their use than they do after they receive placebo. The argument that the use of antipyretics reduces the occurrence of febrile seizures also is not based on evidence: no studies have shown this to be true. Even in children with previous febrile seizures, the use of antipyretics has not been helpful. Some physicians believe that the response to antipyretics can be used to differentiate between bacterial and viral infections, with the latter responding more completely and promptly. Numerous studies have shown this to be a fallacy.

 

Overdose:
   

Acetaminophen overdose is the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers (>100,000/year) and accounts for more than 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and an estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure each year. Data from the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group registry of more than 700 patients with acute liver failure across the United States implicates acetaminophen poisoning in nearly 50% of all acute liver failure in this country. Available in many single or combination products, acetaminophen produces more than 1 billion US dollars in annual sales for Tylenol products alone. It is heavily marketed for its safety compared to nonsteroidal analgesics. By enabling self-diagnosis and treatment of minor aches and pains, its benefits are said by the Food and Drug Administration to outweigh its risks. It still must be asked: Is this amount of injury and death really acceptable for an over-the-counter pain reliever?

 

According to the BMJ 2002;325:678 ( 28 September ) :

FDA fails to reduce accessibility of paracetamol despite 450 deaths a year. Confidential documents from the US Food and Drug Administration suggest that the agency has avoided a debate on tough new measures to reduce overdoses from painkillers to avoid offending the pharmaceutical industry. Ray Moynihan reports from Washington, DC  
 
” A confidential draft document reveals that the Office of Drug Safety also wanted the advisory panel to discuss whether the “maximum tablet strength should be decreased,” whether “combination products be reformulated without acetaminophen,” and whether there was “a need to standardize the various paediatric formulations.”  
 
The advisers never saw that draft, however, and none of these key options ended up being clearly presented to the committee by the FDA in the final list of questions they were to consider.  
 
…. “The committee would have preferred more focused questions,” he said.  
 
According to one FDA insider, the draft questions were dropped because senior FDA managers saw them as too offensive to Johnson & Johnson. Asked about this alleged corporate influence within the FDA, Dr Cantilena smiled and said he did not want to speculate.

The Neurologic basis of fever,Saper, Clifford B. The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 330, No. 26. June 30, 1994, Page 1880:

 

“The elevation of body temperature by a few degrees may improve the efficiency of macrophages in killing invading bacteria, whereas it (fever) impairs the replication of many microorganisms, giving the immune system an adaptive advantage. 
 
There is a simultaneous switch from the burning of glucose, an excellent substrate for bacterial growth, to metabolism based on proteolysis and lipolysis. The host organism also becomes anorexic, which minimizes the availability of glucose, and somnolent, which reduces the demand by muscles for energy substrate. During the febrile response, the liver produces proteins known as acute-phase reactants. Some of these proteins bind divalent cations, which are necessary for the proliferation of many microorganisms.  
 
The net effect of the metabolic responses activated during fever is to give the host organism an adaptive advantage over the invader.”

 

J. Paediatr. Child health (1993) 29; 84 -85: Paracetamol: When, why and how much. Editorial

“in patients without heart and lung disease fever is harmful only at temperatures over 41 o C; such high termperatures are usually caused by heat stroke or brain injury, and they do not respond to paracetamol or aspirin.”  There is no evidence that antipyretics prevent febrile convulsions”

 

Eur J. Pediatr 1994, June; 153 (6) 394 – 402 Treatment of fever in childhood. 
Adam D, et al.

“The most commonly used antipyretic drugs are acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) paracetamol (acetaminophen) and dipyrone (metamizol). …Paracetamol is the most common cause of acute hepatic failure… in the light of these findings, the extensive use of antipyretics drugs has been seriously questioned.” 
 
“Page 398: “Paracetamol has a pronounced liver toxicity. In the United Kingdom paracetamol is considered to be responsible for more cases of acute hepatic failure than any other cause.” 
 
Page 399 “the potential for toxicity of ASA and paracetamol, the two most extensively used antipyretics in the febrile child, underlines the constraints within which treatment decisions have to be made. The fact that both drugs are sold as “over the counter” products, while the medication of child fever often occurs without medical control, should be a matter of concern.

 

Antipyretics appear to prolong illness by reducing the temperature, thereby disabling the body’s full ability to deal with whatever is the problem. In a nutshell, the lower the temperature, the longer the duration of illness. The higher the temperature, the shorter duration of illness. Immunologically, temperatures from infection are specifically designed to speed up and kick the immune system into gear, release cytokines and other immunological forces to deal with the problem. 

Get a Deep Insight into the World Human Vaccines Market

World Human Vaccines Market

• This report analyzes the worldwide markets for Human Vaccines in Millions of US$.
• The major product segments analyzed are Prophylactic Vaccines (Pediatric Prophylactic Vaccines, & Adult Prophylactic Vaccines), and Therapeutic Vaccines.
• The report provides separate comprehensive analytics for the US, Canada, Japan, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Latin America.
• Annual forecasts are provided for each region for the period of 2001 through 2015. A ten-year historic analysis is also provided for these markets with annual market analytics.
• The report profiles 164 companies
• Market data and analytics are derived from primary and secondary research. Company profiles are mostly extracted from URL research and reported select online sources.

see also: http://www.reportlinker.com/p092575/World-Human-Vaccines-Market.html

CDC-sponsored MMR study supports Wakefield’s findings

CDC-sponsored MMR study supports Wakefield’s findings

By F. Edward Yazbak MD, FAAP

The CDC tried again and …failed again

But this time, it validated Andrew Wakefield’s findings

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The following critique was to be published on the Web Site of the Vaccine Autoimmune Project on Monday September 15, 2008. Unfortunately the VAP web site was the target of malicious hacking. I am grateful to John and Jackie Fletcher for their invitation to feature it on JABS

Chickenpox Parties

Tell me again what’s so wrong about chickenpox parties? 

Well if you read this…apparently plenty. But I still don’t agree.

Before a vaccine was recommended for all children, it was considered a  beneficial and benign disease. After the vaccine was recommended for all children, it was suddenly a serious and deathly disease. Funny how that works!

I had Chickenpox as a child. I was 6 years old and had it at the same time as my 3 siblings. I remember my Mom was thrilled we all had it at once to ‘get it over with.’

Two of my older children had chickenpox before a vaccine was ever recommended. They were exposed through a school-age child I was babysitting. I too was thrilled! They would have chickenpox before the start of school and be done with it. Several of my neighbors, along with other daycare children, came over to expose their children-we had a pox party!

Now I won’t say chickenpox is exactly fun. The kids had a pretty good case and were cranky, whiny, sickly, itchy and they looked like hell…everything you would expect them to be when they don’t ‘feel good’. But it wasn’t horrible either. My daughter would say it was but only because she’s a girl, and had them in private places, and well let’s face it, that’s not a place you want to have a constant itch:( The first 3-4 days were the hardest and then it got better from there.  For me, I got natural boosting, and more importantly them, a week of sickness sure outweighed a vaccine any day. We simply didn’t have to worry about it any more..it was done and over with, unlike the vaccine. Unfortunately, I still have two younger school-age kids who haven’t gotten it…yet. Now that school is back in session, and other children are out getting their vaccine that sheds( for 6 weeks) to others, I’m confident it’ll knock on our doorstep soon!

 

By the way-We did the usual treatments minus today’s repetitive Tylenol use which is given for everything that ails you. Speaking of which, the only children who had more severe problems getting over it that were exposed when my children were, were given Tylenol repeatedly and other drugs. Their Mother was a nurse to boot.

New Link Between Vaccines and Autism Rates

The charts and notes (HERE)

I used the “Autism Rates by Birth Years” data from TACA Now and compared it to public records about vaccine histories.  I found that since the DTP vaccine in 1949 the ONLY time period with NO increase in autism cases is also the only time period with NO vaccines added to the CHILDHOOD schedule. The hep b was licensed during this time but it was not given to children until 1990.  Also, the Hib was reformulated for infants in 1987, but due to a shortage, it was not added to the schedule until 1990 (There was a HUGE jump in autism rates in 1990).  See for yourself.

This link also includes information about the NNii (National Network for Immunization Information) conceding that after vaccinations children’s aluminum levels are above the minimal risk, but they say it’s no big deal.  I disagree.  The CDC says that aluminum toxicity causes neurological delays and thin bones, and the CDC cites a study named “Thin Bones Seen in Boys with Autism.”  No one else is talking about this correlation, so I’m trying to tell everyone whom I think can help.

The NNii also says that aluminum has been used in vaccines for 75 years.  I don’t know what vaccine they are talking about.  In 1949 DTP was the first vaccine (on the current Childhood schedule) to contain aluminum and was licensed during the first significant increase in autism rates.  Also FYI, according to Wikipedia, mercury thermometers are not even allowed on some airliners because mercury reacts with aluminum. Many childhood vaccines contain(ed) both aluminum and mercury. 

Read On..

HPV mandatory for Immigrants-Oh MY!

Genetically engineered Merck Cancer Vaccine Made Mandatory For Immigrants

Immigrants seeking permanent legal residency in the U.S. are now mandated to take an expensive and controversial vaccine that has been linked with thousands of serious complaints and several deaths.

The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — known as Gardasil — is one of five the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently added to the required list, reports Fox 8 News.

A press release from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency confirms that the requirements for the vaccine went into effect on July 1, 2008.

More on this story..

DTaP

If you’ve had Pertussis yourself, that means you also have naturally-acquired antibodies to pertussis, which would have been passed to your baby through the placenta in utero.

 

 In the Swedish study that initially determined the safety and efficacy of the DTaP vaccine, they tested a subset of babies before giving them any doses of DTaP and found “some prevaccination samples contained high levels of maternal antibodies against pertussis.” Obviously, some of these babies didn’t need the vaccine. It’s documented from other research on other diseases and vaccines that maternal antibodies prevent vaccines from working the way they are intended to. The antibodies themselves detect the vaccine and get rid of it before the immune system can respond. Meaning, vaccinating a young infant who very likely has maternal antibodies already is pointless.

Maternal antibodies are known to dissipate from around 6-12 months after birth. After 6 months of age pertussis is way less of a concern. Most deaths have been in infants younger than 4 months old.

The Swedish study Highlights:

1) only healthy infants were enrolled in the study–infants with any history of chronic illness, seizure, immunosuppressant, etc. were excluded, but in practice, all infants receive the vaccine. So it’s not safe or ethical to test a vaccine in a child with impaired health status, but those kids get the vaccine later anyway.

 

2) Children were contraindicated for receiving the vaccine if they had a fever or had received another vaccine recently. Children get shots regardless of fevers or other vaccines received.

3) Children were contraindicated for further doses and dropped from the study if they  had an adverse event such as persistent crying, high fever, shock, etc. This was a 2-year study to determine long-term safety and efficacy of a 3-shot series, but the children, who reacted worst, and soonest, are not represented in the final results.
4) The old whole-cell version of DPT, given until about 1997 in the US, was bad.  It had a high rate of serious reactions, and these researchers calculated its effectiveness at only around 48%. But for the previous 20 years, parents in the US were being told their children must have this vaccine. The real truth about a particular vaccine being kind of dangerous and ineffective doesn’t come out until the pharmaceuticals decide they have something better.

In 1993-the JAMA published reports of adverse reactions , including death , following pertussis vaccines. Journal of American Medical Association 101(3) (1993) pp 187-88. See also:

• Cherry JD et al (1993). Pertussis immunization and characteristics related to first seizures in infants and children. J Pediatr 122(6):900-3 1993. Department of Pediatrics, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine.
• Blumberg DA, et al.    Severe reactions associated with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine: detailed study of children with seizures, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, high fevers, and persistent crying. Pediatrics. 1993 Jun;91(6):1158-65. PMID: 8502521; UI: 93275702.  
• Nielsen AO, et al.    [Aluminum allergy caused by DTP vaccine]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1992 Jun 29;154(27):1900-1. Danish. PMID: 1509548; UI: 92376915.

• Griffin MR et al (1990). Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. JAMA 263(12):1641-5 1990. Department of Preventive Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn 37232-2637. Miller D, et al (1993). Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illnesses in children. BMJ. 1993 Nov 6;307(6913):1171-6. PMID: 7504540; UI: 94072962.

In 1948 Pediatrics published reports of irreparable damage and death following pertussis vaccine inoculations. Pediatrics, 1(4), (1948) pp. 437-457

In 1950 Lancet published a report describing severe neurological complications, mental retardation and paralysis, following a combined pertussis-diphtheria vaccine.
Lancet , (March 25, 1950) pp537-39. See also: Medline

The British Medical Journal published several studies showing a connection between the polio , diphtheria ,measles , tetanus ,and smallpox vaccines , and the development of Multiple Sclerosis several years later. British Medical Journal , Vol.2,(1967) pp 210-213.

 

 A study in The Journal of Infectious Diseases confirms that the DPT injections induce polio. (The oral polio shot is given at the same time and the only known cases of polio have come from the shot since 1980).  The Journal of Infectious Diseases (March 1992) pp 444-449. Source Neil Z. Miller’s Vaccines : Theory vs. Reality.

 

The pertussis vaccine is used in animal experiments to create allergies in order to test allergy medicine.

 

New Zealand -Based on a study in VACCINE, decided to use the acellular vaccine which tested the most effective, which is the five component one, which supposedly had a 78% effectiveness rate. In the final year report from the health department public surveillance, they admitted that in reality it only has a 33% “effective” immunization rate.   (Source: Theor Biol. 2003 Sep 21;224(2):269-75. Estimation of effective vaccination rate: pertussis in New Zealand as a case study.
Korobeinikov A, Maini PK, Walker WJ. Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.)

 

In some cases vaccination is unreliable. For example vaccination against pertussis has comparatively high level of primary and secondary failures. To evaluate efficiency of vaccination we introduce the idea of effective vaccination rate and suggest an approach to estimate it. We consider pertussis in New Zealand as a case study. The results indicate that the level of immunity failure for pertussis is considerably higher than was anticipated.

“The obtained figures indicate that in New Zealand the effective vaccination rate against pertussis is lower than 50%, and perhaps even as low as 33% of the population. These figures contradict the medical statistics, which claim that more than 80% of the newborns in New Zealand are vaccinated against pertussis (Turner et al., 2000). This contradiction is due to the mentioned unreliability of the available vaccine.”

There are a lot of VICP death cases. Some are compensated, but more are dismissed because the deaths either did not fit the government’s onset timeline or rigid causation and/or doctors refused to testify, etc. Many deaths were initially ruled as SIDS by the coroner. When you look at the bacteriology, immunology, virology and toxicology reports, they point to clear indicators.

 

DTaP is effective in preventing Pertussis?

That depends on what you mean by effective. An effective vaccine would require only one dose to achieve immunity. The DTaP requires that you get up to five doses for an 80% chance at immunity. That’s the lowest efficacy of any vaccine on the market. And despite high vaccine coverage, the incidence of pertussis is increasing.

DTaP contains aluminum, a potent neurotoxin that enters the brain when injected as a vaccine adjuvant. The amount of aluminum injected in a single vaccine dose is sufficient to alter gene expression in the brain. These are things that will manifest adversely in the long-term: they are not included in the parameters of the vaccine safety studies that monitor only short-term effects.

There isn’t much data on the efficacy and protection from one or two doses of DTaP. Pertussis vaccine trials are difficult to do. Virtually everyone who has looked at this issue uses 3 doses as the benchmark. We know that if you get 3 doses into a child, you are looking at 80%-85% efficacy.
Information on efficacy studies, etc.

 

 Since 1991, seven studies conducted in Europe and Africa have evaluated the efficacy of eight DTaP vaccines administered to infants. The vaccines, produced by different manufacturers, contained a varying number and quantity of antigens. The derivation and formulation of the individual antigens also varied among vaccines (Table_1). Four doses of vaccine were administered in one study (Wyeth-Lederle Vaccines and Pediatrics, ACEL-IMUNE{Registered} package insert); the other six studies involved three doses (14,15,23-25). These studies also differed in other ways (Table_2)

 

The efficacy of three doses of acellular pertussis vaccines in preventing moderate to severe pertussis disease was within the range expected for most whole-cell DTP vaccines. Point estimates of efficacy ranged from 59% to 89%.

 

  This report supplements the statement from CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices regarding use of acellular pertussis vaccines and summarizes data regarding reactogenicity of acellular pertussis vaccines when administered as the fourth and fifth consecutive doses. Increases in the frequency and magnitude of local reactions at the injection site with increasing dose number have occurred for all currently licensed DTaP vaccines. Extensive swelling of the injected limb, sometimes involving the entire thigh or upper arm, after receipt of the fourth and fifth doses of DTaP vaccines has been demonstrated for multiple products from different manufacturers.

 

 There are 3 types of DTaP:

 

Infanrix

Daptacel

Tripedia

TDaP

Adacel

Boostrix

 DTaP combo vaccines:

Pediarix

Pentacel

Trihibit

 

 Contradictions to all:

If the child is sick with something more serious than a mild cold, DTaP may be delayed until the child is better.

 

If the child has had any of the following after an earlier DTaP, consult with the health care provider before the child receives another injection of the vaccine:

 

• seizures within 3 to 7 days after injection

• any serious brain problem within 7 days after injection

• worsening of seizures or other brain problem (at any time)

• mouth, throat, or face swelling (serious allergy) within a few hours after injection

• difficulty breathing (serious allergy) within a few hours after injection

• temperature of 105 degrees F or higher within 2 days after injection

• shock or collapse within 2 days after injection

• persistent, uncontrolled crying that lasts for more than 3 hours at a time within 2 days after injection

 

 What is the difference between DTP and DTaP:

 

The DTaP is made by removing many of the poisons (toxins) found in the whole-cell B.Pertussis bacteria that are used in the DTP vaccine. What remains are just a few components of the bacteria rather than the whole organisms. These components are detoxified using formaldehyde, and then thimerosal and aluminum are added. This acelluar, rather than whole cell, version of the pertussis vaccine is then combined with the DT vaccine to create DtaP. Removing these toxins from Pertussis also significantly reduces but does not eliminate the number and potency of the adverse effects associated with the vaccine. (Source Stephanie Cave 2001)

 

*note- Thimerosal content to date in the US -

Thimerosal has been reduced to traces; however, some of the older vaccines may be on the shelves and used until as late as 2007.

 

 A Not-so-Perfect Vaccine :

The Diphtheria, Tetanus and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine: An Investigation

 

 The Disease

 

Pertussis or Whooping Cough is an acute infectious disease caused by Bordetella pertussis.  The disease has been described for centuries; the organism was first isolated in 1906. Whooping cough is transmitted through the respiratory route usually by droplets of secretions.

 

The incubation period is usually 7 to 14 days but may be as short as 5 days and as long as 21 days. The disease evolves in three phases. Patients are most contagious during the initial catarrhal stage consisting usually of minor cold symptoms and a slight nocturnal cough. During the paroxysmal stage, which may last for several weeks, the patient has the more characteristic coughing spells, which culminate in an inspiratory whoop and are often followed by vomiting. There is usually a marked leucocytosis (increased white count) and lymphocytosis (increased lymphocyte count). In newborns and young infants, whooping cough may present as apnea and cyanotic spells. During the convalescent stage, the paroxysms subside; the patient coughs less and clinical improvement becomes evident.

 

Erythromycin is the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of whooping cough. If given early, it shortens the course of the illness and reduces its severity. Because it also eradicates the organism from the secretions, it decreases spread and communicability.

Erythromycin or trimeththoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis is of value for close contacts and is recommended regardless of vaccination status.

 

 The following statements are true about whooping cough and whooping cough vaccination

 

1. The incidence of whooping cough in the United States had decreased before the introduction of the pertussis vaccine.

2. It has continued to decrease since the vaccine has been in use.

3. Whooping cough may be a serious and potentially fatal illness in young and vulnerable infants. 

4. DTP vaccination has been associated with many severe and permanent adverse events including encephalopathy, brain damage, seizures, and even death. The reactions have been attributed to the pertussis component.

The DTAP Vaccine

 

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of DTAP for booster doses in 1991 and for all doses in 1996. All DTP and DTAP products used in the US contained thimerosal, a mercury derivative. In 1999, the AAP and FDA recommended that thimerosal be removed from pediatric vaccines. 

 

Several acellular pertussis vaccines were developed and licensed in the United States. They contained different purified inactivated components of B. pertussis in varying concentrations and were always combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. No single antigen pertussis vaccine has been available commercially for sometime. According to the CDC “Contraindications to further vaccination with DTP or DTAP are severe allergic reactions to a prior dose of vaccine or vaccine component and encephalopathy, not due to another identifiable cause, within 7 days of vaccination…Certain infrequent adverse events following pertussis vaccination will generally contraindicate subsequent doses of pertussis vaccine. These adverse events are: Temperature to 105°F within 48 hours, not due to another identifieable cause, Collapse or shock-like state (hypotensive-hyporesponsive episode) within 48 hours, Persistent, inconsolable crying lasting 3 hours or more and Convulsions with or without fever occurring within 3 days…Acellular pertussis vaccine should not be substituted in children who have a valid contraindication to whole cell pertussis vaccine. If a valid contraindication or precaution exists, DT should be used for the remaining doses on the schedule.” (9)

 

The manufacturer of one of the still available DTAP products lists the same contraindications as those of the CDC; specifically that encephalopathy (not due to other identifiable causes) within 7 days of vaccination is a contraindication for further pertussis vaccination. According to that manufacturer, encephalopathy consists of major alterations of consciousness, unresponsiveness, generalized or focal seizures that persist for more than a few hours and failure to recover within a few hours. (10)

 

Interestingly, and most unfortunately, as shown in the box below, filing for “on-table” vaccine compensation is allowed only if encephalopathy has occurred in the 72 hours following vaccination with a pertussis antigen-containing vaccine (11)

 

 

When DTP was used exclusively, many studies were published regularly to convince physicians and parents that the vaccine was quite safe. The fact is that the DTP vaccine was not safe and that it had to be replaced by the DTAP vaccine.

Now, the CDC and vaccine manufacturers consistently downplay the side effects of DTAP vaccination. Indeed, though minor reactions following DTAP are fewer than with DTP, more serious reactions occur in rather disturbing numbers. This is supported by a report that was issued by a committee of US Scientists and published in 1987 in the Journal of the American Medical Society (JAMA). In “Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan. Report of a visit by US scientists”, the authors stated:

 

“Since the introduction of acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan late in 1981, more than 20 million doses have been administered, mostly to children 2 years of age and older. Clinical studies indicate that mild local and febrile reactions are less frequent after administration of acellular pertussis vaccines than after whole-cell vaccines. Serious adverse events with sequelae occurred in 2-year-old children at approximately the same low rate during the period 1975 through August 1981, when whole-cell vaccines were used, and during August 1981 through 1984, when acellular vaccines were used exclusively.” 

Clearly multiple reports of serious DTAP-associated reactions have been filed with VAERS. Again, one must keep in mind that less than 10% of adverse events after vaccination are ever reported.

 

Delaying DPT Vaccination May Reduce Incidence of Childhood Asthma 

Medscape News. Laurie Barclay, MD. April 14, 2008. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:626-631.

  

Childhood asthma is reduced by half when the first dose of diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) is delayed by more than 2 months vs given during the recommended period, according to the results of a retrospective longitudinal study reported in the March issue of the Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology.

“Early childhood immunizations have been viewed as promoters of asthma development by stimulating a TH2-type immune response or decreasing microbial pressure, which shifts the balance between TH1 and TH2 immunity,” write Kara L. McDonald, MSc, from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and colleagues. “Differing time schedules for childhood immunizations may explain the discrepant findings of an association with asthma reported in observational studies. This research was undertaken to determine whether timing of diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DPT) immunization has an effect on the development of childhood asthma by age 7 years.”

The investigators analyzed data from the complete immunization and healthcare records of a cohort of children born in Manitoba in 1995, from birth until age 7 years. Using multivariable logistic regression, they computed the adjusted odds ratio for asthma at age 7 years according to the timing of DPT immunization.

Among 11,531 children who received at least 4 doses of DPT, the risk for asthma was halved in children in whom administration of the first dose of DPT was delayed by more than 2 months. For children with delays in administration of all 3 doses, the likelihood of asthma was 0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 – 0.86).

“We found a negative association between delay in administration of the first dose of whole-cell DPT immunization in childhood and the development of asthma; the association was greater with delays in all of the first 3 doses,” the study authors write. “The mechanism for this phenomenon requires further research.”

Limitations of this study include possible ascertainment bias; findings not yet confirmed with the diphtheria, acellular pertussis, tetanus (DaPT) vaccine; and inability to refute the issue of early-life infections as an explanation for the association between delayed immunization and protection against the development of asthma.

“Further study is vital to gain a detailed understanding of the relationship between vaccination and allergic disease, because a perception that vaccination is harmful may have an adverse effect on the effectiveness of immunization programs,” the study authors conclude.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this study. Some of the authors have disclosed various financial relationships with the Western Regional Training Center for Health Services Research, the National Training Program in Allergy and Asthma, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Allergen, and/or Novartis.

Epidemiologic evidence linking DPT immunizations to childhood asthma is inconsistent. Some studies show an increased or decreased risk of developing asthma, whereas others show no association. This study assessed whether timing of DPT vaccination affects the risk of developing childhood asthma by age 7 years.

 

 

Treatment of Pertussis

Vaccinating yourself and your children will not prevent your new baby from getting it. The vaccine has one of the lowest efficacy rates and you can still spread the germs that cause it even if you are not currently infected. Pertussis isn’t as deadly for infants as you are led to believe it is. When they say the mortality rate for pertussis in infants under 6 months is 0.5%, or 1 out of every 200, that is including all the infants who are formula fed, who live with smokers, who have health problems, etc. There’s a big difference between a baby in those circumstances and a breastfed baby living in a healthy environment.

