FDA Presentations

FDA Presentations (http://www.fda.gov/cber/summaries.htm)

 

ICDRA Conference – 9/19/2008

Vaccinations: Safe or Unsafe?

Vaccinations: Safe or Unsafe?

by Lynda Lambert
In 1954, at the age of 8, I “read” an article in Life Magazine about polio and how it was treated. Stuck, even now, in my mind is the double-page picture of the children in iron lungs. It seemed like there were acres of them; as far as the eye could see. I learned only one thing from those pictures of iron lungs: I never wanted to be in one.So, when my mom said, “Don’t play in puddles?” I didn’t. And when my mom said, “Wash your hands!” I did. And, when the government said to all of us, line up to get your shot, I could hardly wait to get to the head of the line. I feared shots; but I feared polio more.

And when they told us to line up again a few years later and suck down Sabin’s sugar cube, I didn’t hesitate: the more immunization, the better.

I was not the only one who thought that way. For the last 50-plus years, the entire government structure, from the Centers for Disease Control to local departments of Education and the Congress of the United States, has based its public vaccination policy on that concept: the more immunization, the better.

However, given the natural exposure to disease—if there were no vaccines and no vaccinations—most children would only contract two to three childhood diseases in a lifetime. As example: I had measles and mumps; my sister had measles and scarlet fever (no vaccine for that). My daughter had a tendency toward croup, but her only disease in the “childhood” category was chickenpox, which she got at the age of 12. It is simply irrational to think that any child would be in a position to contract 11 to 15 different diseases in a lifetime

Government requires every child in the United States, if he or she is going to attend school, to have a minimum of 11 immunizations. In some states, it’s more; for instance, Maryland requires 15 immunizations.

However, government requires every child in the United States, if he or she is going to attend school, to have a minimum of 11 immunizations. In some states, it’s more; for instance, Maryland requires 15 immunizations. The Congress has recommended 22. These result in 36 to 60 injections for our children before the age of three. Averaged out at the top end, that’s 1.6 shots a month, beginning with their first month of life.

There are some serious problems with this. They fall into two main categories: the viruses themselves and the dilutions through which they are delivered.

Vaccines: too much disease

Imagine what would happen to your body if you, an adult with a mature immune system, contracted measles, mumps and Rubella at the same time. Are you saying, “Well, I’d probably die!”? Indeed. The human immune system, even when it’s fully mature, totally healthy and balanced, is simply not equipped to deal with that much disease all at one time. It is debilitating; it often causes what is called a compromised immune system, one that has difficulty performing the task for which nature designed it.

Yet, vaccines simulate disease. Inside the body, when a vaccination is given, our immune systems believe they are getting the disease. That’s why they react to the vaccine and create antibodies to it. And every time we shoot a child up with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine (MMR), we are simulating that hypothetical situation in which the child’s immature immune system thinks that it is getting all of these diseases at the same time.

The MMR & DPT

In the United States, the link between the MMR and autism continues to be denied by government and the drug companies; but there are proven statistical commonalities among children who have been vaccinated and autism. One study, for instance, showed that among the Amish, who do not vaccinate their children, there could only be found three cases of autism. All three of these children had come to the community from “outside” and all had been vaccinated.

The Diptheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) shot is another that “infects” our children with three diseases at a time. And there are some definitive data that link the DPT shot to ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, dissociative disorder, schizophrenia, seizures, Crohn’s disease, and, yes, autism. But, even without these possible long-term debilitating complications, the DPT has immediate deleterious effects.

“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” (Coulter, HL and Fischer, BL quoted in Rappaport, J., 2003 [emphasis added])

Allergies

I am someone who carries a medic alert bracelet which says, “allergic to all tetanus toxoids.” I had so many tetanus shots as a child—when they gave them to you for every bee sting—that I will now go into anaphylactic shock if a tetanus shot is administered. The last tentanus shot I had was in 1960; I was violently ill for more than two weeks and almost died.

In 1965, I rammed my heel on a rusty nail, but convinced the doctor to test me for toxoid allergy before giving me a tentanus shot. He injected 1/100th of the normal dose under my skin. Then, as he was telling me to come back in two days so he could see the reaction, he suddenly went mute and sat amazed as my forearm swelled to twice its normal size. It stayed that way for more than two weeks. He did not, needless to say, give me that shot.

The reason my arm swelled up was because, as far as my immune system was concerned, the toxoid was an invading enemy that needed fighting. It had built up immunity to the shot itself. My system sent thousands of antibodies and plenty of blood to the location of the invasion to fight it; and, had I been injected, my system would have attacked my entire body to stop it.

Allergies indicate a malfunction of the immune response, and, as my case shows, can be caused by too much vaccination. But none of our children are tested for allergic reactions to these vaccines before they are administered, even though the onset of autism, for instance, does not usually occur until the second MMR shot— and it is known that 90% of immunity is produced by the first.

Allergic reactions, however, do not necessarily show themselves only in allergic reactions to the vaccinations. The corrupted immune response can show itself in allergies to other normal things, like food.

Today’s children have more allergies, particularly to food, than any generation before them. These responses are often life-threatening, systemic, and can be directly correlated to out-of-whack immune systems.

Food allergies are particularly symptomatic of immune system malfunction in the intestinal tract, as are bowel diseases, because 70% of our immune function is resident in our gastrointestinal tract. When the gastrointestinal tract is in good working order, then we have a 70% chance of remaining healthy, have few allergies, and few problems like diabetes and asthma. When it is out of balance, then the whole body gets out of balance.

Dr. Daniel More reports that “Allergy to egg, milk, soy, wheat, peanut and tree nuts represents 90% of all food allergies in children.” The peanut allergy, in particular, is ubiquitous. In 2007, Dr. Michael C. Young, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a practitioner at Children’s Hospital, answered some questions about this for PBS. He said:

“The number of kids with peanut allergies has been increasing over the last ten to fifteen years. In the past five years, the number has doubled…. In fact, all allergic diseases in children—including food allergies, environmental allergies, asthma and eczema—have been increasing at similar rates over the last decade.”