Vitamin C in the treatment of Pertussis:

 Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, & Toxins by Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD

pg. 116: Otani (1936) found that pertussis bacteria seemed to be especially susceptible to the effects of vitamin C in the test tube, with high enough dose having a killing, bactericidal effect. It was also demonstrated that a culture of pertussis bacteria in which vitamin C had been added possessed a “strongly reduced” infectivity in test animals.

 

Pg. 118: The bacteria causing pertussis can be killed in culture by vitamin C, and the effects of the pertussis toxin also appear to be lessened by vitamin C…

…adequate regular dosing of vitamin C should prevent pertussis from ever being contracted.

 

 

The primary function of Vitamin C is not to kill the bacteria. It does inhibit them, but the main action in any toxin-mediated disease is to neutralize the toxin, and to support the liver so that when the liver is reducing the amount of endotoxin,  the liver works much more efficiently.   It does not stop the disease. It modifies it, and makes the cough milder.

 

 Vitamin C also puts petrol into the tank of macrophages and phagocytes, and in vitro increases their activity levels. Therefore, in the body, it should increase the effectiveness of the immune system in general, as well as dealing with the specifics of the toxin issue, and inhibiting the bacteria itself.

You can dissolve Vitamin C (sodium ascorbate powder) in breast milk. You can use a dropper or dribble it into the inside of the cheek. Don’t squirt it in their mouths in case they inhale it and that would trigger the vagus nerve.

 

The Bowl tolerance Method:

 

You give your child a small dose (1/4 tsp) of the C in liquid you choose every half hour to an hour until they have a loose stool. The amount of Vitamin C it took them to get there is just past tolerance. You then cut back 1/4 tsp and that’s saturation. Each person has a different level. Everyone will tolerate more when we are sick.

 

 For Breast feeding Mothers:

 

It takes about 8 hours for the vitamin C you take to get through to the breast milk. A Pinch is about 250 mg. If I thought my child was really sick, then I would calculate Vitamin C for her at 375 mg/kg of body weight, and give that over waking hours, and perhaps a larger dose given just before bedtime.

 

 Also, a good vitamin and mineral supplement to help your body deal with emotional stress, Halibut Liver oil, and about 10 grams of vitamin C spread out over your waking hours. You can use powdered sodium ascorbate, and mix it (10 grams = 2 heaped teaspoons) in with 1.25 liters of water in a water bottle. Drink it gradually throughout the day.

 

The Progression:

 

 First they get a cold. Then after a week, they start the odd cough, and after about two weeks, the cough gets stronger. At the end of the cough, which might be a month later, they will bring up globs of fairly thick mucus. This is because it pools down to the bottom of the lungs because the toxin from the bacteria has cut off most of the hairs in the bronchial that sweeps the mucus up and around. The cough sounds dry and that’s because the mucus membranes aren’t being kept as moist as they normally are. Most children, as long as they are getting that mucus up, and do not pool it (where secondary bacterial infections can set it) only have problems when they are coughing. The rest of the time they act normal. Coughing can be provoked by touching the back of the tongue, eating food, or running around. Towards the end of the illness, if they get worked up and tense up, it triggers the cough.

 

 To help a baby during the cough:

 

Turn the baby round, with its back to yours. Split your legs, so the baby is supported around the tummy but the legs are straight down. Your hands make a net around the baby’s ribcage and tummy, and when the baby coughs, lean forward slightly and use the hands as a very gentle net so that the baby has something for the tummy to push against. They haven’t learned to control their abdominal muscles to get an efficient cough yet, so t hands make it much easier for them. If it is whooping cough, then you will get a thick clear mucus glob ejected. If it is whooping cough, then the cough will become more regular.

 

The cough is caused by the bacteria adhering to the bronchial walls, and secreting a toxin, which cuts off the cilia (hairs) in the bronchials. These hairs sweep the mucus up and spread throughout the throat. The bronchial hairs move the mucus around all the time, so that it replaces, and at the same time, gets rid of any pathogens. This mucus is part of the innate immune system. It is linked to the BALT (Bronchial associated lymphatic tissue). You must keep the mucus moving. Whooping cough cuts off the hairs, and tries to stops the mucus from  moving. As long as you keep the mucus moving, your baby should not get a secondary infection.

The other thing the toxin can do is get into the blood-stream, and irritate the body. If the baby’s immune system is not good then this toxin can get to the brain as well. If the mucus is not gotten out, bacteria will grow and cause a secondary bacterial infection, which they will want to treat with antibiotics. Whooping cough in rare cases can cause long-lasting bronchial problems. However, that is if you treat it the way the doctors do, with antibiotics. Antibiotics do not deal with the pooling mucus, or manage it, or deal with the toxin. If you keep the mucus moving there should be nor further problems other than the cough itself.

Whooping cough will last approximately 100 days, but mainly as an irritating annoyance only. After a bout of whooping cough, for the next 6 – 9 months, any cold that the child gets, the child will start to whoop, or cough, the same way as they did with whooping cough. The reason for that is that it takes a long time for the hairs to grow back, and so any infection without proper hairs in the bronchials, will result in mucus pooling.
It is this mucus pooling that has to trigger a cough strong enough, to get the mucus from the bottom of the bronchials up to the top. If they are coughing until they are purple, then your doses of vitamin C are too small. Bump them right up to the level of 375 milligrams per kilo of body weight over the waking hours, as a starting dose. If your dose is right, within 8 hours there should be a two third reduction in the coughing.

 

Testing for Pertussis:

 This one is useless:

Isolation of B. pertussis by culture is 100% specific; however, sensitivity of culture varies because fastidious growth requirements make it difficult to transport and isolate the organism. Although the sensitivity of culture can reach 80%–90% under optimal conditions, in practice, sensitivity typically ranges from 30%–60% (57). The yield of B. pertussis from culture declines in specimens taken after 2 or more weeks of cough illness, after antimicrobial treatment, or after previous pertussis vaccination (58). Within 3 weeks after onset of cough, culture is only 1%–3% sensitive (59). Although B. pertussis can be isolated in culture as early as 72 hours after plating, it takes 1–2 weeks before a culture result can definitively be called negative (60). Culture is essential to isolate B. pertussis for antimicrobial susceptibility testing and for molecular subtyping of strains.  
 
Direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) tests provide rapid results (hours), but are generally less sensitive (sensitivity: 10%–50%) than culture. With use of monoclonal reagents, the specificity of DFA should generally be >90%; however, the interpretation of the test is subjective, and interpretation by an inexperienced microbiologist can result in lower specificity (61). Because of the limitations of DFA testing, CDC does not recommend its use.

 

The only Pertussis diagnostic tests that the CDC endorses are culture and Nasophyngeal PCR. Tests other than the PCR have a high false positive or false negative rating. However, many medical articles still say that there are no reliable correlates of protection (antibody test) for Pertussis.

 

Whooping cough cannot be correctly diagnosed without a nasopharyngeal swab because other pathogens like adenovirus can cause an identical syndrome, as can other bacteria, so the swab must be tested with the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test.  

 
Doctors will give you Erythromycin, which does not shorten, or do anything to lessen the course of the disease. It can make babies irritable, bother the stomach, and suppress the immune system further. It can simply make the situation worse. There is no reason to use antibiotics, unless the mucus they spit up becomes green in color. Make sure the child drinks enough liquids, to keep the mucus as thin and easy to get up as possible.

 

 

Pertussis-Epidemiology and Transmission of Disease

Epidemiology and Transmission of Disease

Pertussis infection is unique to humans. There are no animal reservoirs, and the organism cannot survive for a prolonged period in the environment. Localized to the respiratory tract, the organism is transmitted primarily by aerosol droplets from an infected person to a susceptible one. The infection is highly contagious, with attack rates ranging from 50% to 100%. The highest attack rates occur among persons with exposure within 5 feet of a coughing patient.^[5]

In the pre-vaccine era, pertussis was predominantly an infection of children aged 1 to 5 years, with maternal immunity providing passive protection during an infant’s first year of life. At that time, an average of 175,000 US cases were reported per year (incidence of approximately 150 cases per 100,000 population).^[6] The incidence of disease declined steadily over the two decades after introduction of whole-cell pertussis vaccine, reaching an all-time low of just over 1000 reported cases in 1976.^[7,8] Since then, the incidence of infection has continued to rise, with almost 26,000 cases reported to the CDC in 2004 (Figure 1).^[9]

 

 Pertussis is the only vaccine-preventable disease on the rise in the US and it is severely underreported. CDC estimates that, at best, one-third of cases are believed to be reported to the CDC;^[10] other estimates place the reported cases at 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 of the true incidence.^[11] Although pertussis incidence remains highest among young infants, rates are also on the rise in adolescents and adults and there may be significant under-reporting in these age groups, especially those with mild or atypical infection.^[7] Compared with surveillance data from 1994 to 1996, the pertussis incidence rate among adolescents and adults increased 62% and 60%, respectively, from 1997 to 2000.^[7]

Increased incidence of pertussis in adolescents and adults relates to waning immunity and, likely, to a combination of previous underreporting and recent improvements in reporting processes. The longer the duration since vaccination, the higher the attack rate (Figure 2).^[12] Data from a seroprevalence study by Cattaneo et al showed a peak in antibody titers at 4 to 6 years of age, coinciding with DTaP booster dosing, followed by a decline, and a second peak between 13 and 17 years of age.^[13] Similar findings were documented by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which reported a protracted decline interrupted by a peak in persons aged 40 to 45 years.^[14] Since no pertussis-containing vaccine had been given past the age of 6 years, these spikes in adolescents and older persons clearly represent natural pertussis exposure. These persons not only represent potential cases, but a reservoir of disease that puts those most susceptible to significant morbidity and mortality (ie, those at the extremes of age) at risk of exposure.

Pertussis has been estimated to account for up to 17% of prolonged cough illness in adults.^[15,16] Among adults with cough illness, the incidence of confirmed pertussis has been estimated at 170 to 630 cases per 100,000.^[17,18] The rates among adolescents were almost 2-fold higher. Data from a prospective acellular pertussis vaccine efficacy trial (APERT) extrapolate the burden of pertussis to be nearly 1 million US cases annually in persons 15 years old.^[11]

Given the large disease burden in adolescents and adults estimated by these studies, the limited number of confirmed cases of pertussis (defined in Table 1 ) in older children, adolescents, and adults is striking. A large proportion of these cases may be atypical and undiagnosed. However, according to recent data from Bisgard et al,^[19] in cases where the source of pertussis was identifiable, adolescents and adults were the primary source of infection for 20% and 56%, respectively, of infants with pertussis.

Contact with infected adolescents and adults is a common source of B. pertussis infection in infants and unprotected, young children. Widespread silent transmission of pertussis within families has been reported.^[20] In a study of risk factors for pertussis-related hospitalizations, siblings were the most common source (53%), followed by parents (20%), other relatives (12%), neighbors (8%), and day-care contacts (3%).^[21] In a case-control study, infants of adolescent mothers (aged 15 to 19 years) were 6-fold more likely to contract pertussis, compared with infants of older mothers (aged 20 to 29 years).^[22]

Details of the pathogenesis of pertussis infection have been extensively reviewed elsewhere.^[23] In brief, the development of pertussis infection begins with entry of B. pertussis into the respiratory tract of a susceptible host. The organism produces adhesion and bacterial surface attachment factors that allow its attachment to cilia in the respiratory mucosa. Tracheal cytotoxin and other toxins are produced and released into the local environment, damaging the cilia and respiratory epithelium. These changes disturb clearance of pulmonary secretions and probably result in development of the coryza and cough observed during the catarrhal phase of the illness. Even as local damage increases, attracting host immune cells, the actions of additional toxins probably inhibit phagocyte functions, thereby protecting the proliferating organisms from clearance. In some cases, the proliferation of B. pertussis continues until organisms reach the alveoli, resulting in pneumonia.

Pertussis symptoms are nonspecific in nature, making the clinical diagnosis challenging. The type and severity of symptoms that develop are highly variable, as is the time frame over which they appear and resolve. Adolescents and adults, as well as those partially protected by pertussis vaccine, frequently have mild clinical disease (or even asymptomatic disease) that goes undiagnosed. Although illness may be milder in adolescents and adults, they are a reservoir of infection and may transmit whooping cough to unimmunized or partially immunized infants. Of great concern, health care providers often do not recognize the varied clinical presentations and do not consider a pertussis diagnosis in patients with chronic cough.^[17] Furthermore, management of pertussis is complicated by the fact that infected persons are most contagious early in their illness, before they become symptomatic.

Despite significant interpatient variability, generalizations can be made about the clinical course of illness ( Table 2 ).^[5,24] Pertussis infection develops in four sequential stages, beginning with an incubation period during which infected individuals are asymptomatic followed by three stages of symptomatic illness. The incubation period of pertussis infection commonly lasts for 7 to 10 days, but can be as short as 4 days or as long as 21 days. The first stage in which symptoms can be observed is the catarrhal stage. This stage, which typically lasts 1 to 2 weeks, is characterized by the insidious onset of coryza, sneezing, low-grade fever, and a mild, occasional, nonspecific cough that gradually becomes more severe. In young infants, this stage is often characterized by excessive sneezing or “throat clearing.”

During the next stage, the paroxysmal stage, many pertussis patients have bursts, or paroxysms, of numerous, rapid coughs, apparently due to impaired mucociliary clearance. At the end of the paroxysm, a long inspiratory effort is oftentimes associated with a high-pitched whoop. Post-tussive vomiting and cyanosis can also occur. The paroxysmal attacks increase in frequency during the first 1 to 2 weeks, remain at the same level for 2 to 3 weeks, and then gradually decrease.

During the convalescent stage, which lasts for weeks to months, recovery is gradual, with cough becoming less paroxysmal and then disappearing.

The symptomatology of infants during the paroxysmal stage of infection is different from that in adolescents and adults. Although very young infants do experience paroxysms of coughing, they often do not “whoop.” Although the absent whoop in adolescents and adults is usually associated with milder disease, the whoop may be absent in infants because they lack sufficient musculature in the chest wall to take the deep inhalation that creates the whooping sound. The whoop may appear later in the disease as infants gain in size and strength. Infants may also exhibit clinical symptoms such as gagging, gasping, or eye bulging. Occasionally, they may also present with bradycardia or cyanosis. Pertussis is often ignored in the differential diagnosis of cough illness in young infants due to the absence of a “whoop” and the frequency of concomitant respiratory infections.

Life-threatening complications are most common in infants <3 months of age,^[19,21] but infection can also be severe in some adult cases. Secondary bacterial pneumonia is diagnosed in up to one quarter of young infants with pertussis^[21,25] and is the most common complication and the cause of most pertussis-related deaths across age groups. Data from 1997 to 2000 indicate that pneumonia occurred in up to 5.2% of all reported pertussis cases, and 11.8% of infants <6 months of age.^[7] Other complications include seizures (0.8% of all cases, 1.4% of infants <6 months of age) and encephalopathy (0.1% of all cases, 0.2% of infants <6 months of age).

Death due to pertussis is rare (0.2%). The vast majority (90%) occurs in children younger than 6 months of age with no predisposing conditions.^[2] Risk factors for death among infants include premature birth, Hispanic ethnicity, and having a young mother.^[2,26] Pertussis has also been linked to sudden infant death (3% to 5%).^[27,28] Other less severe complications in infants include otitis media, anorexia, and dehydration. Pressure effects of severe paroxysms may lead to pneumothorax, epistaxis, subdural hematomas, hernias, and rectal prolapse. Additional complications identified in adolescents and adults include urinary incontinence, rib fracture, unilateral hearing loss, herniated disk, and precipitation of angina pectoris.^[5,24]

Laboratory confirmation of pertussis infection is not as straightforward as that of many other infectious diseases. Most local laboratories are not equipped to make the diagnosis of B. pertussis infection. The preferred approach is polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and a culture of the organism from a posterior nasopharyngeal specimen obtained using two separate Dacron swabs.^[29] For proper collection, the swab must touch the epithelial cells of the posterior nasopharyngeal wall. Culture is the only method from which antibiotic susceptibilities can be measured and molecular typing determined. Isolation of the organism is compromised by recent antibiotic therapy effective against pertussis (ie, macrolide/azalide or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), by delay in specimen collection beyond the first 2 weeks of illness, and in vaccinated persons.

Serologic testing for B. pertussis is limited by a lack of standardization and should not be obtained for clinical decision making.^[30] However, because of its convenience, serology continues to be the most common method used to diagnosis pertussis, especially in the later stages of the infection, making it an important tool in our understanding of disease frequency.^[31] Various enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques are available in commercial laboratories, although there is little evidence of sensitivity or specificity relative to clinical infection.^[32] None of the commercially available serologic tests for pertussis is FDA-licensed for the routine diagnosis of infection.^[14] Direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) is no longer considered useful for diagnosis of pertussis due to low sensitivity and variable specificity.

Pertussis Vaccination of Children

DTaP vaccine, which contains purified, inactivated components of B. pertussis cells (along with tetanus and diphtheria toxoids), has been available in the United States for more than a decade. Since 1997, the CDC recommends DTaP for all doses of the vaccination series for infants and children <7 years of age. The primary immunization series consists of three doses given at 4- to 8-week intervals, beginning at 6 weeks to 2 months of age. A fourth dose is given 6 to 12 months after the third dose. Children who have received all four primary doses before the fourth birthday should receive a fifth (booster) dose before entering school. A fifth dose is not necessary if the fourth dose was administered on or after the fourth birthday.

Point estimates of vaccine efficacy across trials of infants ranged from 80% to 85%.^[24] In comparative studies, the acellular pertussis vaccine was significantly more effective than the whole-cell DTP, which is no longer available in the United States. Local and systemic adverse reactions occurred less frequently among infants vaccinated with acellular pertussis vaccine than among those vaccinated with whole-cell pertussis.^[34]

Pertussis Vaccination of Adolescents and Adults

The availability of a less reactogenic acellular pertussis vaccine combined with evidence of substantial pertussis infection among adolescents and adults led to reconsideration for the need for acellular pertussis boosters among older subgroups.

Specific formulations of Tdap for adolescents 10 to 18 years, Boostrix® (GlaxoSmithKline), and for adolescents and adults 11 to 64 years, Adacel® (sanofi pasteur), were recently licensed for use in the United States. They contain tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis. In a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial, 10- to 18-year-olds were vaccinated with one dose of Boostrix or a US-licensed Td vaccine.^[35] Each subject had completed his or her routine childhood vaccinations against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis according to the CDC recommended schedule. Boostrix was comparable to the Td vaccine based on immunogenicity. In both treatment groups, >99.9% of subjects had anti-diphtheria and anti-tetanus concentrations greater than 0.1 IU/mL, indicating seroprotection against these two diseases. In the Boostrix treatment group, anti-pertussis antibodies levels following primary immunization exceeded (by 1.9 to 7.4 times) those observed in infants, in whom efficacy against pertussis disease was previously demonstrated. The overall safety profile was comparable between the Boostrix and Td vaccine groups.

Adacel was evaluated in four principal clinical trials in which 7206 individuals (4185 adolescents and 3021 adults) who had not received tetanus or diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines within 5 years were enrolled. The trials consisted of one randomized, controlled trial that compared Adacel vaccine to a licensed Td vaccine,^[36] one lot consistency trial, and two concomitant administration trials (one with hepatitis B vaccine and one with influenza vaccine). Across trials, a total of 3393 adolescents and 2448 adults received Adacel vaccine and 792 adolescents and 573 adults received Td vaccine. In the largest Adacel trial, the seroprotection rate (of at least 0.1 IU/mL) for tetanus and diphtheria was 99.8% and 100%, respectively.^[36] Pertussis antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) following one dose of Adacel were 2.1- to 5.4-fold higher than those observed among infants following three doses of DTaP. Overall, Adacel vaccine was well tolerated, with local and systemic adverse reactions occurring at similar rates in the Adacel and Td vaccine groups. The ACIP recently revised its recommendations for pertussis vaccination. The immunization schedule now includes a Tdap booster dose for all adolescents at 11 to 12 years of age ( Table 3 ).^[37,38] The ACIP also calls for catch-up vaccination of those aged 13 to 18 years who did not receive the Td booster. Finally, because of the importance of controlling pertussis, those in this age range who received the Td booster are encouraged to get the new Tdap vaccine after a suggested 5-year interval. This interval may be shortened to as little as 2 years in the presence of increased risk (eg, during outbreaks or periods of increased pertussis activity in the community).^[7]

The ACIP also recommends a single dose of Tdap booster to replace the next scheduled dose of tetanus diphtheria vaccine among persons 19 to 64 years of age. In addition, adults who have or who anticipate having close contact with a vulnerable infant (ie, an infant who has not received two to three doses of DTaP) should receive a single dose of Tdap booster.^[39]

In February 2006, the ACIP recommended a single dose of Tdap booster as soon as feasible for health care workers in hospital or ambulatory care settings who have direct patient contact. The Committee stated that priority should be given to vaccination of health care workers with direct contact with infants <12 months of age. Other health care workers should receive a single dose of Tdap booster according to the routine recommendation and interval guidance for use of Tdap among adults.^[39]

Widespread administration of Tdap vaccination should have a substantial impact on pertussis. By way of example, adolescent pertussis immunization programs were recently implemented countrywide in Canada, but started earlier in the Northwest Territories and Newfoundland. Following introduction of an adolescent booster dose, pertussis incidence in the Northwest Territories decreased from 7.9 per 100,000 in the late 1990s to 0.2 per 100,000 in 2004.^[40] In Newfoundland, no person vaccinated with the Tdap booster has been diagnosed with pertussis to date.^[41]

Pertussis is an often serious, potentially deadly community-acquired illness in persons of all ages. Infected adolescents and adults may suffer substantial morbidity and also are a reservoir for disease transmission to infants. Newly available Tdap vaccines are safe and effective in preventing infection. The addition of a pertussis booster to the previously available tetanus and diphtheria booster will not only directly benefit vaccine recipients but may allow for greater control of the pertussis reservoir in adolescents and adults, potentially leading to decreased incidence in infants who are at highest risk for severe complications including death. If widely administered, Tdap vaccination should have a substantial impact on pertussis.

Epidemiology and Transmission of Disease

J Am Board Fam Med.  2006;19(6):603-611.  ©2006 American Board of Family Medicine.

Medscapetoday

 

 

 

Pentacel vaccine

On June 26, 2008 the ACIP recommended adding  Pentacel vaccine to the immunization schedule for children. Pentacel is a combination vaccine of Diptheria, Petrussis, Tetanus (DTaP), HiB and Polio. It is the first DTaP-based combination vaccine that also includes polio and HiB vaccine components.

There are similar five-in-one vaccines such as Pediarix and Pediacel. However, controversy has arisen over the use of the Pentacel vaccine, because the polio portion of this vaccine is grown on the MRC-5 cell line – derived from human fetuses.

England’s J.P Jacobs for the Medical Resource Council created this cell line in 1966. It was derived from the fifth subject of the study: the normal lung tissue of a 14-week-old male fetus who was electively aborted by a 27-year-old woman. It parallels research conducted by Leonard Hayflick, Ph. D., who developed the WI-38 cell line in 1962 at Philadelphia’s University of Pennsylvania Wistar Institute. That cell line came from the 38th research subject – lung tissue taken from an electively aborted fetus of almost three months gestation from Sweden. WI-38 is used to manufacture vaccines for Poliomyelitis, Rubella, Vermicelli, Mumps, Rabies, adenoviruses and Hepatitis A.

Vaccines for shingles and the chicken pox also make use of aborted fetal cells. Although the vaccines themselves do not contain cells or tissues, they are grown on cells. For example, Hepatitis B is grown on fungal yeast cells. And the polio vaccine, in addition to being grown on aborted-fetal cells, is grown on monkey kidney cells.

Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at The Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, said the use of monkey kidney cells in the past to grow the polio vaccine risked exposure to the Simian vacuolating virus 40 (SV40). This virus has the potential to cause tumors and is found in both monkeys and humans. SV40 virus concerns surfaced with the live, oral polio vaccine, which no longer is used in the United States.

GlaxoSmithKline makes Pediarix, one alternative to Pentacel, in which the poliovirus is grown on monkey kidney cells. In this case, the three strains of the inactivated poliovirus component of Pediarix are individually grown in VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells. Since the poliovirus is inactivated and the vaccine is ministered via shot, the risk of SV40 is eliminated.

Pediarix includes the same ingredients that Pentacel has except HiB. Pediarix protects against Hepatitis B, a virus that Pentacel leaves recipients vulnerable to. Consequently, Pentacel recipients need separate shots for Hepatitis B, and Pediarix receivers need separate shots of HiB.

Pediarix is a three-dose series with one shot at each of the two, four and six-month immunization visits. Pentacel is a four-dose series to be given at two, four, six and at 15-18 months of age.

“With Pediarix, an extra shot of Hepatitis B is needed for those infants who have received the birth-dose and, unlike Pentacel, there is no reduction in the number of shots administered in the second year of life because Pediarix is only licensed for a three-dose series at two, four and six months of age,” she said.

While Pentacel offers a reduced number of shots for children in the U.S., compared with Pediarix or Pediacel, a European vaccine identical to Pentacel, which does not use aborted fetal cells. Canadian Physicians for Life lobbied for this vaccine last year when they were unable to find an available five-in-one option in Canada, which they found morally acceptable. It is possible to create a vaccine identical to Pentacel without any ethical controversies, and Pediarix, currently available in the U.S., does so without using fetal cell lines.

With time and money it is possible to create alternative cell lines for various vaccines that use aborted fetal cells. Mr. Furton said an additional “problematic connection” exists between using aborted fetal cells and embryonic stem cell research. “The cultural mindset in the scientific community is that it’s okay to use aborted fetuses for research purposes,” he said referencing the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines. This mindset leads to what he called an unethical and increasing acceptance by the scientific community of using embryonic stem cells for research.

                                          Source:The Evening Bulletin 

 

 

Rubella

Are Some Cases of Autism Actually Subclinical, Congenital Attenuated Rubella Syndrome?

                    www.nccn.net/~wwithin/autismrubella.pdf

 

• F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, found a link between mothers’ rubella susceptibility in pregnancy and their having children with autism spectrum disorders. He described 60 previously vaccinated women who were considered “rubella susceptible” during their routine prenatal OB/GYN visits. All of these women were revaccinated in the post partum period due to their not having antibodies to rubella. Each of these women could be described as having failed to seroconvert to an previous vaccination or having rubella immunity that declined over time.

   

   

   

   

• A few ideas and questions are warranted on WHY some females may unknowingly be serving as hosts to a persistent rubella infection and why the RA27/3 vaccine strain of rubella virus might be particularly well adapted to persist undetected in females.

   

   

   

   

• Information provided by the FDA in Appendix A on the history of the development of rubella vaccines used in the US prompts many questions about the safety of RA27/3 strain of rubella vaccine and its use in females. Per the FDA, the rubella virus used in the vaccine originated from a fetus that was aborted in 1964. It was isolated in and recovered from fetal tissue. It was attenuated through 25 passages through human fetal cells, and it is grown in human fetal cells.

   

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Efficacy of Flu Shots in Children

Efficacy of flu shots in children under 2 questioned

Robert Roos   

Feb 25, 2005 (CIDRAP News) – An analysis of 24 studies yielded no clear evidence that influenza vaccines prevent flu in children younger than 2 years old, though they work reasonably well in older children, according to a new report in The Lancet.

Immunization of very young children is not lent support by our findings,” says the report by T. Jefferson of Cochrane Vaccines Field in Alessandria, Italy, and colleagues from there and the University of Oxford in England.

The report comes less than a year after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that children 6 to 23 months old routinely receive flu shots on grounds that they have an increased risk of flu and its complications.

The CDC says the Lancet analysis left out some important studies showing that flu shots are beneficial for young children. The agency will continue to recommend flu shots for 6- to 23-month-olds, a spokeswoman said.

Jefferson and colleagues combed the worldwide literature up to June 2004 and found 15 randomized controlled trials, eight cohort studies, and one case-control study comparing the effects of flu immunization with placebo or no immunization in children. The researchers looked at the vaccines’ efficacy, defined as prevention of laboratory-confirmed flu; effectiveness in preventing flu-like illness; and effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations, complications, school absences, and secondary transmission.

The authors did separate analyses of studies dealing with live attenuated flu vaccines, which are not used in small children, and those involving inactivated vaccines. The analysis did not include studies assessing children’s immune-system responses to vaccines (serologic studies).

In children under age 2, vaccination yielded 24% efficacy against flu, which was not significantly better than placebo, but this finding was based on one study involving about 800 children, the report says. No data were available on the effectiveness of vaccination for preventing flu-like illness in the under-2 group.

Among children 2 years and older, live attenuated vaccines were 79% efficacious in preventing flu, while inactivated vaccines were 65% efficacious, according to the analysis. The effectiveness of vaccines against flu-like illness was much lower: 38% for live vaccines, 28% for inactivated vaccines.

Differences between efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines are not surprising because influenza vaccines are specifically targeted at influenza viruses and are not designed to prevent other causes of influenza-like illness,” the report states.

The researchers found that immunization reduced long school absences, but they saw little evidence that it reduced hospital admissions and stays, secondary cases, lower-respiratory-tract disease, or acute otitis media.

Although a growing body of evidence shows the effect of influenza on admissions and deaths of children, we recorded no convincing evidence that vaccines can reduce mortality, admissions, serious complications, and community transmission of influenza,” the article concludes.

Kristine Sheedy, a spokeswoman for the CDC’s National Immunization Program in Atlanta, told CIDRAP News that the analysis left out some important evidence on the effects of flu immunization in small children.

The authors “included many important studies, but they did exclude other important studies,” she said. She mentioned a CDC study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August 2004 and a 2001 study by K. M. Neuzil and colleagues, published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.

A careful review of the Lancet report itself as well as the excluded studies “indicates that influenza vaccination is effective in this population” (6- to 23-month-olds), Sheedy said.

She added that serologic studies of small children have shown a strong immune response to flu vaccine. Also, additional studies soon to be reported by the CDC will provide more support for the effectiveness of flu immunization in preventing hospitalization and outpatient visits in children, she said.

“I hope people will keep in mind the burden of disease in children,” Sheedy said. “When you have a safe and effective vaccine for influenza, why wouldn’t you want to protect the children at greatest risk?”

Jefferson T, Smith S, Demicheli V, et al. Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review. Lancet 2005;365(Feb 26):773-80 [Abstract]

See also:

Neuzil KM, Dupont WD, Wright PF, et al. Efficacy of inactivated and cold-adapted vaccines against influenza A infection, 1985 to 1990: the pediatric experience. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20(8):733-40 [Abstract]

CDC. Assessment of the effectiveness of the 2003-04 influenza vaccine among children and adults-Colorado, 2003. MMWR 2004 Aug 13;53(31):707-10 [Full text]

Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy
Academic Health Center — University of Minnesota
Copyright © 2006 Regents of the University of Minnesota

 

Flu

Shedding and immunogenicity of live attenuated influenza vaccine virus in subjects 5-49 years of age

 

Stan L. Block^{a, ,} , Ram Yogev^b, Frederick G. Hayden^{c, 1}, Christopher S. Ambrose^d, Wen Zeng^d and Robert E. Walker^{d a}Kentucky Pediatric and Adult Research, 201 S. 5th Street, Bardstown, KY 40004, United States ^bChildren’s Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, United States ^cUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States ^dMedImmune, Gaithersburg, MD, United States.Received 17 March 2008;  revised 25 June 2008;  accepted 8 July 2008.  Available online 26 July 2008.

 

Abstract-

 

Background

 

 

Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is indicated for influenza prevention in persons 2-49 years of age. This study describes the incidence and duration of vaccine virus shedding and serum immune responses after receipt of LAIV.

 

 

Methods

A single open-label dose of trivalent LAIV was administered intranasally to 344 subjects in 3 age cohorts: 5-8, 9-17, and 18-49 years of age. Shedding was determined by culture of nasal swabs (on days 1-7, daily; days 9-25, every other day; and day 28). Immunogenicity was measured as serum strain-specific hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) titers (days 0, 28).

 

 

Results

 

 

Among subjects aged 5-8 years, 9-17 years, and 18-49 years, 44%, 27%, and 17% of subjects, respectively, shed vaccine virus after vaccination, and the mean number of positive samples per subject was 2.2, 1.8, and 1.5, respectively. Shedding occurred on days 1-11 postvaccination. Shedding incidence peaked on day 2, and maximum observed titers were highest on days 2-3 (<5, <4, and <3 log₁₀ TCID₅₀/mL, respectively, by age group). Despite positive cultures, all titers were <1 log₁₀ TCID₅₀/mL after days 10, 6, and 6, respectively, by age group. Shedding incidence was inversely correlated to age and baseline serum HAI titer. The seroresponse rate (4-fold rise in HAI) to at least 1 strain was 59% (68%, 64%, and 47%, respectively, by age group), and strain-specific rates were higher in baseline seronegative/serosusceptible subjects. Reactogenicity, most commonly runny nose, headache, and sore throat, was not associated with shedding or seroresponse.

 

 

Conclusions

This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate nasal shedding of LAIV in individuals 5-49 years of age. Shedding was generally of short duration and at low titers. Study findings support the current recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that LAIV recipients should only avoid contact with severely immunosuppressed persons (e.g., hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients) for 7 days after vaccination.

The Ties that Bind

The Ties Between Pharma & Academic Med Centers

 Want to know how much a drugmaker paid a doctor at an academic medical center? How about the amount of samples dropped off? Or the access given sales reps? Well, The Institute on Medicine as a Profession, or IMAP, has launched what it calls the first database of its kind to let everyone – you and me – review and compare conflict of interest policies among the nation’s 125 academic medical centers.

The data base will be a “one-stop resource to help users identify what academic institutions are doing or not doing to limit the influence of drug and device makers on medical practice and will offer users a toolkit on how to implement strong policies,” according to a statement. Take a look.

The site will focus on 12 key areas that some AMC’s are supposedly examining to regulate relationships with drug and device makers – gifts; meals; drug representative access; samples; purchasing committees; continuing medical education; consulting and honoraria; scholarships and travel; ghostwriting; speakers’ bureaus; enforcement; and implementation.

An analysis in last week’s Journal of the American Medical Association found that AMCs are increasingly adopting COI policies without any backlash from faculty or industry. At least 25 AMCs have embraced policies to regulate industry relationships, and faculty are overwhelmingly supporting those efforts, according to the paper, which was written by two IMAP officials.

IMAP is not rating or ranking AMCs, but does provide examples of “best practices” that feature model policies. IMAP, based at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, formed the database under the auspices of the Prescription Project, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The site is also supported by a grant from the Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program.

Conflict of Interest Policy Database

Local, State and Federal Mercury Legislation Laws

Status of Local, State and Federal Mercury Product Legislation and Laws

2007-2008 Legislative Sessions

June 11 – 21, 2007

 

Arkansas

 

SB 911 is a bill to Prohibit or reduce the amount of mercury in childhood vaccines. Introduced on March 5, 2007 and  referred to the Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor. Three amendments have been offered, it has been engrossed and re-referred to the Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/2007/scripts/ablr/bills/bills.asp?billno=SB911

 

California- *nothing new relating to vaccines

Article 9. Mercury-containing Vaccines 124172. (a) Except for an influenza vaccine described in

subdivision (b), on and after July 1, 2006, a person who is knowingly pregnant or who is under three years of age shall not be vaccinated with a mercury-containing vaccine or injected with a mercury-containing

product that contains more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

(b) On and after July 1, 2006, a person who is knowingly pregnant or who is under three years of age shall not be vaccinated with a mercury-containing influenza vaccine that contains more than 1.0 microgram of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

 

 

Connecticut

 

HB 6895 would require dental plans to provide equivalent or greater coverage for nonmercury or composite dental fillings. Introduced January 22, 2007 and referred to the Joint Committee on Insurance and Real Estate.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=6895&which_year=2007

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/Search.asp

 

Delaware

 

HB 194 allows the use of mercury-containing vaccines for children less than 8 years of age or to pregnant women when an emergency occurs as declared by the Director of the Division of Public Health, or when there is no mercury-free vaccine manufactured or available for a specific disease. Introduced on June 12, 2007, it was referred to the Health and Human Development Committee, which reported it out favorably.  Substitute amendment HS 1 was offered on June 20, 2007 and it was re-referred to this committee.

http://www.legis.state.de.us/LIS/lis144.nsf/vwLegislation/HS+1+for+HB+194/$file/legis.html?open

http://www.legis.state.de.us/LEGISLATURE.NSF?open

 

Current-Except for vaccines for influenza, no vaccine containing more than a trace amount of mercury shall be made available to a medical provider in this State for administration to children under eight years of age or to pregnant women.

This section shall not apply to vaccines administered during declared states of emergency or epidemics.”

Section 1. of this Act shall become effective on January 1, 2006.

 This section shall not apply to vaccines administered during declared states of emergency or epidemics.”

shall become effective on January 1, 2007.

No vaccine containing mercury shall be made available to a medical provider in this State for administration to children under eight years of age or to pregnant women. 

No vaccine containing mercury shall be administered by a medical provider in this State to a child who is under eight years of age or to a pregnant woman, notwithstanding the expiration date thereof. 

This section shall not apply to vaccines administered during declared states of emergency or epidemics.” become effective on January 1, 2008.

 

Florida

SB 222 is an act relating to immunizations; prohibiting  vaccinating a woman who is knowingly pregnant or a child who is younger than a specified age with a vaccine that contains any mercury or injecting such a woman or child with a product that contains more than a specified amount of mercury; prohibiting vaccinating a woman who is  knowingly pregnant or a child under a specified age with an influenza vaccine that contains more than a specified amount of mercury; providing the effective date of such prohibitions; providing for the State Health Officer to authorize the use of vaccines that contain a greater amount of mercury than is otherwise allowed if the Secretary of Health declares a public health emergency and makes certain findings; providing exceptions to the prohibition following disclosure regarding certain risks and benefits; providing an effective date. Introduced December 14, 2006, referred to the Committee on Health Regulation. Withdrawn on January 23, 2007.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/index.cfm?Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&BillNum=0222 

 

Hawaii- The Hawaii legislature is now adjourned and did not adopt any of the following legislation.

HB 1816.  From July 1, 2007, prohibits persons known to be pregnant or under age 5 from being vaccinated with (1) a mercury-containing vaccine containing more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose; and (2) influenza vaccine containing more than 1.0 microgram of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose  Allows certain exemptions. Introduced on January 24, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Health, and the Committee on Judiciary.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/Bills/HB1816_.htm

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB1816

 

Illinois

SB 133 amends the state’s mercury free vaccine act and provides that the Department of Public Health shall implement a policy to distribute, preferentially, influenza vaccines that are thimerosal-free or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal for the immunization of children under the age of 3 who are participating in the Vaccines for Children program, provided that the supply of influenza vaccines to health care providers is not impeded by the exercise of this preference. Provides that the Department shall annually communicate this policy to the General Assembly and health care providers. Provides that upon issuing an exemption from the Act, the Department shall remind health care providers to distribute, preferentially, influenza vaccines that are thimerosal-free or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal for the immunization of children under the age of 3, provided that the supply of influenza vaccines to health care providers is not impeded by the exercise of this preference. Provides that the Department shall annually notify health care providers about the requirements of the Act and encourage health care providers to increase immunization rates among persons who are recommended to receive influenza immunization, using all licensed vaccines, with preference given to influenza vaccines that are thimerosal-free or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal. Provides that the Department shall include this annual notification on its Internet web site. Provides that the Department shall annually report to the General Assembly, on or before December 31, on its efforts to inform health care providers about thimerosal-free vaccines. Provides that the Department of Public Health shall notify health care providers about the availability of influenza vaccines and the most effective time for persons to be vaccinated. Adopted by both houses, as of May 30, 2007.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0133&GAID=9&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=27356&SessionID=51&GA=95

 

Current- Mercury Ban not in effect until 2008 however on Mar 04, 2006- the Illinois Department of Public Health has declared 4 vaccines with high levels of mercury exempt from the law.

Illinois passed landmark legislation that limits mercury levels in vaccines to 1.25 micrograms per dose by the first of this year and eliminates mercury all together by January 1st 2008, the Illinois Department of Public Health has issued a declaration of exemption which allows four vaccines to exceed the limit. In addition to the flu vaccine, the diphtheria-tetanus, Japanese encephalitis and meningitis vaccines are also exempted from the law.

The Illinois Department of Public Health claims the mercury-free versions of these vaccines are either too expensive, in short supply or non-existent, hence they have allowed thimerosal, the mercury-laden preservative in these vaccines to persist.

 

Indiana

 

HB 1361 requires that before a person administers a vaccine that contains more than a trace amount of mercury, the person must inform the person who will be vaccinated that there are alternatives to mercury preserved vaccines. Allows the state department of health to suspend this requirement during a public health emergency or an epidemic. Provides that a health care practitioner may be subject to disciplinary sanctions for failing to comply with these requirements. Introduced on January 16, 2007, and referred to Committee on Public Health.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2007/IN/IN1361.1.html

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2007&session=1&request=getBill&docno=1361

 

Iowa

 

The Iowa Legislature is now adjourned and did not adopt either of the two mercury product bills that were introduced.

 

HF 515 would require testing of vaccines to determine the amount of mercury that they contain, and that beginning July 1, 2008, a drug or vaccine administered in this state shall not contain more than trace amounts of mercury, and beginning July 1, 2010, a drug or vaccine administered  in this state shall not contain any amount of mercury.  Introduced on February 23, 2007, and referred to Human Resources Committee.

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/

 

Current-Beginning January 1, 2006, immunizations administered in this state shall not contain  more than trace amounts of mercury. The prohibition under this section shall not apply to  early childhood immunizations for influenza or in times of  emergency or epidemic as determined by the director of public  health. 

 

 

Kansas

 

SB 1 says that no person who is eight years of age or younger or who is knowingly pregnant shall be vaccinated in this state with a vaccine containing more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.  Introduced January 8, 2007, it is now in the Public Health and Welfare Committee; a hearing was scheduled for March 22, 2007. However, according to the schedule for legislation, this bill is now dead.

http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/1.pdf

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-billtrack/index.do

 

Maine

The Maine Legislature has adjourned and adopted three mercury product bills into law.

LD 637 requires the elimination of mercury in dental offices over a 3-year period, and requires dental schools to include in their curricula by January 2008 the risks of exposure to mercury. Dental offices are to post in the office the disclosure statement published by the Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Health on the risks of having mercury fillings. Introduced on February 28, 2007, it is listed as being dead.

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=637

 

LD 1446. Beginning January 1, 2008, this bill prohibits the use of more than trace amounts of mercury or thimerosal in any immunizing agent for administration to children under 8 years of age and to pregnant women. It imposes requirements for labeling and written information packaged with the immunizing agent. It provides for an exemption if the Commissioner of Health and Human Services determines that an immunizing agent containing more than a trace amount is necessary due to an actual or potential bioterrorist incident or public health emergency. The bill also directs the department to develop a plan to ensure that all immunizing agents are mercury-free and thimerosal-free, including considering the requirement of the use of single-dose immunizing agents.  Introduced on March 15, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services by both houses. It is listed as being dead.

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1446

LD 1523. Beginning January 1, 2008, this bill prohibits the use of more than trace amounts of a heavy metal, including mercury or thimerosal, in any immunizing agent for administration to a person in this State. It imposes requirements for labeling and written information packaged with the immunizing agent. It provides for an exemption if the Commissioner of Health and Human Services determines that an immunizing agent containing more than a trace amount is necessary due to an actual or potential bioterrorist incident or public health emergency. The bill also directs the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a plan to ensure that all immunizing agents are free of heavy metals, including mercury and thimerosal, including considering the requirement of the use of single-dose immunizing agents. Introduced on March 20, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services by both houses. Listed as dead.

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1523

 

Maryland

SB 902 requires an individual to be vaccinated with a vaccine containing less than a specified amount of mercury per dose on or after January 1, 2009, unless vaccines that meet the requirement are not readily available or appropriate.. Introduced February 22, 2007 and referred to the Rules Committee.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/billfile/sb0902.htm

 

 

 

Massachusetts

Petition 2115  relates to prohibiting the use of certain vaccines and serums containing mercury and is scheduled to have a hearing on June 13, 2007.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/h02115.htm

 

 

Michigan

SB 412 says that state agencies shall, to the extent possible, avoid the purchase of products with mercury in them if non-mercury alternatives exist.  Introduced on April 18, 2007; adopted unanimously by the Senate on May 15, 2007 and sent to the House, where it was referred to the Committee on Great Lakes and the Environment.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dvqpoimxxowgof45mq3pnz45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2007-SB-0412

 

 

Minnesota

HF 0470 is a companion to SF 0746 and would require patient notification when a vaccine contains more than a
trace amount of mercury. Introduced on February 1, 2007 and referred to the Health and Human Services Committee.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF0470&ssn=0&y=2007

 

 

HF 1917 is a companion to SF 1780, providing a preference for a mercury-free vaccines preference established. Introduced on March 12, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF1917&ssn=0&y=2007

 

HF 2350 would prohibit the use of mercury in certain vaccines. Introduced on March 24, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF2350&ssn=0&y=2007

 

 

SF 0746 is an act requiring medical providers administering vaccines to school children to notify
parents and guardians of certain mercury (thimerosal) content in vaccines was introduced on February 12, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Health, Housing and Family Security. Companion is HF 0470.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0746&ssn=0&y=2007

 

SF 1780 is a companion to HF 1917 and is a bill for establishing a preference for mercury free vaccines in the state; authorizing the use of vaccines containing a trace amount of mercury under certain conditions; specifying certain patient informed consent requirements prior to administering the vaccine; specifying certain disclosure requirements for immunization providers; requiring the commissioner of health to provide and maintain vaccine information on the department Web site.  Introduced on March 12, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Health, Housing and Family Security.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF1780&ssn=0&y=2007

 

Mississippi

 

*nothing relating to vaccines

 

Missouri-*nothing new in relation to vaccines

Current-Prohibits immunizations administered to children less than eight years old from containing mercury after January 1, 2007.PASSED IN MAY 2005. Under the act, after April 1, 2007, any immunizations administered to knowingly pregnant women or children under three years of age shall not contain more than 1 microgram of mercury per 0.5-milliliter dose.

 

Montana

The Montana Legislature adjourned on Friday, April 27, 2007 and none of the following mercury product bills was adopted into law.

SB 0236 is an act requiring mercury-free childhood vaccines; and establishing an interim preference for dispensing mercury-free influenza vaccines. Introduced on January 10, 2007, it was referred to the Committee on Public Health, Safety and Welfare. It was recommended for adopted and passed the Senate on February 5, 2007. It has been sent to the House, where it is in the Committee on Human Services, which had a hearing on March 16, 2007. It died in committee on April 27, 2007.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/SB0236.htm

 

Nebraska

 

The Nebraska Legislature has adjourned, without adopting the following bill.

 

LB 49 states that on and after July 1, 2007, no vaccine or other drug administered in the State of Nebraska shall contain more than a trace amount of mercury; and on and after July 1, 2009, no vaccine or other drug administered in the State of Nebraska shall contain any amount of mercury. Introduced on January 4, 2007 and referred to Health and Human Services. Indefinitely postponed on February 26, 2007.

http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/Apps/BillFinder/finder.php

 

New Hampshire

 

*nothing relating to vaccines

 

New Jersey-

The New Jersey Legislature is unusual in that it starts in the even year and carries its bills over into the odd-numbered year.

 

A1324 is the same as A4433 from the 2004-2005 session and would phase out the use of mercury in vaccinations over a period of three years. Introduced January 10, 2006, referred to Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee. It was reported out of committee on May 11, 2006, with amendments.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1324_I1.HTM

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Default.asp

S618 is the same as A1324 and would phase  out the use of mercury in vaccinations over a period of three years. Introduced on January 10, 2006 and referred to Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/S1000/618_I1.HTM

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Default.asp

 

New Mexico-

New Mexico adopted a resolution and is now adjourned.

 

SJM 25 is a joint memorial resolution that encourages the use of vaccines with no more than a trace of mercury in them. Adopted and signed.

http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/07%20Regular/memorials/senate/SJM025.html

http://legis.state.nm.us:8080/lcsbillsearch/session.jsp?year=2007R&type=JM&chamber=S&number=25

 

New York

*nothing new relating to vaccines

Current: Mercury Ban does not take effect until 2008. Prohibits the administration to any person under the age of three years and to women who know they are pregnant of any vaccine containing more than 0.5micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose, except that, for children under3 years, an influenza vaccine may contain not more than 0.625 micrograms ofmercury per 0.25 milliliter dose, and for pregnant women, an influenza vaccinemay contain not more than 1.25 micrograms of mercury per 0.50 milliliter dose;authorizes the commissioner of health to grant exemptions in cases of diseaseoutbreaks and vaccine shortages, and exempts influenza vaccines for pregnantwomen if there is in any year an insufficient supply of such vaccine which complies with the provisions of this act.

 

 

North Carolina

 

HB 431 would require that vaccines, containing the preservative thimerosal, administered to children under the age of eight years shall not contain more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose. Influenza vaccines administered to children 6‑35 months of age and pregnant women shall not contain the preservative thimerosal, except:  (1) vaccines with a trace amount (<0.5ug/0/5ml dose) of mercury are permissible only if there are no alternative vaccines available; and(2) in times of emergency or epidemic as determined by the State Health Director. If an emergency or epidemic is determined to exist, the State Health Director shall notify the Commission for Health Services, the Governor, and the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, and the general public. The Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, shall develop and produce a brochure that explains the use of thimerosal and other preservatives in vaccines. The brochure shall describe what alternatives are available and what potential advantages and disadvantages are posed by the use of thimerosal and the alternatives. Introduced February 28, 2007, referred to the Committee on Health. A substitute was favorably reported on April 26, 2007 and it was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=H431

 

 

Oregon

*nothing new relating to vaccines

Current-Restricts use of vaccines containing mercury by pregnant women and children under three years of age.  Takes effect January 1, 2007. A woman who is known to be pregnant or a child under three years of age may not be vaccinated with a vaccine containing mercury or injected with a product that contains more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a woman who is known to be pregnant or a child under three years of age may be vaccinated with an influenza vaccine that contains 1.0 microgram of mercury or less per 0.5 milliliter dose.

 

 

Pennsylvania

HB 790 prohibits certain persons from being vaccinated with vaccines containing mercury or injected with any mercury-containing product. Referred to Health and Human Services, March 19, 2007.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?&syear=2007&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=0790

 

HB 1001 amends existing law, known as the Childhood Immunization Insurance Act, further providing for definitions; and providing for mercury-free vaccines. Referred to Health and Human Services, April 2, 2007.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?&syear=2007&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=1001

 

Rhode Island

 

H 5282  would require, prior to any vaccination of a minor child, a physician shall provide notice to a parent or guardian if the vaccination contains mercury. A standardized consent form stating that mercury is a dangerous toxin, and that  exposure to even low levels may permanently damage the brain and nervous system and cause  behavior changes, shall be developed and provided by the department of health. This form shall  be signed and dated by a minor child’s parent or guardian prior to vaccination and kept with the  minor child’s permanent record. Introduced on  February 01, 2007, and referred to the House Health, Education & Welfare Committee.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext07/housetext07/h5282.htm

 

H 5863  would require, except for an influenza vaccine, on and after July 1, 2008, a person who is knowingly pregnant or who is under 3 years of age shall not be vaccinated with a mercury containing vaccine or  injected with a mercury containing product that contains more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per five tenths 0.5 milliliter dose. On and after July 1, 2008, a person who is knowingly pregnant or who is under three  years of age shall not be vaccinated with a mercury containing influenza vaccine that contains more than one  microgram of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose. The director of the department of health may exempt the use of a vaccine from this  section if the director finds, and the governor concurs, that an actual or potential bioterrorist incident or other actual or potential public health emergency, including a pandemic, an epidemic or shortage of supply of a vaccine that would prevent persons from receiving the needed vaccine, makes necessary the administration of a vaccine containing more mercury than the maximum level set forth herein. Date Introduced March 01, 2007 and referred to the House Health, Education & Welfare Committee.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext07/housetext07/h5863.htm

 

South Carolina

 

*None relating to vaccines

 

Tennessee-*nothing new

Current-All immunizations administered to any person, including pregnant women, in the State of TN shall not contain mercury, trace amounts of mercury or preservatives containing mercury.