DrGreene.com reports that “most children who develop life-threatening food allergies either have asthma or a family history of asthma, eczema, or hay fever.”

Interestingly, neither Dr. Young nor Dr. Green could come up with a reason. “No one knows why this is happening,” said Dr. Young. Yet, all of these conditions indicate a corrupted immune system. And what has been happening over the last 15 to 20 years that could corrupt young immune systems? Increased vaccination should top the list, one would think.

In a study of autistic children, doctors found a “high prevalence of histologic [tissue] abnormalities in the esophagus, stomach, small intestine and colon, and dysfunction of liver conjugation capacity and intestinal permeability were reported. Three surveys conducted in the United States described high prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autistic disorder” (Horvath, K, and Perman, J.A.,2002).

In other words, children who had autism also had tissue disruptions in the very part of their bodies which hold 70% of their immune function. It is not too far to jump to assume that the immune system destruction may have contributed to the autism, and not the other way around.

I am fascinated by the fact that no doctor anywhere seems to want to even look at this relationship; yet it seems very plain and obvious. It’s not as if we haven’t openly recognized the dangers of vaccines in the past.

We made a good decision with smallpox 30 years ago. We stopped vaccinating for smallpox because the risk of the vaccination outweighed the risk of getting the disease. We recently stopped administering the Sabin live polio vaccine, because it had been causing children to get polio.

Even so, in an article about vaccination published by the Baltimore Sun (2008), a Dr. Neal Halsey was quoted as saying that, “One of the reasons that some parents have withheld measles vaccines is that they believe that the risk is very low. This is, unfortunately, a false belief.”

In fact, the parents are correct and Dr. Halsey is incorrect. The highest number of cases of measles in the U.S. in recent years reported by the CDC is 131; that makes the chance of getting measles approximately 1 in 2 million. If the MMR does, in fact, cause autism, then the risk for autism is much higher than the risk of getting the disease. The current risk of getting autism is 1 in 5.

Of course, many will say that the reason the risk of measles is so low is that children have been getting vaccinated against measles. And, though this may be true, the same was true for smallpox; the risk of the shot now outweighs the risk of getting the disease.

But it is not just the viruses themselves that cause problems; preservatives and contaminants must be considered when looking at these complications and reactions.

Additives, Preservatives and Dilutions

Everyone remembers the Mad Hatter from the tale of Alice in Wonderland. What some of you may not know is that mad hatters were very prevalent in 19th Century. In order to mold hats, the hatter would immerse the hat and his hands in vats of mercury, eventually—and unalterably—becoming poisoned. In the 21st century, we are still concerned with mercury poisoning. We stopped using mercury thermometers, for instance, because of the “risk”. We’ve stopped putting mercury in tooth fillings. But the fact is that these minute amounts of mercury did not cause direct harm. Large amounts, however, do.

An environmental website, Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, reported in 2005 that:

“Since the 1950s it has been known that when women eat fish highly contaminated with mercury, their children are at risk for mental retardation, seizures and other serious problems. Yet trash incinerators and coal-burning power plants continue to emit tons of mercury [70 million tons a day, to be exact], which builds up in the food chain to contaminate fish. The result is that many fish species are now unsafe to eat. Women of childbearing age and small children have been warned to no longer eat tuna steaks, shark, swordfish, or any fish from Massachusetts ponds and rivers. Eating these fish increases the risk of permanent harm (such as learning and attention problems) to the developing fetus or young child. In spite of this damage to an important food source, the industries that emit mercury continue to lobby against mercury reductions. Now 1 out of 10 women of child-bearing age have mercury levels that exceed the advised safe limit, putting untold numbers of future children at risk for learning and attention problems.” (emphasis added)

A website called Toxfaqs, posted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), states that:

“Very young children are more sensitive to mercury than adults. … Mercury’s harmful effects… include brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination, blindness, seizures, and inability to speak. Children poisoned by mercury may develop problems of their nervous and digestive systems, and kidney damage.”

The National Autistic Society writes that “75 symptoms of autism parallel those of mercury poisoning.” Recent experiments in treating autism as mercury poisoning are, in fact, resulting in some cures.

One wonders, then, why the government would compel us to deliberately pump more mercury into our children’s healthy bodies. Some Hepatitis B vaccines and the flu vaccine are still preserved with thimerosal, a trade name for a form of mercury preservative, which began being used as a preservative in vaccines since 1931.

You might be agreeing with the American Association of Pediatrics, saying, “Well, heck, if it’s been used since 1931, then it must be safe.” But, in fact, in 1931, the only vaccine that was given to children was smallpox; and it was never injected into the body, but was only pricked into the skin. And, even though it seems that that would not be enough to poison a child, it was the beginning of autism, which, up to that point, had never been documented before.

In 2001, two Massachusetts families, parents of autistic children, filed suit against the makers of “hepatitis B, diptheria/tetanus and other vaccines,” alleging that their children had been “poisoned with toxic mercury” (Hepatitis Week, vol. 1, 33).

HepB

Hepatitus B is a blood or fluid transmitted disease. Like HIV, it is prevalent among drug users and those who have unprotected sex. One would not think that an infant is not in need of a vaccination for a sexually transmitted disease, unless he or she has a chance of exposure in the womb. In British Columbia (BC), for example, the vaccine is only given to infants if they are “… born to a mother with hepatitis B or a mother at high risk of the infection, or a baby who has another household contact or a caregiver with hepatitis B infection.” And, in BC, the first shot is given at two months, after the baby’s breathing reflex, eating, etc., have stabilized.

But in the United States, where the CDC reports only 10,000 cases of the disease every year, unless the parents file a protest and say they will not allow the vaccination (which few parents are even told they can do), their perfect newborn baby will be vaccinated for HepB when he is only two hours old—even if there is no indication of current or potential exposure. At two hours old, a child’s body is still adjusting to being outside the womb and his entire immune system is dependent on his mother’s milk.

And, although other countries are more cautious, in the U.S., the HepB vaccination is considered “safe.” But what is “safe”?