 

Vermont

 

H.0114 proposes to prohibit the use of mercury‑containing vaccines for children and pregnant women. Introduced January 23, 2007 and referred to the Human Services Committee.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-114.HTM

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=H%2E0114&Session=2008

 

H.0121 proposes to limit the presence of mercury in the air and waters of the state by prohibiting the installation of  mercury-containing dental amalgam, except in back molars, effective January 1, 2011.  It establishes reporting requirements regarding amounts of mercury supplied to the dentists of the state.  It also proposes to establish a comprehensive program by which manufacturers of mercury-added thermostats will collect mercury-added thermostats facing disposal. Introduced January 23, 2007 and referred to the Human Services Committee. Reported out favorably with amendment and referred to the Human Services Committee on March 14, 2007.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-121.HTM

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=H%2E0121&Session=2008

S.0081 would require that dental patients are notified of alternatives to mercury amalgam dental fillings, using brochures and posters the department of health must produce; phase out the use of mercury amalgam fillings, beginning with a ban on the use of mercury amalgam fillings for pregnant women and children commencing in 2008 and then applying it to the rest of the general public by 2011; and prohibit the use of mercury in flu vaccines except in the case of a shortage or public health emergency. Introduced February 9, 2007 and referred to the Health and Welfare Committee.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=S%2E0081&Session=2008

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/S-081.HTM

 

Washington

 

The Legislature of the State of Washington has adjourned and adopted the following bill.

 

HB 1098 modifies the state statutes limiting the amount of mercury in vaccinations to provide an exemption for the use of mercury-containing vaccinations in times of an outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease. Introduced January 10, 2007, a substitute was adopted with amendment and sent to the Governor on  April 22, 2007, who signed it into law on May 2, 2007. http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp##

 

West Virginia

 

The Legislature adjourned in March 2007, and the following two bills were not adopted.

HCR 57 Requests that  the Joint Committee on Government and Finance conduct a study on the need to eliminate mercury and mercury preservatives (thimerosal) in vaccines. Introduced February 26, 2007, adopted by the House on March 7 and sent to the Senate, where it has been referred to the Committee on Health and Human Resources.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2007_SESSIONS/RS/Bills/hcr57%20intr.htm

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/Resolution_History.cfm?year=2007&sessiontype=rs&btype=res

 

HB 2152 provides that, effective the first day of July, two thousand seven, vaccines administered in this state shall not contain any mercury or mercury compounds, including but not limited to thimerosal, unless a vaccine containing no mercury is not manufactured; or the provider finds that the mercury-free vaccine is not obtainable by utilizing best efforts, because the vaccine is not on the market for sale. If a mercury-free vaccine is not available according to subsection (a), then a vaccine containing a trace amount of mercury as defined by the United States Food and Drug Administration may be administered. If neither a mercury-free vaccine nor a vaccine containing a trace amount of mercury is available, then the vaccine containing the least amount of mercury may be administered. Introduced January 16, 2007; referred to the Committee on Health and Human Resources, then the Judiciary.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2007_SESSIONS/RS/Bills/hb2152%20intr.htm

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/Bill_Status.cfm

 

Federal

 

HR 881 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem a banned mercury-containing vaccine to be adulterated. Amends the Public Health Service Act to provide that a vaccine is a banned mercury-containing vaccine if one dose of the vaccine contains one or more micrograms of mercury in any form. It authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to declare that an actual or potential bioterrorist incident or other public health emergency makes the administration of such vaccines advisable for a specified period. The bill requires the Secretary to prohibit the distribution of banned mercury-containing influenza vaccines that are approved as biological products to: (1) any child under the age of three years old (effective July 1, 2007); (2) pregnant women if the vaccine contains thimerosal (effective July 1, 2007); and (3) any child under the age of six (effective July 1, 2008). It also requires the Secretary to revise the vaccine information included with mercury-containing vaccines to include: (1) a statement that indicates the presence of mercury in the vaccine; (2) information on the availability of any mercury-free or mercury-reduced alternative vaccine and instructions on how to obtain such an alternative vaccine; and (3) a recommendation against administration of any mercury-containing vaccine to a pregnant woman. In addition, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should disseminate, with any vaccine-related information, a recommendation against administration of any thimerosal-containing vaccine to a pregnant woman. Introduced on February 7, 2007, it has 17 sponsors and co-sponsors, and has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00881:

 

HR 2101 would prohibit after 2008 the introduction into interstate commerce of mercury intended for use in a dental filling, and for other purposes. Introduced on May 1, 2007, it has two sponsors and co-sponsors and has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02101:

 

 

PDF version

Canada

Canadian vaccines

 Why do Canadian parents repeatedly say their vaccines are mercury free and they say it with absolute. 
So where do they get this from?  

According to Health Canada: 
 
Currently, the only thimerosal-containing vaccine in routine use in the infant immunization schedules of some Canadian jurisdictions is the hepatitis B vaccine.

 This does not mean that all thimerosal-containing vaccines have been eliminated in Canada. A number of other thimerosal-containing vaccines are licensed that are used in special circumstances, that could continue to expose infants < 6 months of age to ethylmercury.  
 
These include some single antigen acellular pertussis and conjugate H. influenzae vaccines, diphtheria-tetanus, and diphtheria- tetanus-acellular pertussis combination vaccines, all of which contain thimerosal in a concentration of 0.01%, and represent an exposure of 25 µg ethylmercury per 0.5 mL dose(11).  
 
Thimerosal- containing hepatitis B vaccine continues to be used in some Canadian jurisdictions to protect high risk infants born to chronic hepatitis B infected mothers. Influenza vaccines that are licensed in Canada also contain 0.01% thimerosal but are not recommended or used in infants < 6 months of age because of lack of effectiveness early in life.

 Here are the thimerosal concentrations in the Hep B vaxes licensed for use in Canada: 
 
Engerix BTM [Glaxo Smithkline] and Recombivax BTM [Merck Frosst Canada]) have been available in Canada since these programs were initiated, containing thimerosal at a concentration of 0.005% or 50 µg/mL.  
 
A regular infant dose of 0.5 mL Engerix BTM contains 12.5 µg of ethylmercury, while a regular infant dose of 0.25 mL of Recombivax BTM contains 6.25 µg.  
 
 
Health Canada also states: 
 
There is no legitimate safety reason to avoid the use of thimerosal-containing products for children or older individuals, including pregnant women.

 Vax schedule in Canada (Alberta)

Link:  
 
2 months  
• DTaP-IPV-Hib1 
• Pneumococcal conjugate 
• Meningococcal conjugate 
 
4 months  
• DTaP-IPV-Hib 
• Pneumococcal conjugate 
• Meningococcal conjugate 
 
6 months  
• DTaP-IPV-Hib 
• Pneumococcal conjugate 
• Meningococcal conjugate 
 
6-23 months  
• Influenza 
 
12 months  
• MMR2 
• Varicella (Chickenpox) 
 
18 months  
• DTaP-IPV-Hib 
• Pneumococcal conjugate 
 
4 – 6 years  
• DTaP-IPV3 
• MMR 
 
Grade 5  
• Hepatitis B (3 doses) 
• Varicella4 (Chickenpox) 
 
14 – 16 years  
• dTap5 
 
Note: each bullet represents one vaccine/injection 
 
* 1 Diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, polio, haemophilus influenza type b 
* 2 Measles, mumps, rubella 
* 3 Diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, polio 
* 4 If no history of disease or not previously immunized 
* 5 Diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis

State Mercury Laws

What do some of the Mercury (Thimerosal) Bans REALLY mean?

 

Mercury free does NOT mean a total ban for most states so read the state law to be sure of what it says. For all states, they can be viewed here:

 

 

`Mercury-Free Vaccines Act of 2005’

 

 

Some Examples:

 

California-The state data do not include children under the age of 3. About 90 percent of all autistic children are entered into the system before the age of 6. According to the state data, 2002 was a record year for new autism diagnoses, with 3,259 cases. In 2003, the number of new cases slipped to 3,125. In 2004, the number was 3,074. For the first half of 2005, there were 1,470 new cases, compared to 1,518 in the same period in 2004. (Source:AP-California)

California- Article 9. Mercury-containing Vaccines

124172. (a) Except for an influenza vaccine described in subdivision (b), on and after July 1, 2006, a person who is knowingly

pregnant or who is under three years of age shall not be vaccinated with a mercury-containing vaccine or injected with a mercury-containing product that contains more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

(b) On and after July 1, 2006, a person who is knowingly pregnant or who is under three years of age shall not be vaccinated with a mercury-containing influenza vaccine that contains more than 1.0 microgram of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

 

 

Iowa- Beginning January 1, 2006, immunizations administered in this state shall not contain more than trace amounts of mercury. The prohibition under this section shall not apply to   early childhood immunizations for influenza or in times of  emergency or epidemic as determined by the director of public  health.

 

 

New York-ban does not take effect until 2008. Prohibits the administration to any person under the age of three years and to women who know they are pregnant of any vaccine containing more than 0.5micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose, except that, for children under 3 years, an influenza vaccine may contain not more than 0.625 micrograms of mercury per 0.25 milliliter dose, and for pregnant women, an influenza vaccine may contain not more than 1.25 micrograms of mercury per 0.50 milliliter dose; authorizes the commissioner of health to grant exemptions in cases of disease outbreaks and vaccine shortages, and exempts influenza vaccines for pregnant women if there is in any year an insufficient supply of such vaccine which complies with the provisions of this act.

 

 

Missouri- Prohibits immunizations administered to children less than eight years old from containing mercury after January 1, 2007. PASSED IN MAY 2005. Under the act, after April 1, 2007, any immunizations administered to knowingly pregnant women or children under three years of age shall not contain more than 1 microgram of mercury per 0.5-milliliter dose.

 

 

Illinois-ban not in effect until 2008 however on Mar 04, 2006- the Illinois Department of Public Health has declared 4 vaccines with high levels of mercury exempt from the law. Illinois passed landmark legislation that limits mercury levels in vaccines to 1.25 micrograms per dose by the first of this year and eliminates mercury all together by January 1st 2008, the Illinois Department of Public Health has issued a declaration of exemption which allows four vaccines to exceed the limit. In addition to the flu vaccine, the diphtheria-tetanus, Japanese encephalitis and meningitis vaccines are also exempted from the law. The Illinois Department of Public Health claims the mercury-free versions of these vaccines are either too expensive, in short supply or non-existent, hence they have allowed thimerosal, the mercury-laden preservative in these vaccines to persist.

 

 

Oregon-Restricts use of vaccines containing mercury by pregnant women and children under three years of age.  Takes effect January 1, 2007. A woman who is known to be pregnant or a child under three years of age may not be vaccinated with a vaccine containing mercury or injected with a product that contains more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a woman who is known to be

pregnant or a child under three years of age may be vaccinated with an influenza vaccine

that contains 1.0 microgram of mercury or less per 0.5 milliliter dose.

 

Tennessee- All immunizations administered to any person, including pregnant women, in the State of TN shall not contain mercury, trace amounts of mercury or preservatives containing mercury. :)

 

 

Delaware- Except for vaccines for influenza, no vaccine containing more than a trace amount of mercury shall be made available to a medical provider in this State for administration to children under eight years of age or to pregnant women.  This section shall not apply to vaccines administered during declared states of emergency or epidemics.” Section 1. of this Act shall become effective on January 1, 2006. No vaccine containing more than a trace amount of mercury shall be made available to a medical provider in this State for administration to children under eight years of age or to pregnant women.  This section shall not apply to vaccines administered during declared states of emergency or epidemics.” shall become effective on January 1, 2007. No vaccine containing mercury shall be made available to a medical provider in this State for administration to children under eight years of age or to pregnant women.  No vaccine containing mercury shall be administered by a medical provider in this State to a child who is under eight years of age or to a pregnant woman, notwithstanding the expiration date thereof.  This section shall not apply to vaccines administered during declared states of emergency or epidemics.” become effective on January 1, 2008.

Vaccine Makers Shielded From Autism Liability Lawsuit

 

An 11-year-old boy with autism and his family cannot proceed with their case against pharmaceutical companies after a judge ruled that federal law pre-empts state claims against companies if their vaccines are FDA-approved.   

Jared Wright, 11, of Texas, was given six vaccines during the first year-and-a-half of his life.

Five of the vaccines contained the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal.  Jared’s parents, Howard and Jacqueline Wright claim the mercury in the vaccines caused Jared’s autism.

The vaccine makers named in the product liability lawsuit were Aventis Pasteur Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., and Wyeth.

But Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Arnold L. New granted the companies summary judgment and wrote that the drug makers are shielded from liability by the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

22(b) of the Vaccine Act expressly pre-empts claims of design defects or a failure to warn the public about a vaccine’s dangers.  

“Congress clearly intended when it enacted the Vaccine Act to exercise its constitutionally delegated authority to preempt all state design defect claims without case-by-case determination that the side effects are unavoidable,” New wrote.

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was created as a no-fault system by the federal government to provide recovery of damages to people hurt by vaccines and to reduce the potential financial liability of vaccine makers due to injury claims.

The Wright’s attorney Marc P. Weingarten of Locks Law Firm, had argued that the drug companies were negligent because the public and doctors were kept in the dark about the use of mercury in vaccines.

But Judge New ruled that violating the protection provided by the Vaccine Act might destabilize the supply of child vaccines.

Weingarten said the case is “an extremely important issue to be heard by the courts of Pennsylvania” because of the federal pre-emption issues arising in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation in both state and federal jurisdictions.

Proponents of vaccines argue that major studies have not found a link between the use of thimerosal and neurological injury. 

But scientists pointing to the case of Hannah Poling earlier this year, put the industry on notice that pre-existing conditions in children, such as mitochondrial disorder in Hannah, might result in autism after vaccinations.

In March, Julie Gerberding, head of the CDC, appeared with Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN and confirmed that vaccines can trigger autism in a subset of vulnerable children. That video is available via YouTube on the web site of Adventures in Autism.

To overcome this federal safety blanket for drug makers, the plaintiff would have to show the pharmaceutical companies engaged in fraud or wrongfully withheld information from the FDA; or failed to exercise due care even though the manufacturer complied with federal laws and regulations.

Ultimately, measures aimed at reducing the right to file liability lawsuits against drug and device makers is one tool of the tort reform movement.

Meningococcal

     Meningococcal bacteria are part of our normal flora and everyone carries it at some point in their life which gives them real immunity. The carriage rates are so large that there is constant exposure. You do not need exposure to a sick person to get the bacteria if you’re not immune as you can get it from a healthy carrier. However, neither exposure nor carriage means invasive disease, which is why very few people get sick. You don’t ‘catch’ meningitis. You can acquire the bacteria but it takes an ‘off’ immune system for the bacteria to cause invasive disease. 

 

Meningitis   is brain membranes inflammation-a disease which is named after the affected organ. Meningococcal disease  is whatever the relevant bacteria may cause (which is sometimes meningitis and/or septicemia). When exposed to meningococcal bacteria, you won’t necessarily get meningitis, unless the immune system can’t stop it, and not every meningitis is meningococcal. There are various types of bacterial and viral meningitis.

 

      Hib and Prevnar vaccines are given to prevent bacterial meningitis in infants under age 5. MCV4 is a vaccine for individuals 2-55 years of age and MPSV4 is an alternative for this age group plus can be given to individuals over age 55.

 

 

•       Menactra vaccine (Groups A, C, Y and W-135. Polysaccharide Diphtheria Toxoid Conjugate Vaccine)
•       Menomune (polysaccharide. Groups A, C, Y, W-135)
•       Hib (Haemophilus Influenzae typeB)
•       Prevnar  (Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes 4, 6B, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F, and 23F individually conjugated to Diphtheria protein)

 

Vaccine package Inserts  

 

 

     Meningitis vaccines create a window of 14 days in which some children will get meningitis because the vaccine suppresses the immune system. Transient Enhanced Susceptibility.

 

 

 

     The medical establishment doesn’t care about meningococcal bacteria unless it’s meningitis. Why?  First, to scare you. After that, it is a way to promote the meningococcal vaccine as the ‘life saver’ without giving you all the facts. Since there are over 90 bacteria in a healthy throat of humans at any given time, we have always lived in a symbiotic relationship with them. Now we are able to destroy what is part of us. What can that possibly accomplish? The answer: new disease.

 

 

 

 

      Meningitis is spread through respiratory and throat secretions and is not as contagious as colds or the flu. There are many strains of Haemophilus influenza bacteria, but only the ‘b’ strain causes meningitis, which is why we have the Hib vaccine. Prevnar is recommended to prevent against serious invasive disease caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, including bacteremia (bloodstream infection) and meningitis caused by the seven serotypes in the vaccine.  The vaccine for older children and adults is recommended for four serogroups of Neisseria meningitidis, which is the bacterium that causes meningococcal infection.

 

 

 

 

     Menactra was approved by the U.S. government in 2005. It has been linked with a few cases of a neurological disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome among some individuals in their teens. The FDA then expanded the age range for the vaccine Menactra in 2007, to 2 years olds and up. The previous the age range was 11 to 55.

 

 Chart:

 

Isolates, England and Wales, by Group, 1989/1990 to 2004/2005

MENINGOCOCCAL REFERENCE UNIT, LABORATORY CONFIRMED* NEISSERIA MENINGITIDIS: England and Wales, by Group, 1989/1990 to 2004/2005

 

 

 

	Group B	Group C	Other groups	Ungrouped	TOTAL
1989 / 1990	1019	477	40	0	1536
1990 / 1991	965	423	45	0	1433
1991 / 1992	936	330	41	0	1307
1992 / 1993	880	320	48	0	1248
1993 / 1994	822	312	52	0	1186
1994 / 1995	863	305	60	0	1228
1995 / 1996*	867	618	67	156	1708
1996 / 1997	1070	758	85	425	2338
1997 / 1998	1102	772	114	309	2297
1998 / 1999	1401	955	103	320	2779
1999 / 2000	1627	891	145	133	2796
2000 / 2001	1686	411	186	163	2446
2001 / 2002	1503	211	139	110	1963
2002 / 2003	1209	122	69	76	1476
2003 / 2004	1306	64	52	85	1507
2004/2005**	1288	43	60	71	1462

* From 95/96 data includes PCR confirmed reports in addition to culture confirmed isolates
** Provisional data
Source: PHLS Meningococcal Reference Unit
Last reviewed: 7 February 2008
 

HIB vaccine was introduced in 1992. Within 3 years, ungrouped Meningitis rates greatly increased. Prevnar (pneumococcal) vaccine was invented because of HIB. Now, meningitis vaccines have been created because of HIB and Prevnar. And now they are working on another pneumococcal vaccine which targets  11 and 24 bacteria vs. the 7 contained in the current one. We’re vaccinating against bacteria. By doing so, we’re removing relatively harmless bacteria that rarely cause disease in healthy people. When you take away one bacteria, that is supposed to be there, and rarely causes harm in the majority of people, another type will step in and take its place. Another more dangerous one than the ‘mild’ one, you took away and this has been shown repeatedly.

 

Children with Bacterial Meningitis Presenting to the Emergency Department during the Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Era

Volume 15 Issue 6 Page 522-528, June 2008. Academic Emergency Medicine 15 (6) , 522–528 doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00117.x

 

Abstract

Background: The epidemiology of bacterial meningitis in children in the era of widespread heptavalent conjugate pneumococcal vaccination (PCV7) is unknown.

Objectives: The objective was to describe the epidemiology of bacterial meningitis in children presenting to the emergency department (ED) during the era of widespread PCV7 vaccination.

Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all children aged 1 month to 19 years with bacterial meningitis who presented to the EDs of 20 U.S. pediatric centers (2001–2004). Bacterial meningitis was defined by a positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture for a bacterial pathogen or CSF pleocytosis (CSF white blood cell [WBC] count ≥10 cells/mm³) in association with either a positive blood culture or a CSF latex agglutination study.

Results: A total of 231 children with bacterial meningitis were identified. The median age was 0.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.2–4.2). Eight patients (3% of all patients) died. The following bacterial pathogens were identified: Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 77; 33.3%), Neisseria meningitidis (67; 29.0%), Group B Streptococcus (42; 18.2%), Escherichia coli (17; 7.4%), nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (10; 4.3%), other Gram-negative bacilli (7; 3.0%), Listeria monocytogenes (5; 2.2%), Group A Streptococcus (5; 2.2%), and Moraxella catarrhalis (1; 0.4%). S. pneumoniae serotypes were determined in 37 of 77 patients; of these, 62% were due to nonvaccine serotypes (including 19A).

Conclusions: Although now a rare infectious disease in United States, bacterial meningitis still causes substantial morbidity in affected children. Despite the introduction of PCV7, S. pneumoniae remains the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in U.S. children, with approximately half of cases due to nonvaccine serotypes.

FDA O.K.’s meningitis vaccine for young children

 

 

“Approving Menactra for younger children offers another option for health-care providers and parents. Now there are two vaccines available for children between 2 and 10 years of age who may be at increased risk of meningitis,” said Dr. Jesse Goodman, director of FDA’s center for biologics… Sanofi makes the other meningitis vaccine as well.

The CDC has said it was investigating whether the vaccine caused the reaction, which has been associated with other vaccines.”

 

 

 What’s Been Reported in the News…

 

 

Meningococcal B vaccination scrapped (4/2008)

 

 

 

Health officials are scrapping the mass vaccination of New Zealanders against the deadly meningococcal b disease.

Their own evidence released today shows quite clearly that the vaccine had no impact at all,” says Ron Law, a risk and policy analyst. “And in fact if you look at the deaths which they haven’t released, the deaths from meningococcal remain static ever since the campaign was introduced.”

Forty six people have got the disease despite being fully immunized. One child died. “Two hundred and, well they say 250 million, to save one to two lives – it’s a major policy blunder,” says Law.  (Source: ONE News)

 

Meningitis vaccine commercial irks drug advertising critics (10/2007)

CBC News

A new commercial promoting a meningitis vaccine — and showing what might happen if parents don’t vaccinate their children — has Canadian critics warning parents to examine the facts and not be swayed by such ads.

“The [TV] ads for the vaccine I’ve seen are very problematic,” Dr. Barbara Mintzes, a member of the Drug Assessment Working Group at the University of British Columbia, told CBC News. “I find it really a problem because of the way it’s playing into that parental concern to protect their child and using that to sell a product.”

On Oct. 18, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed sanofi pasteur, the maker of the vaccine, to expand its use to children two to 10 years of age, in addition to the current age indication of 11 to 55 years.

But the Public Health Agency of Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization says that given the low incidence of the strains of meningitis covered by Menactra, it feels mass inoculations aren’t necessary.

 

Vaccine linked to syndrome

What people watching Menactra’s TV spot may not know is that the vaccine has side-effects, such as links to Guillain-Barré syndrome. According to the CDC, between March 2005 and September 2006, 17 cases of the syndrome occurred in the U.S. in 11- to 19-year-olds who had received Menactra. 

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a serious neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. Symptoms include weakness or tingling sensations in the legs, which can spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase until a person is almost totally paralyzed, although the majority of patients do recover.

Sanofi pasteur warns about the risks on its website.

 

Report from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): Decision Not to Recommend Routine Vaccination of All Children Aged 2–10 Years with Quadrivalent Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine (MCV4)

At its February 2008 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided not to recommend routine vaccination of children aged 2–10 years against meningococcal disease unless the child is at increased risk for the disease. This report summarizes the deliberations of ACIP and the rationale for its decision and restates existing recommendations for meningococcal vaccination among children aged 2–10 years at increased risk for meningococcal disease. ACIP continues to recommend routine vaccination against meningococcal disease for all persons aged 11–18 years and those persons aged 2–55 years who are at increased risk for meningococcal disease (1--3).

On October 17, 2007, the Food and Drug Administration added approval for use of quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) (Menactra^®, Sanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania) in children aged 2–10 years to existing approval for use in persons aged 11–55 years (4). Before licensure of MCV4, quadrivalent meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine (MPSV4) (Menomune^®, Sanofi Pasteur) was the only meningococcal vaccine available in the United States. MPSV4 was recommended for routine use only among persons at increased risk for meningococcal disease (1). Because clinical efficacy trials were not feasible in the United States, MCV4 licensure was based on clinical trials in which the safety and immunogenicity of MCV4 was compared with MPSV4. Immunogenicity was measured by serum bactericidal activity (SBA), a correlate of protection. Rates of most solicited local and systemic adverse events after MCV4 vaccination were comparable to rates observed after administration of MPSV4 (5). The proportion of children aged 2–10 years who did not have detectable SBA (titer <1:8) at day 0 and seroconverted (titer >1:32) by day 28 after MCV4 vaccination was 98.6% for serogroup A, 87.9% for serogroup C, 86.2% for serogroup Y, and 96.0% for serogroup W-135, similar to MPSV4 for all serogroups (Table) (5). Hence, MCV4 was found to be safe and noninferior to MPSV4 for all serogroups.

 

Summary of ACIP Deliberations and Rationale

ACIP evaluated data to determine the anticipated duration of protection from a single dose of MCV4 in children aged 2–10 years. The duration of protection of MPSV4 is considered to be short (3–5 years), especially in young children, based on substantial declines in measurable levels of antibodies against group A and C polysaccharides by 3 years after vaccination (6,7). Although SBA titers at 28 days and 6 months after vaccination were significantly higher in children aged 2–10 years who received MCV4 compared with children who received MPSV4 for all four serogroups (p<0.001) (5), the difference in magnitude of SBA titers between children in the two groups was not substantial (Table). Further, SBA activity among children aged 2–3 years who received MCV4 was lower than in children aged 4–10 years. Based on these data, ACIP concluded that evidence was insufficient to determine that 1 dose of MCV4 administered at age 2 years would provide protection against meningococcal disease through late adolescence and college entry.

ACIP also reviewed the burden of meningococcal disease among children aged 2–10 years. In the United States, during 1998–2007, overall rates of meningococcal disease were lower in children aged 2–10 years (0.68 per 100,000 population) than in infants aged <2 years and adolescents aged 11–19 years (3.9 and 0.81 per 100,000, respectively). Furthermore, 41% of cases in children aged 2–10 years occurred among children aged 2–3 years. In addition, among cases that occurred in children aged 2–10 years, 59% were caused by serogroups contained in MCV4 (A, C, Y, and W-135), compared with 77% of cases among youths aged 11–19 years. Annually, an estimated 160 cases of A/C/Y/W-135 disease and 13 deaths occur in children aged 2–10 years, compared with 250 cases and 15 deaths among youths aged 11–19 years (Active Bacterial Core Surveillance [ABCs], unpublished data, 1997–2006).

A cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccinating a cohort of U.S. children aged 2 years also was presented at the February 2008 ACIP meeting…Because approximately 75% of cases of disease in children aged 2 years occur at age 24–29 months, the effectiveness of routine MCV4 vaccination of children aged 2 years in reducing the burden of disease is dependent on achieving high coverage at age 24 months (ABCs, unpublished data, 2008). However, achieving high coverage with MCV4 at age 24 months might be challenging…

 

ACIP Decision and Continuing Recommendations

Based on reviews of safety and immunogenicity data, the epidemiology of meningococcal disease, a cost-effectiveness analysis, and programmatic considerations, ACIP decided not to recommend routine vaccination against meningococcal disease for all children aged 2–10 years at its February 2008 meeting. ACIP continues to recommend vaccination for children aged 2–10 years at increased risk for meningococcal disease. These children include travelers to or residents of countries in which meningococcal disease is hyperendemic or epidemic, children who have terminal complement deficiencies, and children who have anatomic or functional asplenia. Health-care providers also may elect to vaccinate children aged 2–10 years who are infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).* MCV4 is preferred to MPSV4 for children aged 2–10 years in these groups at increased risk and for control of meningococcal disease outbreaks. In addition, if health-care providers or parents elect to provide meningococcal vaccination to other children in this age group, MCV4 is preferred to MPSV4. Recommendations for use of MCV4 in persons aged 11–55 years, including a recommendation for routine vaccination with MCV4 of persons aged 11–18 years, have been published previously and remain unchanged (1,3).

For children aged 2–10 years who have received MPSV4 and remain at increased risk for meningococcal disease, ACIP recommends vaccination with MCV4 at 3 years after receipt of MPSV4. Children who last received MPSV4 more than 3 years before and remain at increased risk for meningococcal disease should be vaccinated with MCV4 as soon as possible. For children at lifelong increased risk for meningococcal disease, subsequent doses of MCV4 likely will be needed. ACIP will monitor available data on duration of protection to determine whether recommendations for revaccination with MCV4 are indicated. Persons with a history of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) might be at increased risk for GBS after MCV4 vaccination (3); therefore, a history of GBS is a precaution to administration of MCV4.
(Source: MMWR-May 2, 2008 / 57(17); 462-465)

 

 

CDC broadens age group for meningitis shot (7/2007)

Houston Chronicle  

Parents are being urged to have children ages 11-18 vaccinated against meningitis under new recommendations by federal health officials.

In issuing new guidelines for the meningococcal disease vaccine, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention closed gaps in the previous recommendations. Those had targeted students entering high school and college, as well as pre-adolescents, by applying to ages 11-12, 15 and 18.

The change stems from an increase in the availability of the vaccine, not from any flare-up in reported cases…

 

Norwegian Health Minister Apologies for Vaccine Scandal

MeNZBscandal: Twelve months ago the Ministry of Health welcomed a planned independent Norwegian review of claims of misconduct surrounding their meningococcal B vaccine which the MOH hoped would provide a greater degree of reassurance to the public in Norway and in New Zealand. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5406?Open

…These issues in New Zealand include serious conflicts of interest, ministry officials lying to the Minister, substandard trials, the use of fear and coercion of children and parents and the creation in the minds of the public of an ‘monster’ epidemic that was past its peak before the roll out of the vaccine.

In addition it has recently emerged that the Ministry has undertaken studies that show that babies are at INCREASED risk of contracting meningococcal disease following three doses of the MeNZB vaccine. Their response was to increase the number of doses to four in the hope that a miracle might occur. They continue to inject the toxin into as many babies as they can.

As evidence of a public apology by the Norwegian Minister of Health emerges following an independent inquiry revealing major cover-ups, and deceit relating to data used to justify the New Zealand MeNZB vaccine, we look forward to a similar inquiry and apology from New Zealand’s Minister of Health.

Links to Ron Law and Barbara Sumner Burstyn’s meningococcal Gold Rush, of the Norwegian documentary aired in TVNZ’s Sunday programme:

Meningococcal Gold Rush Series

Meningococcal Gold Rush I,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00064.htm

Meningococcal Gold Rush Quickguide
http://www.sumnerburstyn.com/vax/MeNZB-Quick-Guide-332.pdf

Meningococcal Gold Rush II, (~60 pages)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00284.htm

Meningococcal Gold Rush III,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00352.htm

Meningococcal Gold Rush IV
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00403.htm

Norwegian documentary (3 of 4 parts only)
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6JiUwkrTNk
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLxhvSLBejs
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nl9biRB4f4

 

Meningitis Vaccine Boosts Immune Response (5/2008)

 Excerpt:

Swiss drug maker Novartis AG said its experimental meningitis vaccine performed well in a large clinical trial and that the company expects to file for regulatory approval in the U.S. and Europe this year.

Novartis said the vaccine, called Menveo, helped trigger a strong immune response in a greater percentage of adolescents against several types of meningitis bacteria than did the currently used vaccine, Sanofi-Aventis SA’s Menactra.

 

 

Menveo is designed to protect against four types of meningitis bacteria: serotypes A, C, W-135 and Y. Sanofi’s Menactra, launched in 2005, is now the only vaccine available against those four types…

Adam Finn, a physician and meningitis expert at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, said Menveo’s results appear sound. But he cautioned that generating a higher immune response doesn’t necessarily mean the new vaccine will prevent more cases of meningitis.

 

Investigational Vaccine Effective Against Meningitis in Infancy

By Crystal Phend, Staff Writer, MedPage Today.Published: January 08, 2008.University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

OXFORD, England

, Jan. 8 — An investigational tetravalent meningococcal vaccine may be the first to provide sufficient protection for infants, the group at highest risk for the disease, researchers here said.

At least 92% of infants who received the conjugate vaccine in a two-, three-, four-month schedule developed a protective antibody level to serogroups A, C, W-135, and Y, found Matthew D. Snape, M.D., of the University of Oxford, and colleagues in a phase II, open-label, randomized study.

The two-, four-, six-month schedule most likely to be considered for the United States yielded similar results, although a lower percentage (81%) developed a protective antibody level against serogroup A, they reported in the Jan. 9/16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

 

Primary source:

Journal of the American Medical Association. Source reference:
Snape MD, et al “Immunogenicity of a tetravalent meningococcal glycoconjugate vaccine in infants: a randomized controlled trial” JAMA 2008; 299: 173-184.

Additional source: Journal of the American Medical Association. Source reference:
Harrison LH, “A multivalent conjugate vaccine for prevention of meningococcal disease in infants” JAMA 2008; 299: 217-219.

 

 

19 Year Old Sues His Own Parents For Vaccine Damage Leading To His Autism

A 19 year old boy is suing his parents for contributing to his Autism. The boy’s name has been kept confidential pending the outcome of the trial and a gag order has been put on everyone related to this court hearing, including the judge. We will refer to the boy as John Doe.

John filed suit on his parents for vaccinating him as a youth. John received the CDC recommended schedule of 62 doses of 17 different vaccinations before the age of 5 years old. He alleges his parents directly caused his illness by not practicing informed consent when they had him injected with multiple viruses, sometimes up to 10 shots at one time, in this landmark case.

The pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the vaccines are protected under the government laws as are the doctors from any liability relating to vaccine injury. The National Injury Compensation Program is now rejecting all cases of Autism although there are confirmed studies linking Autism to vaccinations. There isn’t enough money to pay all the victims. We will see more and more children left with no choice but to sue their parents for vaccine damage.

Okay, this story is fictional but doesn’t it make you think? What will our world be like in 20 more years when more and more children become autistic, ill and sick with autoimmune disorders? Will they end up having to sue their own parents because there is no other recourse? I mean, it’s the parents obligation to make informed decisions on the safety of vaccines. The parents who don’t make informed decisions regarding their children’s health should be held responsible. This includes researching vaccines and making sure they are safe enough to be injected in to their children in the first place.

We, as parents, need to stand up and say enough is enough. We should have the right to reject these vaccinations because we don’t feel they are safe! Do people not see we are slowly losing our freedoms for the so called greater good? Please google gunpoint medicine and see how many parents (and people in general) are being threatened with jail time and arrested, then FORCED to undergo medical treatments they object to. Don’t let this happend with vaccines. Don’t let us lose what exemptions we do have! We need a philosophical exemption in every single state for those who can’t morally claim a religious exemption. We need to protect the homeschooled (scape goats) rights to avoid being forced to inject vaccines not proven to work and full of neurotoxins, aborted fetal tissues, and animal DNA, especially in those states with only a medical exemption.

We are allowing our government to make our children sick and KILL THEM with these vaccines. Those who allow their children to be injected with vaccines and never research or question the safety will only have themselves to blame. I apologize if the truth hurts.

Copyright ©Safer Shots 2008

HPV and Cervical Cancer: One Less or One More?

 HPV and Cervical Cancer: One Less or One More? 

There are at least 100 types of Human Papillomaviruses that have been discovered. Some types of HPV may cause genital warts while at least 30 types may go on to cause precancerous lesions, if the conditions are right. The Gardasil vaccine targets 4 types of HPV. Type 6 and 11 targets the prevention of genital warts, and type 16 and 18 targets the prevention of cervical cancer. 
 
Gardasil package insert- http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/gardasilLB.pdf 
 
VAERS Reports- http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/ (use code HPV4 under vaccine) 
 
Merck’s Licensing Trial- http://www.fda.gov/cber/review/hpvmer060806r.pdf 
 
HPV vaccine efficiency against high grade lesions: Future II Study:  
 
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1915 
 
We’ve heard repeatedly that Gardasil is a cancer vaccine. That it is an STI vaccine. Let’s take a look at what is known, what is not known, and what has been lost in the hype. 
 
It is known that babies and children under 7 can have HPV passed on in utero, at birth and after birth. 

 

 The current study shows that high-risk HPV DNA can be detected both in the oral and genital mucosa of infants during the first 3 years of life and that some HPV infections are persistent. HPV DNA has been mostly detected during the first year of infancy, reaching the peak (21%) in oral samples at 6 months of age. This increase might have resulted from both diminished maternal HPV antibodies in infants [21] and newly acquired HPV infections. In addition to vertical transmission, HPV infections might be transmitted horizontally from other family members (e.g., via caring hands or by autoinoculation) [22–24]. The present study showed a decreasing rate of carriage of high-risk HPV DNA during the first year of life, but HPV DNA was still detectable in 10% of mucosal samples obtained at the 3-year follow-up visit. This finding is in line with some earlier studies [25, 26], but the percentage of positive results is lower in the present study than in a study in which the rate of detection was 45%  
 
The results of the present study showed that 36%–42% of infants acquired high-risk HPV DNA in oral or genital mucosa, and 11%–14% of HPV DNA–positive infants cleared virus during the 3-year follow-up period. Both cumulative incidence and clearance rates ran in parallel for oral and genital mucosa. (1)  

 

 

 

 

 
Papillomaviruses are ubiquitous. They have been passed down for millions of years within the human population, mammals, and within all vertebrates. Therefore, it is not only a sexually transmitted infection. 

 “It’s a very tricky virus. To put it in some perspective, the virus family is 100 million years old. Papillomavirus is in, effectively, all the vertebrates: snakes, amphibians, birds, and almost all the mammals. This virus coevolved with the vertebrate kingdom, and it’s just part of what it is to be alive. It’s a virus that’s extraordinarily successful at persisting and passing itself down to the next generation not just in people, but in any animal you’ve ever seen. So it’s something we just have to deal with.” (2) 

 

 

 

 

 The FDA has known for the last four years that HPV is not the cause of cervical cancer, unless the infection is persistent, according to their own admission according to the March 7, 2007 Reclassification Petition: 

 “Based on new scientific information published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer. Most acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7]. It is the persistent HPV infection that may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction [8-11]. Identifying and typing HPV is an important tool for following patients with persistent HPV infection. Repeated sequential transient HPV infections, even when caused by “high-risk” HPVs, are characteristically not associated with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer.” (3) 

 

 

 

 

 So, it appears it is the persistent infection, not simply aquiring the virus, that determines the cancer risk. What else may increase the risk?  Third world countries, demographics, life style, nutrition, birth control pill use, and sexual activity also increase the incidences and push the percentages of cervical cancer rates upwards. The cervical cancer rate in the U.S. is 1%, while 80% occurs in third world countries. (4)  

“HPV is primarily a problem of poverty, of the underdeveloped portions of the world…but I want to emphasize that major parts of the world, for instance the Soviet Union, the Islamic world, have not even been surveyed, so in many cases we don’t know how severe it is…” (5)

 

 

 

 

 The American Cancer Society provides a detailed list of risk factors with explanations as to why each of these factors increases the risk. It can be viewed at:  

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/…al_cancer_8.asp .
 
Before a vaccine program for HPV is recommended for all young girls, or eventually boys, it is important to know all routes of transmission, the age of susceptibility, along with who is at higher risk for not clearing the infection naturally. 

  
Infection with high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPV) is the most significant risk factor for cervical cancer and it may be possible to prevent this malignancy by immunisation. Before immunisation programmes can be designed, however, it is necessary to know the age of acquisition and all routes of infection for these viruses. Sexual transmission is well documented and vertical transmission has also been demonstrated, although the frequency of transmission remains controversial. We previously showed that vertical transmission frequently results in persistent infection, and now present data on the prevalence of HPV-16 DNA (the most prevalent high-risk HPV type) in healthy children. Buccal samples from 267 healthy children aged 3-11 years were tested for HPV DNA by generic PCR (MY09/MY11), and a HPV-16 specific nested PCR. Reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR was used to determine the prevalence of transcriptionally active HPV-16 infection in a subset of children. HPV-16 DNA was detected by nested PCR in 138 of 267 (51.7%) samples, whereas HPV DNA was detected in only 45 (16.8%) specimens by generic PCR, that has a lower analytical sensitivity. There were no significant differences in prevalence according to age or sex. Early region mRNA was detected by RT-PCR in six (11.3%) of 53 HPV-16 E5 DNA positive samples. HPV-16 E5 DNA sequences from 10 children confirmed the identity of the sequences detected and identified 13 HPV-16 variants. (6) 

 

  
Since HPV is not a threat to most young girls or women of any age and HPV infection can be detected with pap smear screening, along with the majority of women who will clear the virus naturally, then who does benefit from the vaccine? Logically, you would assume the high risk population. And you may be asking yourself, “Why vaccinate young girls?” Let’s take a look at the four safety and effectiveness quadrants: 
 
Quadrant I: Non-Sexually Active  
No Gardasil vaccine  
 
Quadrant II: Non-Sexually Active 
Receives Gardasil vaccine  
 
Quadrant III: Sexually Active 
No Gardasil vaccine  
 
Quadrant IV: Sexually Active 
Receives Gardasil vaccine 
 
 
Now let’s look at the Likely Outcomes of each quadrant: 

 
Quadrant I Outcome: No risk of cervical cancer 
Quadrant II Outcome: No medical benefit of the vaccine 
Quadrant III Outcome: HPV presence is self-limiting and will not lead to cervical cancer 
Quadrant IV Outcome: 44.6% increase risk of precancerous lesions. No reduction in cancer risk 

 
If you are thinking there must be a typo in Quadrant IV Outcomes, it isn’t. That does indeed say a 44.6% INCREASE risk of precancerous lesions and no reduction in cancer risk, for those who are sexually active and receives the Gardasil vaccine. Gardasil has the potential to increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by 44.6% in women who already carry HPV in a harmless state. According to an FDA VRBPAC document: 

 
“PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with Gardasil of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high grade lesions by 44.6%. (7) 
 
 
“…Another thing that has not been totally talked about is this is a prophylactic vaccine. It is not a therapeutic vaccine. Anybody who has HPV today is not going to directly benefit from the vaccine. We still need to do the research to develop therapeutic vaccines and certainly in the meantime to improve screening tests for these and any other papillomaviruses. We need to develop a comprehensive network of clinics, especially in the third world. “(8) 
 
 
“…Finally, there is compelling evidence that the vaccine lacks therapeutic efficacy among women who have had prior exposure to HPV and have not cleared previous infection (PCR positive and seropositive), which represented approximately 6% of the overall study populations.” (9) 

 

 

 

 

 So, it is already known that vaccinating women with Gardasil will provide no protection if they have prior exposure to the virus, nor provide protection to those who have not cleared previous infections. However, if the vaccine is given to a woman who carries the HPV in a harmless state, it has the potential to active the virus from a harmless state into an active state, and thus cause precancerous lesions to develop. What happens if we start vaccinating American women when there is evidence that the vaccine may increase lesions by 44.6%? Cervical cancer rates will skyrocket!  
 
Therefore, the only group left that may benefit from the vaccine are young girls who have not had sex. But does Gardasil vaccine work? That remains to be seen. And there is a caveat to that however. Let’s take a look: 

“We do know that serologic titers declined steadily following the third shot, as you saw from Neal’s presentation. The response is extraordinarily robust to these particles, but we simply don’t have a timeline on what amount of serologic capability will be left after, say, 10 years or 15 years. We don’t know how long protective immunity will persist and whether it would be restimulated quickly through memory cells upon exposure to an actual infecting agent. But it may become necessary to have booster shots somewhere down the line, especially if 10- or 12-year-old children are being vaccinated, and maybe somewhere in their 20s or 30s and maybe there’s going to be a divorce and a second marriage where there’s a reexposure to other sources may require booster shots later in life. We simply don’t know.” (10)  
 
 
“At least 15 oncogenic HPV types have been identified, 4 so targeting only 2 types may not have had a great effect on overall rates of preinvasive lesions. Findings from the FUTURE II trial showed that the contribution of nonvaccine HPV types to overall grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ was sizable. In contrast to a plateau in the incidence of disease related to HPV 
types 16 and 18 among vaccinated women, the overall disease incidence regardless of HPV type continued to increase, raising the possibility that other oncogenic HPV types eventually filled the biologic niche left behind after the elimination of HPV types 16 and 18.” (11)  
 
“…a cautious approach may be warranted in light of important unanswered questions about overall vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, and adverse effects that may emerge over time.” (12) 
 
And: 
 
“…that only either two or four of the types of 46 that can infect mucosa are even included. We don’t know, but I frankly do strongly suspect that when we do eradicate or minimize the HPV 16 and 18, that their very, very close relatives will fill in. Nature abhors the vacuum and these ecological niches are going to be vacant when HPV 16 and 18 and 6 and 11 are minimized, and I’m deeply concerned that there’ll be backfill of those ecologic niches by these very, very similar types. I think it’s imperative to expand the coverage in the vaccines.  
We don’t know, however, because the studies have never been done, whether a cocktail with 14 types would be equally effective against all 14 or whether they might actually conflict with each other. We simply don’t know. We don’t suspect that there’s much cross protection of one type to any other even similar type. So far the evidence doesn’t suggest that. We also do not know if these vaccines would be effective in the context of immunodeficient diseases. Certainly HIV/AIDS stands out, but other parasitic diseases, even malnutrition or chronic illness. In a study I did, people with end-stage renal failure were reactivating their latent HPV in middle-age years, so immune capacity and capability makes a big difference. (13) 

 

 

 

 

According to the New England Journal of Medicine sited above, you will find that Gardasil has a 13% effectiveness and that serotype replacement is a concern.  
The 13-17% effectiveness is seen only for the lower grade neoplasias (the ones most likely to regress on their own) and no statistically significant effectiveness at all against actual cervical cancer.  
 
The average age for a woman to develop cervical cancer, if the conditions are right, is approximately 48. The true effectiveness or the real dangers of this vaccine will not be known for at least a decade or more. With 19 high-risk types of HPV that can cause cancer and Gardasil only targets two, what happens with the rest of them? They may very well step-in and proliferate, as noted above. 
 
If you read through the package insert provided above, you will see that the claims for effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer are based on indirect efficacy measurements. When you look at the number of subjects, the age of the subjects, and the duration of the trials, you will see that there is no proof that even one case of cervical cancer has been prevented by this vaccine.  
 
Gardasil contains 225mcg of Aluminum (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant), which is a known neurotoxin. Neither Merck nor the FDA ever disclosed how much Aluminum was used in the placebo. In the clinical trials, it appears the aluminum and saline groups were lumped together instead of a saline group alone. If you look at Table 6, page 10, it has a chart with a saline placebo group and an aluminum placebo group. Adverse Experience and Systemic Reactions in the aluminum and saline groups were combined. That can skew results as Aluminum plays a major part in side effects, and a reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety in a clinical trial. Merck nor the FDA do not reveal in public documents how many 9 to 15 year old girls were in the clinical trials either, or how many received the Hep B vaccine along with Gardasil or the aluminum placebo.  
 
 
Cervical cancer is preventable, treatable, and curable. Women who receive regular Pap smears, DNA testing for HPV, are not in the high-risk categories, or have appropriate follow-up care, don’t develop cervical cancer. It is more of a concern for women who don’t have access to good healthcare, are not getting regular Pap smears, and women who are not receiving follow-up and treatment. While HPV affects us all to some degree, cervical cancer does not. With so many unknowns and knows to date, the HPV vaccine should be carefully weighed-Does the possible small benefit of 13% effectiveness outweigh the risk? Might it be better health wise, and more cost efficient, to educate young girls on the risks of unprotected sex, condom use, regular pap screening, and what HPV is, versus a vaccine that can damage them for life?  
 
  
REFERENCES: 
 
1. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2005. High-Risk Types of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in Oral and Genital Mucosa of Infants during Their First 3 Years of Life: Experience from the Finnish HPV Family Study.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/498114 
 
 
2. Center For American Progress. “PREVENTING HPV, EASY AS 1, 2, 3 SHOTS? ENSURING ACCESS TO THE NEW ANTI-CANCER VACCINES” (pg 23) http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/hpv_event_transcript.pdf 
 
 
3. Reclassification Petition, March 7, 2007. (pg 7) 
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/0…001-01-vol1.pdf 
 
4. Preparing for the introduction of HPV vaccines: policy and programme guidance for countries. WHO 2006.  
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/pub…ccines/text.pdf 
 
 
5. Center For American Progress. “PREVENTING HPV, EASY AS 1, 2, 3 SHOTS? ENSURING ACCESS TO THE NEW ANTI-CANCER VACCINES” (pg. 13) http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/hpv_event_transcript.pdf  
 
 
6. J. Med. Virol. 61:70-75, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc. High prevalence of human papillomavirus type 16 infection among children Philip S. Rice 1 2, Christine Mant 1 2, John Cason 1 2, Jon M. Bible 1 2, Peter Muir 1 2, Barbara Kell 1 2, Jennifer M. Best 1 2 * 1Richard Dimbleby Laboratory of Cancer Virology, Department of Infection, Guy’s, King’s College, London, United Kingdom 2St. Thomas’ School of Medicine, King’s College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom.  
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin…ETRY=1&SRETRY=0 
 
7. Reclassification Petition – Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Nested Polymerase Chain 
There are at least 100 types of Human Papillomaviruses that have been discovered. Some types of HPV may cause genital warts while at least 30 types may go on to cause precancerous lesions, if the conditions are right. The Gardasil vaccine targets 4 types of HPV. Type 6 and 11 targets the prevention of genital warts, and type 16 and 18 targets the prevention of cervical cancer. 
 
Gardasil package insert- http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/gardasilLB.pdf 
 
VAERS Reports- http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/ (use code HPV4 under vaccine) 
 
Merck’s Licensing Trial- http://www.fda.gov/cber/review/hpvmer060806r.pdf 
 
HPV vaccine efficiency against high grade lesions: Future II Study:  
 
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1915 
 

Reaction (PCR) Detection Device (K063649 ) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf

MMR Vaccine, Measles, Mumps, Rubella

Dr Richard Halvorsen answers the big questions about MMR, Vaccines and Diseases

Baby Bottles, Cans, and Bisphenol-A

Plastic Baby Bottles and Bisphenol-A

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/opinion/06sat4.html

What do you do when one arm of the government says everything is O.K. and another tells you to watch out? That is what is happening with bisphenol-A — a chemical used in many plastics and epoxy resins now found in baby bottles and liners for canned goods. The answer is a truism in every family rulebook — when in doubt, especially when it comes to children, err on the side of caution. That means it is a good idea to keep the young away from bisphenol-A, or BPA.

The Food and Drug Administration said last month that the small amounts of BPA that leach out of containers and into food or milk are not dangerous. Then this week, the National Toxicology Program, the federal agency for toxicological research, reported that their research shows “some concern” about the effects of BPA on the brain development and behavior of fetuses and young children.