Michael Belkin, who was at the time Director of the Hepatitis B Vaccine Project of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), in testimony before the Center of Disease Control’s (CDC) Committee on Immunization Practices in 1999, said the following in regard to HepB vaccine:

“As a UC Berkeley graduate and advisor to some of the largest financial institutions in the world, I am qualified to analyze and make conclusions about statistics. Based on that experience, I am astonished that the scientists on this Committee would disregard or cover up data showing the number and severity of adverse reactions to this vaccine. Science is observing and learning from what is observed. The assertions of the CDC that the many reported adverse reactions to this vaccine do not exist or are a coincidence violates the basic principle of science, which is rooted in the observation and analysis of data.

“A benefit/risk analysis of the hepatitis B vaccine for the average infant in America, not born to infected parents, must conclude that the VAERS data on adverse reactions shows the real-world risk of a newborn infant dying or being injured by the hepatitis B vaccine is a greater threat than the remote chance of contracting the primarily blood-transmitted disease. (emphasis added)

“My 5-week-old daughter, Lyla Rose, died within 16 hours of her hepatitisB vaccination, which she received because of the universal vaccination policy this Committee instituted in 1991. At her death, Lyla had four of the eight highest-reported symptoms in the VAERS hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction data. The NY Medical Examiner observed brain swelling at the autopsy but refused to record that or mention the hepatitis B vaccine Lyla received in the autopsy report.” (Belkin)

Belkin also noted in further testimony that:

“…the CDC’s own Fact Sheet on the Hepatitis B disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease. That Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drug users, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infants/children of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, low socio-economic level, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients—NOT NEWBORN BABIES.”

HepB, however, does not just pose the risk of sudden death. Rheumatic fever, encephalitis, and optic neuritis, as well as other debilitating diseases are all on the list. For instance, in France, the HepB vaccine has been suspended for everyone, even adults, “due to its association with Multiple Sclerosis” (thinktwice.com).

How can this vaccine be listed as “safe”? Perhaps the reason is similar to why vaccines containing mercury were considered “safe” for so long.

The Kennedy Report

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in 2005, wrote a startling exposé concerning the relationship between mercury and an international increase in autism, and the government’s cover-up of that relationship. Among other things, he notes that as early as 1935 the safety of thimerosal was being questioned, and:

More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931….

Skeptics often say, well, if thimerosal is the culprit, then why are has the number of autistic cases only increased precipitously in children born between 1989 and 2003 (Kennedy, 2005). It is, quite obviously, the increase in the number of vaccinations required of this generation; every one of which, at that time, contained thimerosal.

“Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit” (Kennedy, 2005). Yet, in this country, though many vaccines are no longer preserved with mercury, we do not recognize the connection. The reasons are exposed in Kennedy’s report. The Bush Administration, in power when a definitive connection between thimerosoal and autism was discovered—and heavily supported by the pharmaceutical industry—wanted to avoid lawsuits that might put those companies out of business, and so actively chose to cover-up the information.

Kennedy claims:

The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten’s findings [that directly linked autism and thimerosol], even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

To me, this is just plain stupid. If someone does something with good intentions, not knowing that it may be harmful, then they should not be held responsible. However, if they find that it is harmful, and yet keep doing it, then that is an altogether different matter. What the government did by covering up this information was commit a criminal act, which has so far resulted in the mental, emotional, and physical damage to thousands of children.

As one researcher put it in the Kennedy report:

“You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”

Mercury preservative is still used in vaccines exported to other countries; and, as noted above, in some HepB and flu vaccines; yet the government continues to require their administration. Just this winter (2008), the governor of New Jersey made flu shots for infants mandatory.

Admittedly, since 2000, most mercury preservatives have been removed in most vaccine shots in the U.S.; however, other additives and preservatives have taken its place. For instance, aluminum is now often added to vaccines.

In a study done on animals by the Department of Opthalmology and Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia and reported in Neuromolecular Medicine (2007), it was found that:

“Apoptotic neurons were identified in aluminum-injected animals that showed significantly increased activated caspase-3 labeling in lumbar spinal cord (255%) and primary motor cortex (192%) compared with the controls. Aluminum-treated groups also showed significant motor neuron loss (35%) and increased numbers of astrocytes (350%) in the lumbar spinal cord.” (Note: Apoptosis—the syndrome caused by apoptotic neurons—is, according to Webster’s medical dictionary, “a … process of cell self-destruction that is marked by the fragmentation of nuclear DNA,”)

The adult HepB vaccine contains “… aluminum phosphate and aluminum hydroxide as adjuvants and 2-phenoxyethanol as a preservative.” (CDC, 2006)

Kennedy reports that, in 1982, “Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccine programs” suggested that there were “non-toxic alternatives” to these preservatives, and “‘The best way to go… is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives.”

But, even if the government were to finally follow that advice, the fact is that preservatives are not the only problem.

Other Toxins

Much has been made of the toxins in cigarettes. Second-hand smoke has been linked—albeit with many qualifiers—to every childhood ailment from sudden infant death to asthma. Yet, even if you consider impossible exposure to cigarette smoke—24/7 in a non-vented environment—the amount of these chemicals entering the body are minuscule compared to those that would enter the body if those chemicals were directly injected into a child’s bloodstream.

You, say, “But this would never happen!” Well… cigarette toxins include formaldehyde, benzene, acetone, ammonia, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, and more; vaccine toxins include formaldehyde, antifreeze, acetone, disinfectant, borax, and latex, and more. The biggest difference is that the vaccine toxins are directly injected into a child’s body every time he or she receives a vaccination.

Vaccines also can contain some unique toxins that do not occur in cigarettes, such as MSG, methanol, dye, and glycerine. Then, too, a vaccine may include “ingredients” that supposedly support the actual immune response, such as “aborted human foetus cells,” “mutated human viruses,” and “animal organ tissues and blood.”

One of the most effective vaccines—and supposedly one of the “safest” because it contains no preservatives of any kind—is the chicken-pox vaccine (Varivax). The Merck website lists the following ingredients.

Each 0.5 mL dose contains the following: a minimum of 1350 PFU (plaque forming units) of Oka/Merck varicella virus when reconstituted and stored at room temperature for 30 minutes, approximately 25 mg of sucrose, 12.5 mg hydrolyzed gelatin, 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.