A new study by the Yale School of Medicine is cause for even more concern. In tests on primates, researchers found that BPA “causes the loss of connections between brain cells” that could cause memory or learning problems and depression.

Scientists from the toxicology offer this advice:

¶ Watch for the numeral 7 on the bottom of plastic containers. That often means they contain BPA.

¶ Don’t microwave plastic food containers made with BPA. Better to use glass or porcelain.

¶ Watch out for canned foods for children.

¶ Search for baby bottles and other baby products that are BPA-free.

More

More Evidence That BPA Found in Clear Plastics Impairs Brain Function

Yale School of Medicine

Published: September 3, 2008

New Haven, Conn. — Yale School of Medicine researchers reported today that the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), a building block for polycarbonate plastics found in common household items, causes the loss of connections between brain cells. This synaptic loss may cause memory/learning impairments and depression, according to study results published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Unlike previous studies that looked at the effect of BPA on rodents, the team examined the effects in a primate model. They also used lower levels of the chemical than in past studies. “Our goal was to more closely mimic the slow and continuous conditions under which humans would normally be exposed to BPA,” said study author Csaba Leranth, M.D., professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and in Neurobiology at Yale. “As a result, this study is more indicative than past research of how BPA may actually affect humans.”

Over a 28-day period, Leranth and his team gave each primate 50 micrograms/kg of BPA per day, adjusted for body weight, the amount considered safe for human consumption by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The team also administered estradiol, the major form of hormonal estrogen that modulates nerve cell connections in the brain. Best known as one of the principal hormone products of the ovary, estrogen has also been shown in past studies to be synthesized in the brain, where it aids the development and function of the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex.

The team then used an electron microscope to count nerve cell connections in the brain. They found that BPA inhibits creation of the synaptic connections in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, areas of the brain involved with regulation of mood and formation of memory.

 “Our primate model indicates that BPA could negatively affect brain function in humans,” said study co-author Tibor Hajszan, M.D., associate research scientist in Yale Ob/Gyn. “Based on these new findings, we think the EPA may wish to consider lowering its ‘safe daily limit’ for human BPA consumption.”

Hajszan said that although daily exposure of an average person to BPA usually does not reach the level that was applied in this study, human exposure to BPA is not limited to a single month, but rather is continuous over a lifetime. “The negative effect of BPA may also be amplified when estradiol levels are naturally lower than in healthy adults. That is why exposure to BPA may particularly be risky in the case of babies and the elderly.”

Other authors on the study included Klara Szigeti-Buck, Jeremy Bober and Neil J. MacLusky.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by a National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression Young Investigator Award.

Citation: PNAS Online Early Edition, 10.1073/pnas.0806139105 (September 2, 2008)

Chicken Pox and Shingles

Chicken Pox and Shingles

 

     In the pre-vaccine era, nearly all cases in the U.S. occurred in 3-6 year olds, and they developed permanent immunity. Before adults reached twenty years of age, 90% were immune. Infants were also protected by maternal antibodies. Today, adolescents (9-11 years old) are acquiring chicken pox which was highly unusual in the pre-vaccination era.  The rate of Shingles and Chicken Pox in adulthood is also increasing, and eventually the burden may shift and rise to infants.

 

 

 

    

     The Varicella vaccine is estimated to be 70% effective for up to 10 years, or as little as 5 years, after vaccination. 5% of vaccine recipients would go on to get a mild case of chicken pox within a year after the inoculation. The Varicella vaccine was first recommended as one dose given at one year of age.  Now, due to the lack of efficacy, and rapidly waning immunity, a second dose was recommended for 4-6 year olds.

 

 

 

 

     A 2007 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a single shot does not produce a sufficient immune response in approximately 20% of people who receive it. Therefore, it is hoped that a two-shot regimen will create a larger population of fully immunized people and should reduce breakthrough disease. Health officials admit they don’t now how long a second dose will provide immunity.

   

     As the Varicella vaccine became recommended and mandated for school attendance, natural circulation and ‘boosting’ of the virus became less. This not only put those who have acquired natural immunity at risk, but the vaccine recipients as well. Why? The vaccine does not allow the wild-type virus to circulate and boost protection for everyone, especially the older populations. This is why Japan never mandated the Varicella vaccine but left it as a ‘choice’ vaccine. Natural boosts, or exposures, from children also help keep Shingles from occurring. The effectiveness of the chicken pox vaccine is dependent upon natural boosting. As the chicken pox declines, so will the effectiveness of the vaccine.  Dr. James Cherry had this to say:

 

          “Our immunity is stimulated by being exposed to the Chicken Pox. When that stimulation goes away, our protection is going to decrease. So we’ll see more cases of Shingles. My guess is that we’re going to be giving doses of the [varicella] vaccine to 30 and 40 year olds to prevent Shingles. The better we do, [eradicating chickenpox], the more we’re going to see Shingles.”

 

 

     The adult Shingles rate increased by 90% from 1998-2003. A Shingles vaccine, Zostavax, was made, and its only purpose is to try and prevent Shingles cases in older susceptible adults.  The efficacy is only 41% for those aged 70-79 years, and an 18% efficacy for 80 years and older. The duration of protection is not yet known. Gary S. Goldman’s research shows that Shingles results in 3 times as many deaths and 5 times the number of hospitalizations.

 

     In the pre-vaccine era, serious problems or complications were rare. Parents and doctors knew exposing their children in early childhood reduced complication rates.  The highest complication rates or death have always been in very young infants, teens, adults, and those with compromised immune systems.  The United States is the only country that routinely vaccinates against Chicken Pox. It should also be noted that in 1981, chicken pox was removed as a nationally notifiable disease. Yet, the Varicella vaccine was licensed and recommended in 1995 with only 14 states reporting cases to the CDC. In 1998/99, only Varicella deaths were to be reported. In 2002, CSTE recommended Varicella once again be added as a nationally notifiable disease by the year 2003, with all states included by 2005.

 

 

     How many times have you heard that the Varicella vaccine would give a ‘milder’ infection? That the ‘milder’ infection is a good thing? Is a milder infection really a good thing? What about ‘recurrent’ cases or ‘breakthrough cases?  A milder infection can simply suppress the virus and eventually lead to a more serious infection or a chronic illness later on when reintroduced.

 

        “Immunity acquired through natural infection still forms much of the population’s immune defense. The level of a population’s immunity to a disease depends upon both the proportion artificially immunized and the frequency of contact with the infectious organism (wild or attenuated). When exposure to the antigen becomes uncommon, there is no stimulus to maintain antibody levels, and susceptibility increases. If the organism causing a disease is then reintroduced while immunity is low it is likely to spread quickly and cause severe illness. A constant endemic level of a disease may cause less overall morbidity, mortality and disruption than periodic epidemics. Islands and other isolated areas demonstrate this principle. Their populations may not be exposed to a certain infectious disease for decades. If the organism is then reintroduced, the low immunity levels among these people permit the infection to spread rapidly throughout the entire population. Severe illness and a high case fatality rate usually result.”

 

   If natural infections are not allowed to boost the antibody titers from time to time, children could very well end up susceptible adults, and at a time when Chicken Pox can be more serious, and heightened secondary infections can result.

 

 

      Some children with histories of having acquired natural Varicella went on to experience Shingles, and the rate is approaching those of adults. Based on a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, 9.5% of children have breakthrough disease. Children 8-12 years who were vaccinated 5 years previously had a higher incidence of moderate to severe disease.  A study by Seward et al., indicated that 13% of Varicella cases diagnosed by pediatricians are recurrent.

 

 

 

 

     In the pre-vaccine era, when a child came down with an active chickenpox case, they were kept home for up to 2 weeks until the pox scabbed over. Any child who was known to have been exposed to a known case of Chicken Pox was also watched closely for the beginning of symptoms, and kept away from other susceptible people if needed.  If you have read the package insert for the Varicella vaccine, it warns that newly vaccinated persons could transmit the virus for up to 6 weeks, and to avoid associations with susceptible high risk persons. How many people do you know keep their newly vaccinated child out of daycare or school for 6 weeks? The issue of virus transmission after the vaccine is not generally discussed.

 

 

     The rate of Chicken Pox may indeed be lower in children today since the introduction of the vaccine, but at what cost and to whom? We have shifted a once normal and self-limiting childhood disease into an adult disease, and possibly down the road, an infant disease, when it can be much more serious. When you consider what is yet not ‘known’, the outcome is anyone’s guess.

 

 

 

 

 

Measles

     In the pre-vaccination era, Measles was a common childhood illness usually acquired before the age of 10 years old, and thus attained permanent immunity.  At least 95% of American children had Measles by the time they were 15 years old. Measles was rare in infants under the age of one as they were protected by their Mother’s natural immunity from childhood and through breastfeeding.

     As the Measles vaccination program increased, the epidemiology of Measles shifted. Measles cases began occurring in late adolescents, young adults, and babies under one year of age. This is not a new trend.  During the Measles outbreaks in 1976-1977, 60% of those cases occurred in children over age 10 and 26% occurred in children over age 15. This trend has continued to spite high vaccine coverage rates in developed and developing countries. It has also led to longer intervals between epidemic years; known as the “honeymoon effect’. In the 1984 Measles outbreak, 58% of school-age children who had been vaccinated caught Measles.

     A.W. Hedrich researched and published a study in 1933 on the patterns of Measles in Baltimore, Maryland from 1900-1931.  He surmised that the majority of children under 15 years of age who would catch Measles would not go above 53%, and would not drop below 32% during those 32 years.  At least 47% of children in Baltimore would not have Measles each time an outbreak ended. (2)  Hedrich’s research showed that the number of people in a community had nothing to do with the decline in virulence of the virus when an outbreak comes to an end. Measles is endemic and occurs whenever nature says it’s time. Epidemics have continued to occur even with high vaccine rate coverage, and occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

     Where infants are concerned, vaccinated Mothers today do not have the full natural immunity to protect their infants.  In 1992 alone, 22.2% of measles cases were in infants less than 12 months of age. This was an increase from 19.2% in 1991 and 17.0% in 1990. In 1990, 27.9% of reported cases occurred in children 1-4 years of age, and 30.1% in 1991. In Texas alone, 75% of the cases were in children younger than 5 years old, and 35% in children less than 12 months old. In Kentucky, the opposite happened. Measles made up 49% of the cases in children 5-19 years old.

   According to the CDC’s Pink Book Measles Chapter, it is admitted that infants are now more at risk from Measles during outbreaks than in the pre-vaccination era.

     “In addition, measles susceptibility of infants younger than 1 year of age may have increased. During the 1989–1991 measles resurgence, incidence rates for infants were more than twice as high as those in any other age group. The mothers of many infants who developed measles were young, and their measles immunity was most often due to vaccination rather than infection with wild virus. As a result, a smaller amount of antibody was transferred across the placenta to the fetus, compared with antibody transfer from mothers who had higher antibody titers resulting from wild-virus infection. The lower quantity of antibody resulted in immunity that waned more rapidly, making infants susceptible at a younger age than in the past.”

 

 

     According to a 1999 issue in Pediatrics:   “Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 are more susceptible to measles than are infants of older mothers. An increasing proportion of infants born in the United States may be susceptible to measles.” Mothers who had infants born after 1963, had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared with 12% for infants of older mothers.  The difference in infant’s immunity levels between the vaccinated Mothers and the unvaccinated Mothers can also be seen in the 1995 Pediatrics Journal.

      Even the World Health Organization has admitted that the vaccinated have a 14 times greater chance of contracting the disease than the unvaccinated.  ( National Health Federation Bulletin, (Nov. ‘69).

     Another issue worth mentioning is that without the circulating wild virus producing a boosting effect for older adults, and infants not as protected by maternal antibodies, the disease becomes more dangerous. A disease that a 5 year old could once recover from in 1-2 weeks has the potential to kill an infant, adolescent or adult. Measles used to have a natural virulence of every 3-4 years. The vaccine has caused longer intervals between exposures.

     

     “But the last generation to have routinely suffered through most of these diseases is crossing through mid-life and the first generation to have avoided them is hovering around 40.”

     “Before vaccination became commonplace, adults often came in contact with youngsters suffering from mumps, measles and the other childhood diseases. That remained the case in the early days of vaccine administration when these diseases still commonly circulated.”

     “If people had protection – natural or vaccine-acquired – those exposures were actually helpful. They acted as a sort of natural booster shot, reminding the immune system to be on guard for this threat.  Some experts now wonder whether these unrecorded natural boosts may have led the medical community to overestimate the durability of immunity generated by childhood vaccinations. These days, few people are getting natural boosting to these diseases.”

     The Measles vaccine has made the disease rarer in childhood, but more dangerous when it does occur, due to the age shift. There can also be a higher case fatality rate in infant and adult infections.  When considering the risks or benefits of the vaccine, consider this:  Once a population is exposed to measles in childhood, few infants or adults will contract it as they will have acquired immunity for life.  The vaccine simply can not do that. All it has done is decrease the virulence, the circulation cycle of the disease, and pushed the disease incidence to older persons and infants when the disease can be more harmful and deadly.

   According to the American Journal of Epidemiology, it was projected, based on a computer model:

        “However, despite short-term success in eliminating the disease, long-range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibies in the year 2050 may be greater than in the prevaccine era. Present vaccine technology and public health policy must be altered to deal with this eventually.” So the end result will be the same number (or more) of susceptibles, but “distributed evenly throughout all age groups”. Since adults and infants have higher risk of Measles complications and fatality, the Measles eradication plan has resulted in higher risk to the overall population. Obviously the public health policy solution is more and more vaccination, more boosters for children and adolescents, and adults as well. A very short-sighted, questionable and expensive campaign to eliminate a self-limiting childhood disease.”

     It should also be noted that in the pre-vaccine era, 10% of the population was always susceptible to Measles. After the Childhood Immunization Initiative from 1977-1979, it was admitted that at least 5 % would not develop Measles antibodies, and Measles would continue to occur despite high vaccination rates and it has. Those susceptible are those who have primary and secondary vaccine failure, adults who escaped natural Measles because of decreasing transmission in the late 1960’s, lack of virulence to boost natural immunity, infants under one year of age to decreased maternal antibodies, and waning immunity in the vaccinated. Therefore in the future, we may very well see a higher risk than 10% susceptible to Measles and spread out to all age groups in the overall population.

Rubella and CRS

Rubella and Congenital Rubella Syndrome

 

     Rubella had a natural virulence cycle of every 6-9 years and was once a disease of school-aged child that was typically caught between the ages of 5-9 year old. 80% thus developed natural antibodies to Rubella and protected them into adulthood, while 15% remained susceptible to the disease. The goal of the Rubella vaccine program was to prevent fetal infection, or CRS, in women in the childbearing years who had not acquired natural immunity in childhood.  Unfortunately, the original goal has not been obtained. The exact opposite is occurring as young adult women in their childbearing years now have the highest rate of Rubella incidence. Is this a new phenomenon occurring in today’s generation? No. To spite the large Rubella vaccine program, since 1969 there has been a shift in incidence and a shift in age susceptibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

              

“During the 1990s, the characteristics (ie, age distribution, sex, and race/ethnicity) of rubella cases changed significantly. In 1990, incidence was higher among children younger than 15 years than among persons aged 15 to 44 years… since the mid 1990s, incidence has increased among persons aged 15 to 44 years and decreased among children younger than 15 years. In 1990, children younger than 15 years accounted for 69% of cases. Since 1996, the highest percentage of cases occurred among persons aged 20 to 29 years, with a high in 1999 of 49%.  

  

     According to a 1980 Pediatrics study, the susceptibility rate of 6th graders was 15% in those vaccinated. (2) The susceptibility rate has remained the same rate as in the pre-vaccine era, even after the late 1970’s initiative to re-immunize all females during the child bearing years.

 

 

      

     Has the Rubella vaccine reduced Congenital Rubella Syndrome? You be the judge. Rubella was not a nationally notifiable disease until 1966. Rubella vaccine was licensed and recommended in 1969 for girls and boys in infancy and/or the preschool years, and then eventually recommended for adolescents. Since 1969, Rubella cases have declined, yet CRS cases increased after the introduction of the vaccine. In 1966, the pre-vaccine era, there were 11 cases of CRS. In 1969, after the introduction of the vaccine, there were 31 CRS cases. By 1970, there was an increase of 77 cases and in 1971, 68 cases. During the 1980’s, CRS cases declined once again but still remained higher than the pre-vaccination era. In 1992, there were 11 cases of CRS which is the same exact number of cases in 1966 before the Rubella vaccine was routinely used.  In 2000, there were 9 cases of CRS and in 2006, one case.

 

     As you can see, the Rubella vaccine has had little impact on reducing the number of CRS cases over the last 40 years since its introduction, yet it increased CRS cases in some years. There are even incidences were women had high levels of antibodies to Rubella before pregnancy, yet the babies had CRS. There are also some women who will never seroconvert (show positive antibodies) no matter how many times they are vaccinated.

      

     What has vaccination really accomplish if immunity wanes from infancy, if vaccinated young women are made more susceptible when they need immunity the most, and the increase in congenital rubella syndrome? Yet, natural immunity in early childhood can protect for a lifetime. Think about this statement made in 1964, before there was a Rubella vaccine implemented, by Dr. Hugh Paul in The Control Of Diseases:

     “The disease (rubella) cannot be prevented, and in view of its very mild character, and the possibility that it may have catastrophic effects if contracted by an expectant mother, it is questionable if it should be prevented in childhood and adolescence even if this were possible.  It has been suggested that female children should be deliberately exposed to infection in order to achieve a life-long immunity from the disease and possibly from malformation in the offspring in later life.  This idea is not an unreasonable one… Rubella does not kill, and even complications are uncommon.” 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mumps

      The Mumps vaccine was developed for the protection of adult males who may not have acquired mumps in childhood and gained natural immunity. In the pre-vaccine era, and for more than 10 years after the recommended Mumps vaccine, children typically caught Mumps between 5-9 years of age. The shift in incidence from childhood to adolescents was seen in 1985 to 1988. Then in 1992, there was another shift as Mumps was increasing and occurring in adolescents and young adults (10-19 years old) and exceeded all other age groups. The exact opposite of what the vaccine was intended for has been occurring; despite large vaccine coverage rates in childhood.  It should also be noted that the seasonal pattern of Mumps from 1988-1993 was consistent with the pre-vaccine era.

 

     During the 2005-2006 outbreaks, 51% had received 2 doses of Mumps vaccine, yet the incident rate was highest in those aged 18-24 years. Even after the ACIP made new recommendations in the 1980’s, adolescents and adults in 1982, 1986, and 1987 had the highest infection rates. During the 1989-1991 outbreaks amongst children in primary and secondary school, the majority were vaccinated. From 1988-1993, 75% of Mumps cases were seen in adolescents over 15 years of age and young adults. This trend has continued.

      “The shift in higher risk for mumps to these other age groups (i.e., from younger children of school ages to older children, adolescents, and young adults) — which occurred after the routine use of mumps vaccine was initiated — has persisted despite minimal fluctuations in disease incidence that occurred in recent years among the various age groups.” ( The resurgence of Mumps in Young Adults and Adolescents. John D. Shanley, M.D. Shanley_07 [1] pdf, pg. 1-4.)

 

     Young adults in high school and colleges were the primary target of the 2006 Mumps outbreak, even though most (84%) had received 2 doses of MMR. The ACIP then recommended yet another Mumps ‘booster’ vaccine, and for CSTE to update its case definition.  2010 was the goal set for elimination of Mumps in the United States. That year appears to be no longer attainable.

          “Despite a high coverage rate with two doses of Mumps-containing vaccine, a large Mumps outbreak occurred, characterized by 2-dose vaccine failure, particularly among Midwestern college adults who probably received the second dose as school children.  A more effective Mumps vaccine or changes in vaccine policy may be needed…” 

      The Mumps vaccine program has essentially put all adult males at a greater risk, since it can be cause more complications in adulthood.  If the vaccine had only been offered to susceptible males and females after puberty, who had not acquired a natural case in childhood, we might very well see a different picture than we see today.  

Pertussis (Whooping Cough)

     In the pre-vaccine era, 93% of Pertussis cases occurred in children between 1-5 years old. Since the 1980’s, the high incidence rate shifted to children over 5 years of age and older. In 2005, booster vaccines were recommended for adolescents and adults between the ages of 11-64 years old.

 

      From 1985-1987, 25% of reported cases were in children 10 years of age and over. From 1995-1998, that number increased to 42%. The largest majority of cases have been in the vaccinated populations. During the 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000’s, the number of adolescents and adults acquiring Pertussis has increased to spite high vaccination rates. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

              “Although pertussis incidence remains highest among young infants, rates are also on the rise in adolescents and adults and there may be significant under-reporting in these age groups, especially those with mild or atypical infection. Compared with surveillance data from 1994 to 1996, the pertussis incidence rate among adolescents and adults increased 62% and 60%, respectively, from 1997 to 2000.”

 

     There has also been an increase in babies under 1 year acquiring Pertussis. The number of cases in babies under 3 months of age from 1990-1997 did not lower. From 1999-2000, 48% of cases were in this age group. In 2001, 62% were under 3 months old. (6)

 

     According to a 2000 CDC MMWR report: “Despite record high vaccination coverage levels with 3 doses of DTaP among U.S. children aged 19–35 months, pertussis continues to cause fatal illness among vulnerable infants. During 1980–1998, the average annual incidence of reported pertussis cases and deaths among U.S. infants increased 50%. The increased morbidity and mortality occurred primarily among infants aged <4 months, who were too young to have received the recommended three DTaP vaccinations at ages 2, 4, and 6 months.” (7)

 

 

     Pertussis has always been endemic despite a vaccine.  It has a natural circulation every 2-5 years. This has not changed since the introduction of the vaccine, and thus indicates that the vaccine may prevent some disease, but has had little impact on transmission amongst the population. The efficacy of the DTaP is roughly 85% effective but waning immunity occurs after 2-5 years. In a case controlled study, it was found that infants of adolescent Mothers, aged 15-19 years, were 6 times more likely to acquire Pertussis compared to infants of older Mothers aged 20-29 years. Death from Pertussis is rare today. The majority of deaths, 90%, are in babies under 6 months of age. DTaP is also a reactive vaccine which means it does not prevent carriage or transmission of the disease. Therefore, vaccinated adolescents, adults and children can serve as reservoirs and transmitters to unprotected infants. (8) (9)

 

 

     Some epidemiologists believe B. Pertussis has mutated by changing its DNA and genetic coding.  Scientists in the Netherlands observed changes in the structure of the circulating wild-type bacteria when compared with those who were vaccinated. The differences were the outer membrane protein pertactin and the pertussis toxin itself. Similar genetic changes have been observed in Poland, Finland and the U.S. Any changes would thus render mutated bacteria immune to vaccination. As far as changing its character, many new cases lack the common ‘whoop’, yet 30% of cases were infected. Some cases were misdiagnosed as atypical asthma.(10) (11)

 

 

     In 2005, Tdap vaccines were recommended for adolescents over age 9 and adults under age 65 due to waning immunity from the DTaP vaccine given in infancy or childhood. There are no pertussis vaccines approved for children 7–9 years of age or for persons older than 64 years. The efficacy is similar and ‘inferred’ to that of DTaP. It is unknown if immunizing adolescents and adults will actually reduce the risk of transmission to infants. Nor is it known how long this vaccine may provide some people with protection. (12)

 

     

In the early 1900’s, it was questioned whether the control of Whooping Cough was even practicable. It has and remains to this day a more severe disease in infancy than in any other age group. A vaccine has not changed that fact. Generations passed have always known that the proper care in treatment of whooping cough would not lead to fatality, and most fatalities were the result of other complications mainly in the immune suppressed. (15)

 

 

Footnotes: 

 

       1.        Medscape Today. Epidemiology and Transmission of Disease. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549508_2

 

2.        CDC MMWR, September 05, 1997 / 46(35);822-826. Pertussis Outbreak Vermont, 1996.  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049244.htm

 

3.        The New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 331:16-21. July 7, 1994. The 1993 Epidemic of Pertussis in Cincinnati — Resurgence of Disease in a Highly Immunized Population of Children.  http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/1/16

 

4.        CDC MMWR, March 27, 1987 / 36(11);168-71. Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Pertussis Surveillance — United States, 1984 and 1985. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00000893.htm

 

5.        See #1

 

6.        CDR Weekly 21, June 2001. Enhanced surveillance of laboratory confirmed cases of Bordetella pertussis, England and Wales: 1999 to January-March quarter 2001. www.hpa.org.uk/cdr/archives/2001/cdr2501.pdf

 

7.        CDC, MMWR. July 19, 2002 / 51(28);616-618 Pertussis Deaths — United States, 2000. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5128a2.htm

 

8.        Medscape Today. Epidemiology and Transmission of Disease. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549508_2

 

9.        Clinical Infectious Diseases.Epidemiological, Clinical, and Laboratory Aspects of Pertussis in Adults. 01 JUNE 1999 Supplement, Volume 28, Number S2.  James D. Cherry. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/cid/28/s2

 

8.        Medscape Today. Epidemiology and Transmission of Disease. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549508_2

 

9.        Clinical Infectious Diseases.Epidemiological, Clinical, and Laboratory Aspects of Pertussis in Adults. 01 JUNE 1999 Supplement, Volume 28, Number S2.  James D. Cherry. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/cid/28/s2

 

10.     See #9.

 

11.     Emerging Infectious Diseases. Changes in Predominance and Diversity of Genomic Subtypes of Bordetella pertussis Isolated in the United States, 1935 to 1999.Terri Hawes Hardwick, et al. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no1/01-0021.htm

 

12.     Adacel Tdap Package Insert. www.fda.gov/cber/label/adacelLB.pdf

 

13.     IS THE CONTROL OF MEASLES AND WHOOPING-COUGH PRACTICABLE? Am J Public Health (N Y). 1916 March; 6(3): 265–268. FRANCiS GEORGE CURTIS, M. D., Chairman, Board of Health, Newton, Mass. Read at a General Session of the American Public Health Association, Rochester, N. Y., September 10, 1915.