Are any of these substances that you want in your child’s bloodstream? Serum made from cow fetuses? Potassium chloride? MSG?

Is it worth it?

Vaccination is dangerous. There is simply no getting around that. Yet, if it really works to stop some of the most dangerous diseases from spreading and decimating whole populations, then it is worth it. And there is some evidence that it does work. Still, there is some evidence that it doesn’t.

In investigating the effectiveness of vaccines, I found, for instance, that polio was already on the decline when the polio vaccine was administered to thousands of us.

In some instances, as with whooping cough, I found that vaccination does not seem to have any effect, or may have a negative effect. As well, there is some evidence that with increased vaccination for pertussis came increases in the number of cases of pertussis. A report in Lancet, the British medical journal, stated that:

“While 70-80% of British children were immunized against pertussis in 1970-71…, in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination [39%], a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities.” (Ehrengut, 1978)

And the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that,

“Administration of KMV [killed measles vaccine] apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” (1980, vol. 244, p. 804).

And then, there are some vaccines whose effectiveness simply wanes with time. The chickenpox vaccine, for instance, has been shown to lose its effectiveness after 10 years. This is a problem, because chickenpox when one is age 5 or 10 is not dangerous, but chickenpox as an adult can be very dangerous.

Or, sometimes, the vaccinations simply don’t “take” and children are susceptible to the disease anyway. In a Baltimore Sun article, it was noted that in a study measuring the effectiveness of vaccines, of 131 children who came down with measles, “… 11 of the 131 had been vaccinated.” That means that even with vaccination, that group still had a 30% chance of getting the disease.

A New York Times article gave another measles example that occurred in 1994. “Out of 625 children exposed to the disease, 17 got measles. Of those 609 who had previously been vaccinated, only 10 (or 1.6%) developed measles. Of the 16 children who were not immunized, 7 (or 44%) developed measles. Thus, the risk for immunized children was less than 2% while the risk for un-immunized children was 44%.”

It is true that “7 of 16” equals 44%, that does not equate to a 44% chance of getting the disease. Indeed, it seems to me that to get the correct percentages, one would need to compare both 7 and 10 to the full complement of the study, which, if one does so, shows that of 625 children, immunized children, had a 1.6% chance of getting the disease and unimmunized children had a 1.1% chance of getting the disease.

It is often said that un-immunized children pose a risk to immunized children, but that should not be the case. If one is immunized, then the unimmunized should carry no risk at all. Unimmunized children should have a higher risk of getting the disease; however, based on the above numbers, this appears to be incorrect.

Conclusion

New vaccines are being discovered all the time, and most of them are immediately slated for the childhood immunization requirements. Gardasil, for instance, hit the world by storm. Wow! A vaccine to save girls from cervical cancer. Gotta use it!

In fact, it was so well sold that it whizzed through FDA approval, and was adopted as mandatory for girls over 12 in Texas, and the UK placed it on the list of mandatory vaccinations for children in 2007. All that was before three healthy young women died within days of receiving the vaccine… before a series of women who didn’t even know they were pregnant had miscarriages… before the 1,700 other women suffered everything from blood clots to paralysis and seizures.

All this reminds me of the birth control pills that killed many women before anyone would even admit that they were dangerous. The makers of Gardasil are still trying to say, “Oh, no, it wasn’t our fault.” But the British Telegraph reported said that, if this shot stays on the list of required vaccinations, children taking Gardasil would be “no better than human guinea pigs.”

It seems to me that, perhaps, we have all been guinea pigs in the study of vaccination. And, perhaps, it was worth taking a chance on when there was a real danger of world-wide epidemics of smallpox or polio, and only a very few children were harmed by being vaccinated. But this is no longer the case.

The immediate, known risk to a child from multiple vaccines is more dangerous than the possible risk of almost any childhood disease. Instead, we have epidemics of autism, food allergies, childhood diabetes, childhood cancer, immune deficiency syndromes, and more, all of which may be directly related to vaccination. Surely, if there is only a chance this is true—and I think there is more than a “chance”—then we should suspend all mandatory vaccination and begin to study unvaccinated populations to see if they have the same problems that the vaccinated do.

It is time that the health of our children was put back in our own hands. The government simply has no right to make such a choice for us. It has no right to ask us to knowingly poison the smallest and most defenseless among us. We have to end mandatory vaccination now, before any more children are harmed or killed.

Michael Belkin’s final comments about Hep B vaccine before the CDC sum it up better than I can:

At the NVIC, we are overwhelmed following up constant new reports of deaths, seizures and autoimmune reactions following hepatitis B vaccination. Because the CDC refuses to acknowledge this large number of serious adverse reactions, hospitals and doctors who have been misled about the risks continue to administer the vaccine and then deny any vaccine connection when children die, get ill or have seizures within hours or days. CDC officials tell parents they have never heard of hepatitis B vaccine reactions.

That is a lie. For this government to continue to insist that hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction reports do not exist is negligent, unethical—and is a crime against the children of America.

HepB, MMR, DPT, Chickenpox… for all of them, the dangers of vaccination are real. More is not better. Wholesale vaccination needs to be stopped. Now.

References:

<!–

–>

Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years (1998-2003)

Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years (1998-2003)    By J.B. Handley

 

The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons received a vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious diarrhea. Within a day he was vomiting and eliminating blood. Doctors performed emergency surgery, saving him by repairing his intestines, which were folding in on one another. A doctor later figured out the vaccine caused Chaise’s problem. In October 1999, after 15 reports of such incidents, the CDC withdrew its recommendation for the vaccination — not because of the problem, the agency claims, but because bad publicity might give vaccines in general a bad name. But a four-month investigation by United Press International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC — and a web of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines.”

….The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it triggered a Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the Committee on Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled, Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).
 
And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional report’s criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.

 
People often ask me how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) went from recommending 10 vaccines for children in the mid-1980s to the bursting-at-the-seams 36 vaccine schedule of today. My answer, which always surprises people, is a four-letter acronym: ACIP.
 