 

14.   Whooping Cough. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1936 May; 26(5): 523–524.

 

15.     A STATISTICAL STUDY OF WHOOPING COUGH. FREDERICK S. CRUM, PH. D., Am J Public Health (N Y). 1915 October; 5(10): 994–1017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chicken Pox/Shingles/The Vaccines

Chickenpox is caused by the Varicella-Zoster virus. It is spread either by droplet infection or contact with the spots of a person with chicken pox. The incubation period is 2 – 3 weeks. During this time the virus replicates in the lymph nodes, liver, spleen, and a second viraemia occurs just before the rash appears. The infectious period starts one day before the rash appears and continues until the pox spots scab over.

Before the rash appears, the person may have a slight temperature, no appetite, feel tired, and have photophobia. The rash typically appears on the body and then spreads to the arms, legs, face and scalp. The rash can occur in the mouth. In girls, the rash can occur in the vagina area and cause discomfort. The rash is pimple-like at first, but turns into blisters. After a few days, they scab over. The scabs will then fall off, and should leave little or no scarring.

Complications which are rare could be:

Pneumonia – usual cause in adults is Staphylococcus Aureas

Bacterial super infection and encephalitis (rare in children)

Reye’s syndrome, mainly associated with the use of aspirin to control fever and pain

 Otitis media

 More Severe Rare Complications:

 Osteomyelitis, necrotising fasciitis, toxic shock syndrome, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, carditis, uveitis, myocarditis, bullous varicella, septic arthritis, deep tissue abscess, Group A beta-haemolytic streptococcus, nephritis, orchitis, thrombocytopenia, fulminant hepatitis, acute cerebellar ataxia, chorioretinitis, ocular defects, cutaneous scars, hypoplastic limbs, micrognathia, encephalomyelitis, cortical atrophy, and pneumonitis.

  

Shingles

 

After you have had chickenpox, the virus can lay dormant for decades until the immune system is suppressed, and then the virus can re-appear. It can reappear as chicken-pox again or as shingles. Shingles appears as large blisters, like welts, on one side of the body. They can appear on the stomach, back, chest, or even on one side of the face. Shingles can be accompanied by photophobia (sensitivity to light), tiredness, and severe itchiness or sting-like pain. 

 

 Chickenpox Vaccine-Varicella

The vaccine was originally developed for immune compromised leukemic children. The live varicella zoster vaccine for chicken pox had difficulty getting FDA approval for many years because of its high failure rate which was often as high as 20 percent. The varicella vaccine was licensed by the FDA in 1995, and Universal Varicella Vaccination Program was implemented shortly thereafter.  The CDC recommended that all healthy, susceptible children aged 12 months to 12 years receive a single dose. The CDC then funded a Varicella Active Surveillance Project (VASP) to monitor trends in the disease. The three different areas were: Antelope Valley (California), West Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), and Travis County (Texas). By 1999, each VASP reporting incidence of varicella had shown dramatic decline in their studied communities. Currently, nearly all states have mandated varicella vaccination for school entry.

 

Varivax (chickenpox) Package Insert

Proquad (chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella) Package Insert 

Zostavax (Shingles) Package Insert

 

 

“…VARIVAX is a preparation of the Oka/Merck strain of live, attenuated varicella virus. The virus was initially obtained from a child with natural varicella, then introduced into human embryonic lung cell cultures adapted to and propagated in embryonic guinea pig cell cultures, and finally propagated in human diploid cell cultures (WI 38). Further passage of the virus for varicella vaccine was performed at Merck Research Laboratories in human diploid cell cultures (MRC-5) that were free of adventitious agents…”

 

“…Each 0.5 ml dose contains the following: a minimum of 1350 PFU (plaque forming units) of Oka/Merck varicella virus when reconstituted; approximately 25 mg of sucrose; 12.5 mg hydrolysed gelatine; 3.2 mg sodium chloride; 0.5 mg monosodium L-glutamate; 0.45 mg of sodium phosphate dibasic; 0.08 mg of potassium phosphate monobasic; 0.08 mg of potassium chloride; residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein; and trace quantities of sodium phosphate monobasic; EDTA; neomycin, and fetal bovine serum. The product contains no preservative…”

 Translation:   The culture medium is human embryonic lung cells, from an aborted fetus, embryonic guinea pig cell cultures, WI 38 which is a different cell line from another aborted fetus, and another aborted fetus labeled MRC-5.

 

 “…The nearly 2 m g of unmodified mammalian DNA in each dose of Varivax exceeds that present in any other approved childhood vaccine…” Other vaccines also contain unmodified DNA, but chickenpox contains more than the others.

 

A medical study was done to see if any of the 293 people vaccinated with Varivax developed anti-DNA antibodies from residual fetal tissue/DNA in the vaccine. The study stated that there were no significant changes in anti-DNA antibody, or the frequency of elevated anti-DNA titers. However, if these people have had other vaccines, which already contain human DNA, and they already have anti-DNA antibodies, exactly what does the ‘significance’ mean?   Another possibility considered was that the human DNA present in Varivax might integrate into and transform the vaccinated person’s cells. A Human Rights Committee on karyolitic controls of human substrates proposed limits for chromosomal abnormalities in human diploid cell lines used to manufacture biologic products. These guidelines have become:

 

“…generally accepted upper limits for chromosomal abnormalities. A clonal 7; 12 chromosomal translocation in the MRC-5 cells used to produce some lots of Varivax exceeded these limits for structural abnormalities. To evaluate the theoretical concerns raised by this observation Merck undertook a comprehensive assessment of MRC-5 (aborted fetal) cells to document that they were not tumorigenic. MRC-5 cells from the cell banks used to produce vaccine did not produce tumors when injected into nude mice, reached senescence normally, and did not exhibit a malignant phenotype. Cells bearing the 7; 12 translocation did not proliferate preferentially during the lifetime of the cell line in comparison with MRC-5 cells lacking the translocation. No human disease associated with abnormalities involving a 7; 12 translocation has been reported. Outside experts concurred with the FDA’s assessment that the risk of MRC-5 DNA’s inducing a malignant transformation in vaccinees under the condition of vaccination was exceedingly low…” (J Pediatrics 1995; 127:518-25)

 

 

This information will simply ‘prove’ to doctors that the vaccine is safe, but far from reassuring or proven. Varivax contains 2 mg of WI 38 and MRC-5 which are two aborted fetuses. The chromosomal abnormalities in this cell line exceed the currently accepted upper limits. Merck assumed a comprehensive assessment to document that they were not oncogenic. Also stated:

 

“…Detectable infectious agents were not present in the material used to produce Varivax, nor were they introduced during the manufacturing process…”

 

The key word is “detectable”. You can only find what you have a test to identify and what you are looking for. Fetal bovine serum, including batches previously passed by the FDA and WHO, has been documented to be contaminated with several different viruses in the past.  New viruses every year come out, and new tests have to be made to test for them. There is no guarantee that these vaccines do not contain something that is unable to be detected, but advanced testing might show it in the future. So the answer for manufacturers is to protect themselves with the word ‘detectable’. This way they can only be held liable in the future for those things which were able to be identified at the date of manufacture.

 

 

Testing and Safety of Varivax Vaccine:

 

“Pregnancy: the possible effects of the vaccine on fetal development are unknown at this time. However, natural varicella is known to sometimes cause fetal harm… the duration of protection is unknown … vaccination should be deferred for at least 5 months following blood or plasma transfusions, immune globulin or varicella zoster immune globulin … vaccine recipients should avoid use of salicylates for 6 weeks after vaccination as Reye’s syndrome has been reported following the use of salicylates during natural varicella infection … Varivax should be deferred in patients with a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency until the patient’s own immune system has been evaluated … post- marketing experience suggests that transmission of vaccine virus may occur rarely between healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella- like rash and healthy susceptible contacts…” (Merck, Sharpe &Dohme, 1999)

 

Varivax has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or its potential to impair fertility. It is not known whether varicella vaccine virus is secreted in human milk. No clinical data are available on safety or efficacy of Varivax in children less than one year of age, and administration to infants under 12 months of age is not recommended.

 

Multiple trials and post licensing studies and testing of vaccinees in the U.S. were conducted in communities where natural, or wild type, varicella incidence was still high. Estimates of the vaccine effectiveness, and the duration of immunity were overestimated and distorted because of the immunologic boosting alluded to by Merck. When natural varicella remains high in the community, it boosts immunity in vaccinees that received a single dose and there were no adverse effects on the closely related herpes-zoster epidemiology. (Seward et al.2004) www.medicalveritas.com/R0010.pdf 

For more in depth information: Medical Veritas   

 

In 2007, the CDC published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that stated Merck’s VARIVAX vaccine has a high failure rate and mass vaccination of children has caused the disease to occur in older age groups. Now the CDC states children between 4 and 6 years old need a booster dose and a third booster may be needed for teenagers.

In 2000, the FDA reported that during the first three years of the vaccine’s use, 1 in 33,000 doses was followed by shock, convulsions, encephalitis, thrombocytopenia or death. Roughly 82 percent of the adverse event reports to VAERS occurred in those who only received the chicken pox vaccine. This led to the addition of 17 adverse events to the Merck product label which  include secondary bacterial infections or cellulitis; secondary transmission, transverse myelitis; GBS, and herpes zoster. In 2000, VAERS received reports of brain inflammation, convulsions, vaccine strain chicken pox, shingles, regressive autism and other serious health problems following injection of Varivax, or in combination with MMR, DTaP, influenza, pneumococcal and/or other vaccines.

Even if chickenpox was nearly eradicated by vaccination, the higher number of shingles cases could continue in the US for up to 50 years.

      

 

In 2006, the FDA approved Merck’s shingles vaccine, ZOSTAVAX, for adults 60 years and older who have had chickenpox previously. The ACIP soon afterwards recommended it for all adults over 60 regardless of whether they had chickenpox previously or not. ZOSTAVAX is similar to Merck’s Varivax but is 14 times more potent.

“The principal reason that chicken pox vaccines in Japan maintained high levels of immunity 20 years following vaccination was that only 1 in 5 Japanese children were voluntarily vaccinated. Those vaccinated received immunologic boosting from contact with children with natural chickenpox. But the mandatory vaccination program in the U.S. will nearly eradicate this natural boosting mechanism and leave our population vulnerable to shingles.”

 

 

 

 

Vaccines provide temporary, qualitatively inferior immunity compared to immunity achieved after natural recovery from disease. And just as mass antibiotic use has put pressure on organisms to evolve into antibiotic resistant forms, mass vaccine use can put pressure on organisms to mutate into vaccine resistant forms.

 The Shingles Vaccine

 With the increasing use of Varicella vaccine, HZ incidence among adults increased 90%, from 2.77/1000 to 5.25/1000 in the period 1998 to 2003. (Yih et al. 2005).

 

 The Varicella Active Surveillance Project conducting active surveillance of HZ in the Antelope Valley region of California since 2000 found that Zoster cases among adults aged 20 years and older increased 18% from 237 cases in 2000 to 279 in 2001 with increases in nearly every 10-year age group from 20–29 through 60–69.  Young adults from the pre-vaccine era, experienced the greatest percentage increase in cases.

 

 Vaccination of adults has seldom been successful and adults tend to experience a higher rate of adverse effects versus children. Varicella vaccination is considered safe but there are no prescreening tests to determine whether an adverse reaction is likely to occur (Poser 2003). The medical literature contains a number of adverse reactions following varicella vaccination.

 

 The Oxman et al. 2005 study looked at adverse effects in one-sixth of the subjects during 42 days following vaccination. Kaufman states:

 

“Extrapolating the results to 19,273 subjects in the whole treatment group, this group had 132 more cases (0.7%) of one or more serious adverse events and 4,677 more cases (24%) of one or more adverse events than the placebo group.”

 

There is evidence already that Zostavax can induce autoimmunity or worsen a pre-existing autoimmune disorder and raise the risk of heart disease conditions.

 

 An FDA review of the Zostavax clinical data concluded that the vaccine was effective at reducing shingles pain but did not significantly reduce shingles related hospitalizations or death. In the Shingles Prevention Study, which enrolled 38,546 patients, the vaccine reduced the rate of shingles in persons 60 or older by half, and reduced the rate of postherpetic neuralgia by 66.5%. Those results were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. The 5 and ½ year-trial randomized 19,270 patients to the active vaccine. The vaccine reduced the burden of illness due to herpes zoster by 61%, reduced the rate of postherpetic neuralgia by 66.5%, and reduced the rate of herpes zoster by 51.3%.

An Adverse Events Monitoring Study (AEMS) was conducted to look at safety. In this smaller study, serious adverse events for all age groups were noted in 1.9% of Zostavax patients, versus 1.3% of patients receiving placebo in the 42 days following vaccination. In the entire study population, the rates of overall cardiovascular events (0.4%) including coronary artery disease related conditions (0.2%) were similar in those vaccinated with Zostavax or placebo. In the AEMS substudy, during the first 42 days after vaccination, the rate of overall cardiovascular events was higher after 0.6% after Zostavax versus 0.4% after placebo. The rate of coronary artery disease-related conditions was slightly higher in Zostavax arm (0.3% versus 0.2%).

  

 

The U.S. Universal Varicella Vaccination Program and its cost-benefit analysis is no longer valid because most communities with widespread varicella vaccine coverage are still getting chicken pox. A single dose was touted as providing lifelong immunity when it does not. There is an immunologically-mediated link between varicella incidence and HZ incidence and the vaccine is not safe. See Vaers reports.

 

 Primary Vaccine Failure after 1 Dose of Varicella Vaccine in Healthy Children
The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2008; 197:944–949

Universal immunization of young children with 1 dose of varicella vaccine was recommended in the United States in 1995, and it has significantly decreased the incidence of chickenpox. Outbreaks of varicella, however, are reported among vaccinated children. Although vaccine effectiveness has usually been 85%, rates as low as 44% have been observed. Whether this is from primary or secondary vaccine failure—or both—is unclear. We tested serum samples from 148 healthy children immunized against varicella in New York, Tennessee, and California to determine their seroconversion rates, before and after 1 dose of Merck/Oka varicella vaccine. The median age at vaccination was 12.5 months; postvaccination serum samples were obtained on average 4 months later. Serum was tested for antibodies against varicella-zoster virus (VZV) by use of the previously validated sensitive and specific fluorescent antibody to membrane antigen (FAMA) assay. Of 148 healthy child vaccinees, 113 (76%) seroconverted, and 24% had no detectable VZV FAMA antibodies. Our data contrast with reported seroconversion rates of 86%–96% by other VZV antibody tests and suggest that many cases of varicella in immunized children are due to primary vaccine failure. A second dose of varicella vaccine is expected to increase seroconversion rates and vaccine effectiveness.

 

Second Dose of Varicella Vaccine for Children: Are We Giving It Too Late?

The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2008; 197:944–949

A large case-control study indicated that the vaccine’s overall effectiveness up to 8 years after immunization was 87% [7]. Thus, although the vaccination program certainly was effective, “breakthrough” varicella (varicella in persons who had previously received varicella vaccine) occurred with some frequency. Since most breakthrough disease is mild, why does this matter? In the first place, children with breakthrough disease are able to transmit the virus to others, which has resulted in numerous disruptive outbreaks of varicella in day-care centers and in schools despite high rates of immunization at many of these sites [8–9]. Moreover, approximately one-third of children with breakthrough varicella have moderate or severe disease, and there has been at least one death in an immunized child. In addition, those who have had breakthrough varicella may be at higher risk of subsequently developing zoster than are immunized persons.

In June 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that a second dose of varicella vaccine be administered routinely to children [24]. Although the vaccine can be given as soon as 3 months after the first dose, it is recommended that it be administered between 4 and 6 years of age. This is largely because a combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMR-V) vaccine was approved in October, 2005 [25, 26]. As a result, both the first and second doses of varicella vaccine are easily given at the same time as MMR vaccine via this combined vaccine at 12–15 months and 4–6 years of age, respectively. This allows the second dose of the vaccine to be administered without requiring an additional injection in the already crowded schedule for childhood immunizations. However, if the substantial number of cases of breakthrough varicella is due to primary, rather than secondary, vaccine failure, this timing for the second dose risks leaving a substantial number of children susceptible for several years until they receive the second dose and may diminish its impact on the epidemiology of the disease.

To further complicate matters, the amount of varicella virus in monovalent varicella vaccine and in MMR-V vaccine differs substantially, because varicella vaccine is less immunogenic when combined with MMR vaccine in the same preparation. Monovalent varicella vaccine contains a minimum of 1350 pfu per dose, whereas MMR-V vaccine contains a minimum of 9700 pfu of varicella vaccine per dose (according to the package insert labeling) [27]. The few data available have indicated that, after 2 doses of monovalent vaccine, titers of antibody to VZV, as measured by gpELISA, increase by a factor of 12 but that, after 2 doses of MMR-V vaccine, titers may increase up to 40-fold [16, 28, 29]. However, immunogenicity of MMR-V vaccine has not been assessed using the clinically validated FAMA assay. Moreover, because of problems with production at Merck [30], MMR-V vaccine is either not available at this time or is in short supply, and most children are receiving monovalent vaccine. There is uncertainty about if and when MMR-V vaccine will again become available.

 

 

 

 

Chicken Pox/Shingles Treatment

•  Vitamins A and C are the vitamin treatment of choice. Chickenpox can require large doses, but Shingles requires much larger doses. Selenium and Zinc are also beneficial.
• Avoid sugar and undiluted fruit juices.

   

   

•  Mint tea made with lemon balm or other mints may be beneficial: hyssop, oregano, peppermint, rosemary, sage, self-heal, spearmint or thyme. These are antiviral, anti-herpetic compounds. If there are spots in the throat, you can add licorice root. You could mix it with pear juice which is rich in antiviral caffeic acid.
• Keep the skin clean and cool with frequent baths using 1 cup baking soda or 5 drops lavender essential oil in the bath water. Rubbing the juice from the fresh stems of aloe vera can also help the itching. Cider vinegar neat, used as compresses, changes the skin PH and when held against the pox spots can kill surface virus particularly where the blister is broken. No pox virus can survive a ph of 3.
• An oil mix, for adults, is bergamot, chamomile, eucalyptus, geranium, lavender, lemon and tea tree oil… as above, or dilute them by adding 5 drops each to a couple of tablespoons of vegetable oil and apply them directly to rash if painful.
• Epsom salts baths with oat straw/oatmeal-one cup per bath in a bag, hung under the hot water tap, and then float it, for children who are tense and itchy.
• Echinacea and goldenseal combination helps prevent bacterial infections of the sores. So can Calendula (1 tsp tincture – 4 tsp water)
• For severe, Lysine (an essential amino acid) inhibits replication of both chickenpox and shingles. Use 2,000 mg a day as a supplement (or smaller doses in children). Lysine works by blocking the virus’s ability to absorb arginine.
• For pain in both children and adults, often the person is vitamin B deficient. For shingles in older adults, if nerve pain is severe B12 injections along with some of the others orally can relieve the pain, and shorten the course of illness.
• If a bacterial infection looks like its setting in, a capsule of Transfer Factor may help. Breast milk, if available, may do the same.
• Shingles is triggered by stress, and stress pulls out huge amounts of B-vitamins from the body. People with shingles need B supplementation.
• For both chickenpox and shingles in adults, Hydrogen Peroxide gel, every 2 – 3 hours helps dry and heal blisters.
• Alpha Lipoic acid is another some doctors prescribe for shingles in adults. It’s an antioxidant, and helps keep the scarring of both chickenpox and shingles to a minimum. It may affect blood sugar levels, so use with care with diabetics.
• Pharmaceutical treatment for shingles is dependent upon symptom alleviation using drugs like prednisone and acyclovir.

 

CHICKEN POX: Why Do Children Die?

 

Age of Autism-Proquad Series:

Part 1    Part 2      Part 3      Part 4   Part 5     Part 6     Part 7

 

 

 

 

Mumps

The skinny on Mumps.

 

  Mumps Treatment

•  Warm or cool compresses can be applied to the swollen glands to help relieve pain/tenderness  
• A diet of soft foods and lots of fluids 
• Eliminate fatty foods  
• Beta-carotene(vitamin A) helps heal mucous membranes
• Vitamin C and bioflavonoid help stimulate immune system
• Zinc-promotes healing and stimulates immune system
• Arnica or Peppermint Oil used as a rub can relieve headache
• For restlessness- Chamomile tea
• Echinacea or goldenseal combination helps to fight viruses and boost immune system. Soothes mucous membranes
• Castor Oil-soothing to swollen glands (heat but not too hot)and soak clean cotton cloth in it and apply compresses as often as needed

 

 Mumps vaccine can become a risk to men. Young male adults are at risk of Orchitis because they did not catch mumps harmlessly when children. The MMR vaccination has not been effective in conferring full or lasting immunity across an entire population.  As a result, Mumps outbreaks have been pushed into older age groups.  Mumps now circulates in colleges and universities, not only in the U.S. but the U.K. and other countries that routinely vaccinate for Mumps.

  

Mumps in Iowa 2006

 

 Of the 219 cases reported in Iowa, the median patient age was 21 years (range: 3–85 years), with 48% of patients aged 17–25 years; 30% (34 of 114) were known to be college students. Of the 133 patients with investigated vaccine history, 87 (65%) had documentation of receiving 2 doses, 19 (14%) 1 dose, and eight (6%) no doses; vaccine status could not be documented in 19 (14%) patients. Among the 114 patients for whom symptomatic information was available, the most common symptoms were parotitis in 94 (83%) patients, submaxillary/sublingual gland swelling in 46 (40%), fever in 41 (36%), and sore throat in 36 (32%); average duration of illness was 5.1 days. Six (5%) patients reported complications (e.g., orchitis); one suspected case of encephalitis is being investigated. As of March 28, 2006, investigators had determined that only 36 (16%) of the 219 cases were linked epidemiologically (i.e., a source of infection was identified), suggesting frequent unapparent transmission. 

Despite control efforts and a highly vaccinated population, this epidemic has spread across Iowa and potentially to neighboring states.

 

Maine Outbreak 2007

The Mumps vaccine may need adjusting according to researchers. Scientists at the CDC investigated the Mumps cases and found that most of them were in people who had been vaccinated. College students were especially vulnerable during the outbreaks, even though they had received two doses of the vaccine as children. Immunity from the vaccine appears to wear off over time in some patients.

Summary of Maine Mumps Data 2007-2008

 

Long-Term Persistence of Mumps Antibody after Receipt of 2 Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccinations and Antibody Response after a Third MMR Vaccination among a University Population.   (The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2008;197:1662–1668)

 

Conclusions.  Lower levels of NA observed among persons who received MMR2 15 years ago demonstrates antibody decay over time. MMR3 vaccination of most seronegative persons marked the capacity to mount an anamnestic response.

 Most of the college students who got the mumps in a big outbreak in 2006 had received the recommended two vaccine shots, according to a study that raises questions about whether a new vaccine or another booster shot is needed.

 

Mumps Cases Stun Experts

Most students sickened in 2006 had the recommended two vaccine shots, stirring debate on possible changes.

 Nearly 6,600 people became sick with the mumps, mostly in eight Midwestern states, and the hardest-hit group was college students ages 18 to 24. Of those in that group who knew whether they had been vaccinated, 84 percent had had two mumps shots, according to the study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments.

That “two-dose vaccine failure” startled public health experts, who hadn’t expected immunity to wane so soon — if at all.

The mumps virus involved was a relatively new strain in the U.S., not the one targeted by the vaccine; although there’s evidence the shots work well against the new strain.

 

MMR Vaccine

MMR vaccine is it safe or effective? You be the judge based on the medical literature that is available to you.

 

 The MMR vaccine consists of 3 live viruses for Measles, Mumps and Rubella. The MMR-V has live chicken pox added to the mix. It contains a weakened or partially inactivated, live measles virus which is grown in cell cultures of a chick embryo. A weakened live strain of mumps virus is grown in cell cultures of a chick embryo. A weakened Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus which is grown in human diploid cell (W-38) culture originating from the tissues of a fetus aborted in 1964. There is no preservative such as Thimerosal(mercury). It contains the antibiotic neomycin, and Sorbitol and Hydrolyzed Gelatin as stabilizers. All three live viruses are available as single vaccines but doctors will most often tell you they are not available, or refuse to give them as separate vaccines.

 

 How it can shed to others:

 

Mumps vaccine virus genome is present in throat swabs obtained from uncomplicated healthy recipients. 
  
Seven children were followed for up to 42 days post-vaccination with live mumps vaccine and 37 throat swabs were obtained serially. Viral genomic RNA was detected by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in the phosphoprotein (P) and hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) regions. Virus isolation was also attempted. Genomic differentiation of detected mumps virus genome was performed by sequence analysis and/or restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). No adverse reaction was observed in these children. Although mumps virus was not isolated from any of the samples, viral RNA was detected in four samples from three vaccine recipients, 18, 18 and 26, and 7 days after vaccination, respectively. Detected viral RNA was identified as the vaccine strain. Our data suggests that vaccine virus inoculated replicates in the parotid glands but the incidence of virus transmission from recipients to other susceptible subjects should be low. 

 

Detection of measles vaccine in the throat of a vaccinated child. 
   
Measles vaccine is widely used, most often in association with mumps and rubella vaccines. We report here the case of a child presenting with fever 8 days after vaccination with a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Measles virus was isolated in a throat swab taken 4 days after fever onset. This virus was then further genetically characterised as a vaccine-type virus. Fever occurring subsequent to measles vaccination is related to the replication of the live attenuated vaccine virus. In the case presented here, the vaccine virus was isolated in the throat, showing that subcutaneous injection of an attenuated measles strain can result in respiratory excretion of this virus. 
 

 Reactions to MMR Vaccine are Triphasic:

Any reactions that are 6 – 14 days are the measles component and usually show as temperature and rash, and sometimes seizures.

The second phase is between 11 and 32 days which is the mumps components. This can consist of temperature, seizures, and acquiring mumps.

The third phase can occur within the first 0 – 30 days, and is the rubella component. It can cause joint pain or arthritis. This most often occurs in adolescents and adults, and perhaps babies, but they wouldn’t be able to tell you.

 

  

 Delaying MMR until a child is older makes it ‘safer’? The reality is there is no ‘safe’ time to delay as reactions can occur at any time if the conditions are right. A 6 year old, or 12 year old child, or a young adult can have serious reactions or death associated with the vaccine. Parents can opt to have titer tests done first.

 

 

 

The CDC, AAP, FDA, NIH, etc., can say what they wish to the public and promote MMR and its safety, continue to put their heads in the sand, and talk out their rear ends, but let’s get real and look at some of the studies:

AAP Study: Relationship b/t MMR & Encephalitis w/ Perm. Brain Injury or Death.

  

 

The purpose of this study of claims submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is to determine whether or not there is evidence for a causal relationship between the first dose of a currently used attenuated measles vaccine, MR, MMR, mumps, or rubella vaccine and encephalopathy of undetermined cause with permanent brain injury or death that occurred within 15 days after administration.

A total of 403 [compensation] claims of encephalopathy and/or seizure disorder after measles, MR, MMR, mumps, or rubella vaccination were identified during this 23-year period [1970-1993]. Of these claims, 48 (25 males and 23 females) met the inclusion criteria and acquired an acute encephalopathy of undetermined cause 2 to 15 days after receiving measles vaccine, MR, or MMR. This acute encephalopathy was followed by permanent brain impairment or death. The patients ranged in age from 10 months to 49 months, with a median age of 15 months and a mean age of 17.5 months.

Results
A total of 48 children, ages 10 to 49 months, met the inclusion criteria after receiving measles vaccine, alone or in combination. Eight children died, and the remainder had mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurologic signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine.

Conclusions
This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization

 

 

  Former science chief: ‘MMR fears coming true’

 He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”

 In the late Seventies, Dr Fletcher served as Chief Scientific Officer at the DoH and Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines, meaning he was responsible for deciding if new vaccines were safe.

He first expressed concerns about MMR in 2001, saying safety trials before the vaccine’s introduction in Britain were inadequate.

Now he says the theoretical fears he raised appear to be becoming reality.

He said the rising tide of autism cases and growing scientific understanding of autism-related bowel disease have convinced him the MMR vaccine may be to blame.

“Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,” he said. “There’s no one conclusive piece of scientific evidence, no ‘smoking gun’, because there very rarely is when adverse drug reactions are first suspected. When vaccine damage in very young children is involved, it is harder to prove the links.

“But it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There’s far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so.”

 “Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR’s introduction, and an extremely worrying increase in childhood inflammatory bowel diseases and immune disorders such as diabetes, and no one in authority will even admit it’s happening, let alone try to…

 

 

   Very informative presentation:

The Seat of the Soul- The Origins of the Autism Epidemic

 

Sally Beck wrote an article on the study at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina titled “Scientists fear MMR link to autism”, which was similar to the one reported by Andrew Wakefield, MD, in 1998.

In the American study, 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease
were evaluated. Of the 82 children completely tested, 70 proved positive for
the measles virus. Beck quoted Stephen Walker, MD, the team leader as
saying, “Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain
and none are wild measles. This research proves that in the gastrointestinal
tract of a number of children, who have been diagnosed with regressive
autism, there is evidence of measles virus.”

Very little was reported about the Wake Forest research in the American media. But with no surprise, immediately afterwards, this came out:

Reuters Health Information in New York published an account of a different study headlined “No Evidence of Measles Virus in MMR-Vaccinated Autistic Children.” It said “contrary to the findings of some earlier studies, measles virus genetic material was not detected in the blood of MMR-vaccinated autistic children with development regression, according to a report in the Journal of Medical Virology for May.”

 

 

 

So here we have two studies that are contradictory. What are the differences between the two studies?

 

 

 

 In the U.S. study, measles virus genomic RNA was actually found in the gut of 70 affected children and the viral results of another 200 children with typical gut pathology are still pending.

In the U.K. study, the researchers “could not detect” measles virus genetic material in the blood of 15 MMR-vaccinated children with autism.

It is essential to also point out that the above-mentioned M.A. Afzal is not N.A. Afzal, a pediatric gastroenterologist attached to the Centre for Pediatric Gastroenterology at The Royal Free Hospital, London, U.K. It was at the Royal Free Hospital that Andrew Wakefield practiced gastroenterology for years and where he was the shining star before he dared to “rock the boat” and was forced to resign. It is also at the Royal Free and University College Medical School in London that Brent Taylor, one of Wakefield’s most vocal critics, is professor of community pediatrics. N.A. Afzal published his first study with the Royal Free team in December 2002.  He published two more studies in 2004 and one in 2005. The abstracts of all four studies did not contain any reference to autism and vaccines.

M.A. Afzal, on the other hand, is a member of the virology department at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC). The Institute is a respected multi-disciplinary scientific establishment with national and international roles in the standardization and control of biological substances including viral and bacterial vaccines. Since 1976, the institute has been directly funded by the United Kingdom Health Departments.

But back to M.A. Afzal of the NIBSC, who according to Reuters was certain in 2006 that the measles virus material genuinely did not exist in the patients ‘ blood samples because he and his team did not find it. He must have been aware that a Japanese team from Tokyo University led by H. Kawashima had found the same “genetic material” in the blood of children with autism in 2000: “In order to characterize the strains that may be present, we have carried out the detection of measles genomic RNA in peripheral mononuclear cells (PBMC) in eight patients with Crohn’s disease, three patients with ulcerative colitis, and nine children with autistic enterocolitis…”

Kawashima discovered and reported that “the sequences obtained from the children with autism were consistent with being vaccine strains” and that the results were concordant with the exposure history of those children.

 

 

So how come Team Tokyo found vaccine-strain measles virus genomic RNA in peripheral mononuclear cells of vaccinated autistic children in 2000 and Team U.K. found nothing in 2006? The answer to that perplexing and rather sensitive question may be in a very interesting study that was published in the Journal of Medical Virology in May 2003, titled appropriately “Comparative evaluation of measles virus-specific RT-PCR methods through an international collaborative study” and authored by both Afzal and Kawashima, in addition to renowned experts A.D. Osterhaus, S.L. Cosby, L. Jin, J. Beeler and K. Takeuchi.

 

 

Measles infection and inflammatory bowel disease

Afzal and colleagues published “Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in inflammatory bowel disease tissues and peripheral blood lymphocytes” in the Journal of Medical Virology.  According to the authors, in spite of using a “highly sensitive measles-specific RT-PCR-nested PCR system,” they failed to detect the presence of measles virus in 93 colon biopsies and 31 peripheral blood lymphocyte preparations, examined and obtained from patients with IBD and non-inflammatory controls.

It seems from the above that M.A. Afzal was looking for evidence of viral presence in the colon (large intestine) and did not find any. Wakefield had better luck, a little later, when he looked for such evidence in the ileum. Afzal was certainly aware that the children tested by the Royal Free Team had ileal lymphonodular hyperplasia.

 

(Lancet. 1998.Feb 28; 351(9103): 646-7. PMID: 9500326) (J Med Virol. 2003 May; 70(1): 171-6. PMID: 12629660) (Absence of measles-virus genome in inflammatory bowel disease. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998 Aug; 30(4): 378-82. PMID: 9789132)  (Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in inflammatory bowel disease tissues and peripheral blood lymphocytes. J Med Virol. 1998 Jul; 55(3): 243-9.)

 

 

 

 

 

  Measles virus and Crohn’s disease

In April 1999, Wakefield, Montgomery and Pounder published “Crohn’s disease: the case for measles virus.”  They reported, “We and others have suggested that measles virus may be causally related to Crohn’s disease, and that the associated risk is an atypical pattern of exposure. The data for Crohn’s disease suggest that persistent infection may follow early low dose exposure and low zone immunological tolerance. The changing pattern of measles virus exposure this century would be consistent with a shift toward lower dose of infection. Such an exposure would also be consistent with persistence of the virus at very low copy number within discrete foci of granulomatous inflammation..”  Afzal, Minor, Armitage and Gosh published “Measles virus and Crohn’s disease” in June of the same year.  

(2000: MMR Wakefield AJ, Montgomery SM, Pounder RE. Crohn’s disease: the case for measles virus. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999 Apr; 31(3): 247-54. Review. PMID: 10379489.)  (Afzal MA, Minor PD, Armitage E, Ghosh S. Measles virus and Crohn’s disease. Gut. 1999 Jun; 44(6): 896-7. PMID: 10375297 Safety Review.)

“Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: through a glass, darkly,” Wakefield and Montgomery reviewed the safety testing of MMR vaccine or lack thereof.

(Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease. Mol Pathol. 2002 Apr; 55(2): 84-90. PMID: 11950955)

In “Clinical safety issues of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines,” Afzal, Minor and Schild did not directly respond but essentially reviewed all the studies that had been done by the anti-Wakefield camp and had failed to identify the presence of measles virus genomic RNA in patients with IBD. In the available abstract, M.A. Afzal stated, “Based on the published data reviewed here, it can be concluded that there is no direct association between measles virus or measles vaccines and the development of Crohn’s disease, a conclusion which is supported by most epidemiological findings.” (Bull World Health Organ. 2000; 78(2): 199-204. Review. PMID: 10743285)

As to the safety of the MMR vaccine, the Cochrane MMR Review: “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”

 

April 2002

 

In “Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease,” Uhlmann and associates, including Wakefield, published results of their meticulous research. It revealed that “75 of 91 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of ileal lymphonodular hyperplasia and enterocolitis were positive for measles virus in their intestinal tissue compared with five of 70 control patients. Measles virus was identified within the follicular dendritic cells and some lymphocytes in foci of reactive follicular hyperplasia. The copy number of measles virus ranged from one to 300,00 copies/ng total RNA.” The authors concluded, “The data confirm an association between the presence of measles virus and gut pathology in children with developmental disorder.” 

 

(Dig Dis Sci. 2000. Apr; 45(4): 723-9.)

 

March 2008-

 

 

MMR: Vaccine can cause blood disorder

 There’s more bad news for advocates of the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine with the discovery this week that it can cause a blood disorder.  Researchers have found that it may trigger immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), an immune system malfunction that destroys the body’s own blood platelets. The effect seems to last for an average of seven days, during which time the child’s platelet count could fall.

The risk is relatively low, say researchers, and one case of ITP will be caused per 40,000 vaccinations.  The risk appears to last for up to 42 days after vaccination.

Researchers from Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver analyzed the health profiles of more than 1 million children who had been vaccinated.  Of these, 259 developed ITP, and they reckon the vaccine was responsible for 76 per cent of these cases.

(Source: Pediatrics, 2008; 121: e687-e692).

 

 

 

Persistence of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Antibodies in an MMR-Vaccinated Cohort: A 20-Year Follow-up.

 

Conclusions.  A high rate of seropositivity was found 20 years after the first MMR dose, particularly for rubella and measles. Our results show that MMR vaccine–induced antibodies wane significantly after the second dose. According to epidemiological data, the protection induced by MMR vaccination in Finland seems to persist at least until early adulthood. However, the situation requires constant vigilance. (The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2008;197:950–956)

 

 MMR vaccine and Tylenol Use:

 Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: The results of a parent survey.

The present study was performed to determine whether acetaminophen (paracetamol) use after the measles-mumps-rubella vaccination could be associated with autistic disorder. This case-control study used the results of an online parental survey conducted from 16 July 2005 to 30 January 2006, consisting of 83 children with autistic disorder and 80 control children. Acetaminophen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was significantly associated with autistic disorder when considering children 5 years of age or less (OR 6.11, 95% CI 1.42-26.3), after limiting cases to children with regression in development (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.11-14.3), and when considering only children who had post-vaccination sequelae (OR 8.23, 95% CI 1.56-43.3), adjusting for age, gender, mother’s ethnicity, and the presence of illness concurrent with measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Ibuprofen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was not associated with autistic disorder. This preliminary study found that acetaminophen use after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination was associated with autistic disorder.

 We know that acetaminophen impairs the glutathione pathways, as well as hormone balance. The glutathione pathways are the same ones involved in naturally “chelating” out metals. Acetaminophen can also suppress the immune system and when given with Gardasil, results in a lower antibody development. Thus it can crash some aspects of the immune system. So, if autism results from a situation where if the immune system is suppressed and nutrition isn’t quite right, the body is not able to clear out heavy metals, and then anything can make that situation worse and contribute to the problem. This study does not mean that MMR is not implicated, but that Acetaminophen was part of an overall negative equation.

 

Proquad

 Children suffered higher rates of fever-related convulsions when they received the combination vaccine Proquad instead of two separate shots. The study (Nicola P. Klein, MD, PhD, a research scientist from Northern California Kaiser Permanente and co-director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center) which included children ages 12 months through 23 months, found the rate of seizures was twice as high in toddlers who got ProQuad, compared with those who got separate shots for MMR and Chicken Pox (Varicella vaccine).

ProQuad was licensed in 2005 but had suspended production because of manufacturing problems. There is five times more chickenpox antigen in the ProQuad shot than in the Varicella vaccine.

 

ACIP approves MMRV vaccine revision 2008

Possible increased risk for febrile seizures found among children aged 12 to 23 months after receipt of MMRV vaccine.

“MMRV vaccine has not been widely distributed in the United States since June 2007 and is not expected to be available again until 2009; however, some providers might still have some supply in stock,” she said. “As far as postvaccination safety monitoring, in October 2007 following FDA review of adverse event reports submitted to VAERS and Merck’s worldwide adverse experience system, MMRV vaccine labeling was updated to include convulsion and febrile seizures among adverse reactions postvaccination.”

Quick Picks:

 

According to The New England Journal of Medicine, 60 percent of all measles cases among American school children between 1985 and 1986 occurred in those who were vaccinated.

  The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study in 1986, which showed that among 235 cases of student measles reported in Dane County, Wisconsin; more than 96 percent had received a measles vaccine. A study reported in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found that 58 percent of 1600 cases of measles in Quebec, Canada, in 1989 occurred in those who had already been vaccinated.  The World Health Organization has conceded that those administered the measles vaccine have a 14 times greater likelihood of contracting the disease than those who remain unvaccinated.

 

 Jamie Murphy “The vaccine can never duplicate the kind of immunity that we get from nature…When children get the measles after they’ve been vaccinated, they’re getting it from the vaccine and the virus (because there’s so much virus in the vaccine that stays in the body). When their resistance becomes lowered, that can become reactivated. Also, when a natural epidemic of measles occurs, as it does every three to four years in the United States, those children who have been vaccinated, because they did not get a true immunity from the vaccine, become susceptible to measles.”

 Vera Scheibner reports that “In April 1993, the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Japan decided to discontinue the use of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (Sawada et al., 1993). This decision was prompted by published reports of vaccinated children and their (unvaccinated) contacts contracting mumps from the MMR vaccine, and reports of one in 1044 vaccinees developing encephalitis.”

 

A study published in 1994 in the Archives of Internal Medicine evaluated all U.S. and Canadian articles reporting measles outbreaks in schools, and found that, on average, 77 percent of all measles cases in these outbreaks were occurring among vaccinated individuals. The authors concluded that “the apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.

 

 In 2007, a study performed at the National Institute of Communicable Diseases in South Africa reviewed the increase in mumps outbreaks in the UK and US. In the US, 56,000 cases were reported in 2004-2005. Many of these cases are occurring on college campuses. A mumps outbreak at a New York summer camp found that 96% of those infected had prior vaccination coverage. A similar outbreak in Nova Scotia among vaccinated adolescents and young adults has also been reviewed and it was found that the virus’ genotype was the same as that in the UK and US. These recent outbreaks have raised concerns among scientists about the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in the MMR. According to the South African scientist, there may be a waning immunity towards mumps in the vaccinated population, which in time could make the vaccine ineffective. Belgian scientists came to the conclusion that the secondary mumps vaccination was a failure during a 2004 outbreak affecting 105 Belgian children from ages 3-12.

 Antibody levels 5 to 6 years after immunization with (the now discredited) high-potency EZ and high-potency Schwarz measles vaccine were insufficient in 40 percent and 50 percent of vaccinated children. The authors concluded, “Given the rapid decline in antibody titers over a 5- to 6-year period in an area where measles vaccine coverage was high, it seems likely that multiple-dose immunization schedules will be needed in the future to maintain protective antibody concentrations….”

 

As a consequence of the fact that antibody response to the vaccine virus is temporary, today we are facing cases of atypical measles occurring in infants under a year old, as well as in older children and in adults. Atypical measles is a severe disease that was first described in the early 70s in children, and later in adolescents and young adults exposed to the wild-type measles virus several years after being vaccinated with the killed or attenuated measles vaccine. The condition is characterized by atypical rash, high fever, cough, headache, and pneumonia. Further complications can include hepatitis, persistence of pulmonary lesions for several years, thrombocytopenia and other circulatory system problems, and cardiac involvement.

 

Another problem found with measles vaccination, documented in several studies, is that it produces immune suppression that contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections.

The 60% of people who were vaccinated in 1970 have caused many of them to be susceptible to natural measles, because the shots were given too early. This is also why most analyses which profess to have a scientific element, go from the 1973 licensure.

Atypical measles explained by James Cherry: (PMID: 14765342. Page 505).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measles

     Measles was once considered a harmless childhood disease just like Chicken Pox.  You exposed your child to it so they caught it and ‘got it over with’. No one feared measles, just as they did not fear Chicken Pox.

     The Measles vaccine had a low uptake in the past as parents did not want a vaccine for a virus such as Measles because it was considered self-limiting and benign. Children began receiving the vaccine more widely only after the 1977 Childhood Immunization Initiative  and school vaccine mandates were enforced.

     

     Measles can be a very useful disease in children. They can build a super immune system after having gone through measles. Children with eczema are often cured or relieved of any signs of the condition. Their speech often improves and they go through a maturation process. Many children have been known to make tremendous developmental strides after measles. In the past, when a child was on dialysis, a hospital might have encouraged parents to naturally expose and infect their child with measles because they saw great improvements in the child’s condition.

Even today, the childhood Immunization Initiative is in full force, but it has not stopped Measles from being eliminated.

  

History

 
     From 1963 – 1967 the U.S. had used the killed Measles vaccine. It had a very low uptake which was a good thing in retrospect as it was a disastrous vaccine. It was made with killed measles virus, which skewed the recipient’s immune systems, making them more susceptible to measles after just two years, but in a new form- “atypical measles”.  It was characterized by pneumonia, high fever, atypical rash and a high fatality rate. It was a disease which could be gotten repeatedly.  The vaccine was quickly and silently removed.

 

     A new live vaccine was licensed in 1967, but even that was not used extensively.  At first it was to be given to all infants at approximately 12 months of age. Then it was changed to 6 months, especially if there was measles going around. By 1979, they knew they had problems with this one as well. Babies vaccinated at 6 months of age developed what they called an ‘altered immune response’ which resulted in booster shots at 15 months. Nature published an article which showed that babies under one year of age have very different immune functions and responses than adults do, and simply could not handle the measles vaccine given at that age. It caused immune “energy” rather than an “altered” immune response. Again, these issues were kept quiet and uptake continued to be low. Doctors were encouraged not to report measles cases if possible, so that parents wouldn’t lose confidence in the vaccine. Therefore, you would hear terms such as ‘morbilli-like, or “red measles’.

 

     Since most epidemic outbreaks in the late 1980′s and early 1990’s occurred in  95 – 100% of vaccinated children, a second MMR ‘booster’ vaccine was added to the schedule. By 1990 the actual disease was much rarer, and was simply a continuation of a trend which had been going on right up until the 80′s even in the totally unvaccinated communities. (Clinical Pediatrics). Speaking of Booster shots, do all children need them? No.  The second dose, or booster shot, is to revaccinate the approximated 5% of people for whom the vaccine never worked the first time, also known as primary vaccine failure. That leaves us with roughly 95% getting revaccinated who may never have needed to be. Secondary vaccine failure is due to waning immunity, and even with a second dose schedule in childhood or early adulthood, outbreaks continue to occur in the vaccinated population.

 

 

     Health Departments like to say that keeping unvaccinated children away from vaccinated children will protect vaccinated children. They will also say that vaccines protect children. So isn’t that an oxymoron? If vaccines protect, aren’t they already vaccine ‘protected’?  Unfortunately the answer is no. In 1991 over 60% of Measles cases were in vaccinated children, and cases of Measles continue to occur in the vaccinated.

 

 

     If anyone should be wary of Measles transmission it is the unvaccinated from the vaccinated. Right in the package insert, it states that MMR vaccinated children can excrete Measles Virus and the Mumps virus into the environment. The Chicken Pox vaccine can also be excreted with the MMR-V or Varicella vaccine. Babies, unvaccinated, the immunodeficient, and even older persons can be at risk from newly vaccinated people. Why aren’t parents being told this?

 

 

Detection of measles vaccine in the throat of a vaccinated child.

 

Mumps vaccine virus genome is present in throat swabs obtained from uncomplicated healthy recipients.

 

 Some Basic Facts:

 

     The measles vaccine had nothing to do with the decline in deaths, and has not affected the number of children hospitalized during epidemic years since its introduction.

 

     Concerning the 1991 USA measles outbreak, over half the deaths were in the vaccinated and most deaths were in immunodeficeint people. (Washington Post. June 14, 1991, BMJ, 11 May, 1991). When news reports talk of Measles reported deaths or more serious injury, why don’t they tell the whole truth?

 

     In Africa, children who have a natural measles infection have half the asthma, allergies and eczema compared with their vaccinated peers. (Lancet, June 29, 1996) 

 

 

 

 

 

     The Germans considered the risks of the vaccine too high given  the fact that deaths and disease severity had decreased without any reference to a vaccine.  
 
     In the pre vaccine era, mothers’ antibodies protected babies for at least a year to a year and a half. Measles was mainly an infection of 5 – 9 year olds and by 15 yrs, 99% had antibodies. Today, adults and infants under one year of age are acquiring Measles which can be very serious.
 
     Vaccinated mothers cannot give protective antibodies to their babies, like Mothers’ who have had naturally acquired Measles, can. Therefore, young babies for whom measles can be more serious are no longer protected.  In the pre-vaccine era, babies rarely got measles before 18 months because maternal antibodies were very high as a result of natural immunity. Today maternal antibodies are generally so low from a vaccine that it simply does not prime the immune system like natural infection will. Babies are at risk of getting measles at younger and younger ages, because maternal antibodies no longer last 15 – 18 months. So if there is even the slightest nutritional or immunological problem, babies will have an increased danger from the measles virus, as there is a difference between the immune system of a baby and a toddler. Vaccinated babies who have maternal antibodies, or people who have measles suppressed with gamma globulin, can have a higher rate of  immunoreactive diseases, sebaceous skin diseases, degenerative cartilage,  bone disease, and certain tumors.  (Lancet, 5 Jan 1985) Also see: Maternal antibodies interfere with measles vaccination.

 

 

     Now think about this…A study published in BMJ years ago found that a select group of children tested, 50% of those with antibodies to measles had never had any clinical disease, and a small subgroup with rising titers also had no clinical symptoms. Non-symptomatic clinical measles was a common entity. This is also shown for Chicken Pox, and several other diseases. To use antibody statistics as proof of either how dangerous or widespread a disease is is a false argument. Measles, like some other diseases, are also dependant upon regular exposure to the bacteria. Which is why in the U.S. Measles is becoming common amongst older adults, who had it clinically as children. Their long term immunity has been jeopardized by the interruption of the bacteria in the environment, so that their levels are no longer automatically boosted every few years.

 

 

 

Measles Basics-

 

     One sign or symptom specific to measles is Koplik Spots which look like bluish-white grains of salt which can be seen on the inside of the cheek, near the second upper molar, but may also be on the gums anywhere in the mouth.  In the early stages there is also cough, runny nose and fever. This will last for a few days. (Medicine International, 1984, pg 20, Viral Diseases in Man, 83rd Edition, pg 412.)

 

     The treatment and cure for Measles is called Vitamin A.  As early as 1932, doctors used cod-liver oil to reduce hospital mortality by 57%.  When antibiotics became the timely treatment, Vitamin A was thrown out, up until the mid-80′s that is. Published studies have found that 72% of hospitalized Measles cases in in the U.S. are Vitamin A deficient. The worse Vitamin A deficiency, the worse the complications and the higher the death rate will be. (Pediatric Nursing, Sept/Oct 1996.)

 

     Measles does not kill children. It is the complications from measles that might attack an already weak immune system. When it knocks down the immune system, the child may become susceptible to other diseases, or develop a secondary infection due to mismanagement of the illness, such as using fever reducing medication, or with a Vitamin A deficiency.  One of the big reasons why third world children suffer from complications of measles and other diseases can be viewed here. 

 

     Vaccinations will always be the higher priority. The focus will be on vaccinating as many as they can and fixing the cause of death is secondary to vaccination. If these children were properly nourished and had access to clean water, they wouldn’t be dying. The substitution of vaccination over proper nutrition, sleep, clean water, etc., will not prevent more serious illness or death.

 

     There will be some who will say the theory of herd immunity is real, that Measles has declined due to a vaccine; deaths have been prevented, etc. However, when you factor in mild and subclinical cases which often are not counted, what have we really prevented? Incidence data ignores these cases which make it appear to be something it may very well not be. What about the number of deaths and injury from the vaccine itself? Maybe a financial cost factor needs to be done between treating naturally acquired Measles vs. the injuries and death associated with the vaccine.

 

Speaking of which…MMR and MMR-V coming soon!