ACIP? Most people have never heard of it, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Locked away inside a single page on the CDC website, the ACIP is described as:
 
“15 experts in fields associated with immunization who have been selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. The Committee develops written recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines to children and adults in the civilian population; recommendations include age for vaccine administration number of doses and dosing interval, and precautions and contraindications. The ACIP is the only entity in the federal government that makes such recommendations. [emphasis added].”
 
The ACIP is a remarkably powerful committee of appointees. Let’s say you’re Merck, a giant pharmaceutical company with vaccines as a primary business line. And, let’s say you have invested several hundred million dollars in developing a vaccine. Just for fun, let’s imagine the vaccine you have developed is for Rotavirus. Let’s say you would like to sell your vaccine to as many people as possible.
 
Well, if you’re Merck, and if you want to sell your new Rotavirus to as many people as possible, you can pass through one door and one door only: the ACIP. If the ACIP approves your vaccine, you can write your ticket. If the ACIP denies your vaccine? Zero. As Congress’ report notes:
 
“The recommendation [by the ACIP] for routine use of a vaccine is tantamount to a Federal mandate for vaccine use.”
 
It’s almost hard to comprehend the amount of pressure pharma would be under to “manage” the ACIP and give their vaccines the best possible chance for approval – there are literally billions of dollars at stake for a single vaccine.
 
Enter Dr. Paul Offit. With Merck’s funding and support, he filed a patent for a Merck-sponsored Rotavirus vaccine on December 9, 1994. Four years later, as his own vaccine was going through trials and no Rotavirus vaccines were YET on the U.S. vaccine schedule, Offit was appointed to the ACIP as a voting member of the committee.
 
Of course, Offit was well aware that a competing vaccine for Rotavirus made by Wyeth was years ahead of his own vaccine and preparing for a presentation to the ACIP in the near future. In fact, he joined the ACIP only three weeks before the committee voted to approve Wyeth’s Rotashield vaccine for the Vaccines for Children program (Offit voted “yes.”). What’s so bad about voting for another company’s vaccine for Rotavirus vaccine when you are developing a competing product? Congress explains:
 
“Members of the ACIP are allowed to vote on a recommendation for one company’s
vaccine even if they have financial ties to a competing firm developing a similar vaccine.
For example, in the case of the rotavirus vaccine, the vaccine before the advisory committee was developed by Wyeth-Lederle. However, Merck and SmithKline29 Beecham had rotavirus vaccines under development. A recommendation for Wyeth- Lederle’s vaccine would help pave the way for future recommendations for the products of Merck and SmithKline-Beecham. While ACIP members with ties to Wyeth-Lederle were not allowed to vote on recommendations for the rotavirus vaccine, those with ties to Merck and SmithKline-Beecham were allowed to vote.
 
This stands in stark contrast to the policies of the FDA. In discussions with FDA staff on this specific issue they informed the Committee staff that when the VRBPAC is deliberating the licensure of a vaccine, a company is considered affected [an affected company is one with a direct interest] if they are direct competitors of the manufacturer of the vaccine being considered. They further clarified that that this policy was in place because of the competing interest of the affected company and not because of concerns about the release of proprietary information.”
 
Dr. Paul Offit joined the ACIP three weeks before they voted on a Rotavirus vaccine manufactured by Wyeth to be added to the vaccine schedule. He held a patent on a competing vaccine. 
 
It’s almost incomprehensible, and certainly shows the worst of how pharma games the US Vaccine system. It’s hard to believe, but this story actually gets worse.
 
As we know from above, this initial vaccine that Paul Offit voted to approve was pulled from the market one short year later because of the level of adverse events affecting children. From the report:
 
“A product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”
 
Perhaps worse, and even more shocking, was the timing of the ACIP vote to approve Rotashield:
 
“A particularly troubling aspect of the deliberations on the ‘RotaShield’ vaccine is the sequence of events. The ACIP Committee voted to recommend universal vaccinations of infants before the FDA licensure of the vaccine. Officials of the CDC acknowledged that they knew of no other instance where this has happened.”

 
Wait a minute. They approved the vaccine for universal use in kids before the FDA licensed the product? Why, that stands in rather marked contrast to the reassuring words of Dr. Renee Jenkins, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics:
 
“The vaccine schedule undergoes vigorous scientific and evidence-based review each year…The vaccine schedule has evolved over the past 50 years based on scientific evidence.”
 
It appears Paul Offit joined the ACIP to ensure he could influence the approval of the Rotavirus vaccine, from which he would later benefit greatly when his own version of rotavirus vaccine was approved. Not surprisingly, Paul Offit voted yes on every action he could relating to the approval of Wyeth’s vaccine. But, when the vaccine was being pulled from the market, Offit abstained:
 
“Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program. Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the meeting, ‘I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.'”
 
Approve it? “Yes.” Approve it? “Hell yes!” Approve it? “Absolutely.” It’s hurting a bunch of kids, we need to pull it! “Umm….I have a conflict, gotta go.”
 
Unbelievable.
 
On February 23, 2006 the ACIP voted to add Paul Offit’s vaccine, Rotateq, to the U.S. Immunization schedule. As we all know, Dr. Offit has conceded this vaccine “made him rich.” An analyst for Merck notes, “At a cost of $187.50 for the three-dose series, RotaTeq is one of the most expensive vaccines to date; by 2009, the company forecasts that the vaccine could bring in as much as $500 million in annual revenue.”
 
In May 2008, it was reported that, “Later in 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were 117 confirmed cases of intussusception among recipients of Rotateq between March 2006 and June 2007.”

Also, in 2008 it was reported that, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an update to the product label for Merck & Co.’s Rotateq vaccine to include the report of a death of a recipient due to an intestinal obstruction.”
In 2008, Medical Science Monitor published a study critical of Paul Offit’s vaccine (HERE).
 
It stated: “This study found that, after a significant decline in intussusception adverse events entered into VAERS after the withdrawal of RotaShield, the previous rotavirus vaccine, a significant, rapid increase in intussusception adverse-event reports was observed after the licensing of RotaTeq, the current rotavirus vaccine, on February 3, 2006… From February 3, 2006 through July 31, 2007, a total of 160 (of the 165 reported) intussusception and 11 (of the 16 reported) Kawasaki disease adverse event reports were identified when RotaTeq was administered or co-administered with other vaccines. Time-trend analyses showed that there were significant increases in the total number of intussusception and Kawasaki disease adverse events entered into VAERS in comparison to previous years.”
 
And the study concluded:
 
“Based on the preceding realities, it would seem that the ACIP recommendations for the universal use of RotaTeq were, at best, premature and unwarranted. It is important that healthcare providers continue to report adverse events that occur following RotaTeq vaccine so that more information may be gleaned about its safety profi le, and those patients that may have experienced an adverse effect of RotaTeq vaccination should be advised that they may be eligible for compensation from the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
 
The acceptance of RotaTeq vaccination for the US market may be significantly limited by its apparent lack of economic savings, and given the fact that it may alter disease patterns of intussusception/ Kawasaki disease, so that they occur with greater frequency among segments of the population that previously had only limited experience with such conditions. Moreover, if the serious adverse events being reported following vaccination with RotaTeq are indeed vaccine related, then, like the previous rotavirus RotaShield, RotaTeq should be immediately withdrawn from the US market.”

 
As of January 2009, Rotateq remains on the market.

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper reports today that the British government was desperately trying to prevent secret files on the proven dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine from being released publicly under the UK’s Freedom Of Information laws.  In a recent case they have been forced to open the files up to scrutiny:-

And here is some of what will be discovered.

British Government’s Reckless Disregard for Child Health Safety

The UK’s Department of Health and others appear to have been reckless as to the safety of British children over the manner in which Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd’s Pluserix MMR was introduced and used on British Children in 1988

  • the problems with Pluserix MMR were known to the supplier, Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd from the experience of its introduction to Canada, in 1986, where Pluserix was marketed under the name “Trivirix”
  • Trivirix (Pluserix) was withdrawn from use in Canada in 1988 because it was dangerous, causing high levels of adverse reactions in children
  • the high levels of British adverse reactions to the vaccine were apparent and known about at British Ministerial level in 1990, as shown by ministerial correspondence
     

  • Pluserix/Trivirx are the identical vaccine manufactured in the identical Smith Kline factory in Belgium and with the exact same component parts and constituents
     

  • despite the Canadian position and contemporaneously with the final withdrawal of Pluserix/Trivirix in Canada the UK signed the contract to purchase Pluserix MMR from Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited in July 1988, even though it was known by then to be too dangerous for use on our children
     

  • SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate
     

  • the contract was signed up by the backdoor through the North East Thames Regional Health Authority as agent for the NHS Procurement Directorate rather than being a contract directly entered into with the NHS Procurement Directorate which negotiated the contract or the NHS Executive of the time
     

  • there was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this and it seems to have been effected in a manner Ministerially deniable
     

  • similar problems were experienced in Japan with the Japanese MMR vaccine which, in common with Pluserxi/Trivirix, contained the Urabe strain of mumps virus
     

  • the Japanese MMR was also withdrawn by 1992 on safety grounds having caused high levels of adverse reactions
     

  • the British government continued the licence for Pluserix MMR after 1992, which enabled it to be supplied overseas
     

  • even today, because it is cheaper than safer alternatives, organisations like UNICEF continue supplying urabe strain containing MMR vaccine to the more adverse reaction vulnerable and less well nourished third world children
     

  • since 1998, statistical paper after paper has been published in a blaze of publicity, claiming no evidence of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, but when all the noise has died down, on subsequent careful examination, each one has been found to be flawed
     

  • other than the Royal Free’s paper, no clinical studies of the MMR child litigants were undertaken or published
     

  • after being put under financial pressure by the British Government, in 2005 the Oxford based Cochrane Collaboration published a systematic review of all prior papers and its authors claimed to conclude the MMR vaccine was safe:-
       

    • it was shown the authors had violated the standards of evidence-based medicine and
    • their conclusions were not supported by the body of the review
    • and it later was discovered that the British Department of Health had increased the funding for Cochrane’s Oxford administration by £1 million per annum and extended the contracts of its British groups.

 

 

Autism Explosion Followed Big Change in MMR Shot

Olmsted on Autism: Autism Explosion Followed Big Change in MMR Shot

By Dan Olmsted

In 1990, Merck & Co., manufacturer of the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine known as the MMR, made a significant but little-noticed change: It quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Then in 2007 it reversed course, reducing the amount to 12,500 units. Neither the measles nor the rubella (German measles) component of the MMR was changed at all — each remained at 1,000 units throughout.
 
Merck also makes the single-component mumps shot, and in 1990 it also increased the potency of that shot by the same amount, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. But unlike the MMR shot, the standalone mumps shot’s potency was not scaled back in 2007. It remains at 20,000 units.
 
These changes were mentioned in passing recently during an informal conversation with a Merck scientist. I started looking for an explanation for the sequence of events, but Merck did not respond to a detailed written request for comment.
 
Absent such an explanation, simple logic dictates the reduction had something to do with the MMR in particular rather than the mumps vaccine in isolation. But what? And what about the timing — the increase in 1990 and the decrease in 2007?

 
The huge rise in autism cases began about the time the mumps component in the MMR was raised in 1990. One theory, dismissed by Merck and federal public health officials, is that viral interference between the components in the MMR could create a persistent sub-clinical measles infection in a subset of vulnerable children; and because the measles virus can cause brain damage, that could lead to autism.
 
A study released last week by the M.I.N.D. Institute at UC Davis reported that most of the fivefold increase in full-syndrome autism — from 9 in 10,000 children in 1990 to 44 in 10,000 children in 2000– is real and cannot be accounted for by broader categories or diagnostic substitution. And from 1990 to 2007, the mumps portion of the MMR was higher by roughly the same amount — quadruple.
 
Merck’s decision to cut back on the increase in the mumps vaccine also is surrounded by interesting timing.  The cutback, in 2007, came at the same time Merck announced it was suspending its recently introduced, much-hyped four-in-one shot, ProQuad — the MMR with the chickenpox vaccine added to it. In suspending ProQuad, Merck cited a shortage of chickenpox vaccine; subsequently, a study showed ProQuad caused twice as many fever-induced seizures as separate MMR and chickenpox shots given at the same time, and a CDC advisory committee withdrew its preferential recommendation of the vaccine. Merck won’t say when ProQuad will return to the market.
 
An investigation I conducted while at UPI in 2006 found two cases of regressive autism in one small city — Olympia, Wash. — in clinical trials leading up to approval of the vaccine. Merck said the parents originally failed to report those cases to it (though the pediatricians paid to conduct the studies for Merck certainly knew about them and would have been expected to report them); the company alerted the FDA only after my inquiry.

The Merck scientist I spoke with recently also acknowledged that viral interference can affect the potency of individual MMR ingredients; that explains why the company added a whopping dose of chickenpox vaccine to the ProQuad shot, several times more than the standalone chickenpox vaccine contains. Using the same amount of chickenpox vaccine in the MMR shot as the standalone vaccine simply wouldn’t have protected children against the disease, because more virus was needed to offset the interference from the other components.
 
A significant number of parents of children with regressive autism cite the MMR as the proximate cause — they say their child was developing normally until the shot, then in many cases had a serious physical reaction within a short period of time and began losing developmental milestone and showing typical signs of the disorder. Some also developed severe gastrointestinal problems, an ailment first described in cases of regressive autism following the MMR shot by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in Britain in 1998; he named it autistic enterocolitis and found measles RNA in the children’s GI tract, suggesting persistent infection.
 
In looking at whether the increase in mumps potency in 1990 could buttress this theory of the autism epidemic, two questions arise: Is there evidence that increasing the mumps portion of the MMR could have any impact on measles infectivity or create symptoms consistent with those described by Wakefield and parents? And, could ProQuad’s higher rate of measles rash and fever-induced seizures be a warning sign that something is amiss with the MMR itself, especially beginning in 1990 when Merck tinkered with the proportions of the components?
 
The answers seem to be, yes and yes.
 
In the real world, children rarely get two viral illnesses at once — for instance, chickenpox and rubella. But when they do, viruses tend to interact — or interfere — with each other in unpredictable and synergistic ways. One example: Studies in the UK and Iceland showed that when mumps AND measles epidemics hit these populations in the same year, the risk of inflammatory bowel disease spiked. That’s an epidemiological argument for immune interference, and a striking fit with the observations by Wakefield, and thousand of parents, that a similar condition occurs in many children with regressive autism after they get the measles-mumps-rubella shot.
 
A related finding comes from a study funded by Merck.  In 2005, the study reported that the four-in-one ProQuad shot — the MMR and chickenpox — was “generally well tolerated” and had a safety profile similar to the MMR and the chickenpox shot (also made by Merck and called Varivax) when given separately.
 
But there were a couple of interesting differences. First, “Measles-like rash and fever during days 5-12 were more common after the first dose of MMRV [ProQuad]” than after the MMR and Varivax given separately. The difference was substantial — 5.9 percent who got the MMRV had the rash and 27.7 percent had fever, compared to 1.9 percent with rash and 18.7 fever after getting separate shots. While that did not alarm the researchers, it could be a foreshadowing of the doubled rate of fever-induced seizures that was spotted after ProQuad was approved.
 
Second, even though the new element in ProQuad was the chickenpox portion, something new and unexpected was also going on with the mumps and measles components. “Geometric mean titers to measles and mumps were significantly higher after 1 dose of MMRV than after administration” of MMR and Varivax separately, according to the study’s summary. Later, the authors state: “This suggests that the measles and mumps virus replication is greater after MMRV than it is” after the MMR and Varivax given separately.
 
In non-scientific language, it looks like the addition of another live virus — chickenpox — potentiated the measles and mumps components: It kicked both viruses into higher gear and they replicated at rates higher than in the MMR. At the same time, the researchers observed a greater incidence of measles-like rash, and fever, in those who got ProQuad. Were the increased measles and mumps viruses interacting in some unexpected and potentially dangerous way?
 
Then, for whatever reason, sometime between February and December of last year Merck reduced the mumps component of the MMR from 20,000 units to 12,500 while leaving the standalone mumps shot as it was. During that same period, it decided to suspend production of ProQuad. In April 2007, it announced the suspension, and said no more would be available after July. Then in early 2008, Merck’s study showing the doubled risk of seizures in ProQuad was unveiled and the CDC withdrew its recommendation.
 
And just last month, Merck said it would stop making the individual MMR component shots including, of course, the mumps shot. That leaves the MMR as the only vaccine in town, and it means there will no longer be a mumps vaccine formulation on the market with the dose the MMR contained from 1990 to 2007.
 
None of this might matter if not for the fact that measles is capable of causing cause catastrophic brain damage and death; that’s an argument for the measles vaccine. In medical parlance, it’s a neurotoxic virus.
 
“The invasion of the CNS [central nervous system] by MV [measles virus] is apparently not an uncommon event, as reflected by the finding of genomic sequences in normal autopsy cases and the widespread distribution of MV in in neurons, glial cells and vascular endothelial cells of the diseased brain,” according to “Measles Virus Infections of the Central Nervous System” by Uwe G. Liebert of the University of Leipzeig, Germany, published in Intervirology in 1997. “The susceptibility of the host as well as his age and immune status at the time of infection constitutes significant factors for disease progression.”
 
Merck acknowledges the three viruses can indeed interact to affect a child’s immune system, although in ways it says are not harmful.
 
A Merck scientist publicly discussed the interference issue at a CDC meeting in 2004, the year before ProQuad was approved, according to agency minutes. Dr. Florian Schodel “confirmed the possibility that the chickenpox virus component of ProQuad was causing a local immune suppression and an increase in measles virus replication. … The current hypothesis is that the varicella and measles virus are co-infecting the same or proximate areas of the body and engaging in a specific interaction, but how that works is as yet unknown.
 
“He said the interference appeared to involve only the chickenpox and measles viruses – ‘there is no such effect for the mumps or rubella vaccines administered locally at the same time.'”
 
Yet based on Merck’s own 2005 study cited above, ProQuad triggers an increase in mumps virus replication, too. Live viruses in ProQuad seem to be behaving in ways “as yet unknown” that cause immune suppression, co-infection, interaction and increased replication. Even without ProQuad on the market, interaction between the MMR components and the chickenpox virus remains a possibility. The CDC started recommending the chickenpox shot in the mid-1990s at the same 12-month well-baby visit as the MMR. 
 
That suggests the pattern highlighted by ProQuad could be at work through the increased mumps component of the MMR and the addition of chickenpox to the childhood immunization schedule in the mid-1990s. The lesson could be that combining live viruses, and then increasing them or adding new ones, is inherently dangerous, especially when invasion of the brain by one of them “is not an uncommon event.”
 
As Andy Wakefield told me when I was working on the series in Olympia describing the children in the ProQuad clinical trials who became ill after the vaccination and subsequently regressed into autism: “It’s actually heartbreaking, listening to these parents, for more than just the immediate reasons their child has met this fate. It’s that you’re staring into an abyss,” Wakefield said. “You’re listening to stories which reflect the fundamental misconception of vaccine manufacturers of what viruses are and what they do.”
 
Two additional points worth noting: After the increase in 1990 and decrease in 2007, there is still more than twice as much mumps virus in the MMR as there was in 1990.
 
The changes in the mumps virus component of the MMR serves as a potent reminder of something else: MMR is not one thing but three different exposures. And over the period 1980-2009 the MMR has changed significantly at least twice, making epidemiological studies even more difficult to interpret.

Kawasaki’s disease, acrodynia, and mercury.

Kawasaki’s disease, acrodynia, and mercury. 

PMID: 19075648

A superantigen or autoimmunity has been hypothesized to be the main cause of the Kawasaki’s Disease but the etiology is unknown. Medical literature, epidemiological findings, and some case reports have suggested that mercury may play a pathogenic role. Several patients with Kawasaki’s Disease have presented with elevated urine mercury levels compared to matched controls. Most symptoms and diagnostic criteria which are seen in children with acrodynia, known to be caused by mercury, are similar to those seen in Kawasaki’s Disease. Genetic depletion of glutathione S-transferase , a susceptibility marker for Kawasaki’s Disease, is known to be also a risk factor for acrodynia and may also increase susceptibility to mercury . Coinciding with the largest increase (1985-1990) of thimerosal (49.6% ethyl mercury) in vaccines, routinely given to infants in the U.S. by 6 months of age (from 75microg to 187.5microg), the rates of Kawasaki’s Disease increased ten times, and, later (1985-1997), by 20 times. Since 1990 88 cases of patients developing Kawasaki’s Disease some days after vaccination have been reported to the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) including 19% manifesting symptoms the same day. The presented pathogenetic model may lead to new preventive- and therapeutic strategies for Kawasaki’s disease.

The Vaccine Hard Sell at Pediatrics

The Vaccine Hard Sell at Pediatrics-Age of Autism

A Shot of Reality
By Michael Wagnitz, B.S.
 
As a chemist with 27 years of experience evaluating material for heavy metals, I find it unfortunate that the journal Pediatrics has allowed Dr. Paul Offit to repeat misinformation  regarding the use of neurotoxic metals in vaccines. He scolds Dr. Bob Sears for not giving the proper scientific credit to the paper, “Weight of Evidence Against Thimerosal Causing Neuropsychological Deficits” (1), published in the NEJM.  Let’s take a look at the quality of this paper starting with the impartiality of the authors:

Dr. Thompson – the lead investigator – is a former employee of Merck.

Dr. Marcy has received consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune.

Dr. Jackson received grant money from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. He received lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott. Currently, he is a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Dr. Lieu is a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Dr. Black receives consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck, and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis.

Dr. Davis receives consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.

(The above information was included in the fine print of the published article)

The article states that any child with a preexisting neurological condition was eliminated from the study. Isn’t this what the study was supposed to examine, whether thimerosal causes neurological damage? These preexisting conditions included encephalitis and meningitis. The possibility that thimerosal might cause these conditions was eliminated from consideration.
 
Children were eliminated for other reasons from the study. One group excluded was children whose birth weight was under 2,500 grams, or 5.5 pounds. The number of  babies eliminated because of this was not reported. Babies of this weight are not rare and they are not excluded from any  vaccine. In fact, in a study published last year in Pediatrics, it was shown that low weight babies had a much higher rate of autism (2). In the end, only about 30% of the original study participants remained. The authors seemed to weed out anyone who didn’t fit their desired conclusion. Offit says (and I quote), “It is hard to imagine a better conceived, better designed study on the subtle effects of mercury poisoning”. No Offit, it’s hard to imagine a better conceived and better designed study to obfuscate the issue concerning the safety of thimerosal.

Offit tells us how aluminum in babies formula and breast milk dwarfs the amount in vaccines. What he doesn’t explain is that aluminum is only dangerous once it’s in the bloodstream. Aluminum is not absorbed through the gut. It is 100% absorbed through vaccination. He ignores the paper published in 2007 linking aluminum in vaccines to Gulf War Syndrome (3) . If it can harm healthy, adult, combat ready soldiers, at a lower dose per body weight, what is it doing to newborns?

Here is one subject Offit never touches; multi-dose vaccine vials, including current versions of the flu, tetanus and meningococcal vaccines, contain 50,000 ug/l of Hg, a level 250 times higher than what the EPA classifies as hazardous waste (4). All these vaccines are recommended for children. Primates exposed to injected ethylmercury from vaccines, as opposed to equal doses of ingested methylmercury, end up with twice as much Hg++ deposited in the brain (5). This form remains permanently trapped and has been identified as the primary toxic agent in degenerative brain diseases (6). State of the art research has shown us that autism is a degenerative brain disease (7).

Parents understand the difference between truthful information from honest, caring professionals like Dr. Bob Sears and the aggressive, bullying tactics that Offit and others are trying to sell them. The cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in.

Full Article