Adverse reactions to vaccines are
unacceptably common. Even the FDA admits that FluMist (the live-virus nasal
spray vaccine) can cause pneumonia and “medically significant wheezing.” Neil
Miller reports that “during pre-licensure clinical studies 3% of all children
six months to one year of age who received the vaccine ended up in the hospital
with respiratory problems!”
Before this vaccine was approved, a
large study conducted in 31 clinics showed that it caused “a statistically
significant increase in asthma or reactive airways disease” in children under
five years of age. Nevertheless, in September 2007 the FDA licensed this
vaccine for children as young as two years old.
With some vaccines, the number of
people who experience systemic reactions, such as fever, headache, respiratory
infection, muscle aches, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, chills and fatigue,
is very high.
For example, up to 10% of babies
will vomit following their pneumococcal shots. A whopping 62% of 18-55 year-old recipients of the meningococcal
vaccine had systemic reactions. Doctors consider most systemic reactions
“normal.”
Common systemic reactions are
separate from severe and fatal reactions, including neurological,
immunological and paralytic disorders such as Guillain–Barré
syndrome, demyelinating diseases,
arthritis, anaphylactic shock, and other life-threatening conditions.
Vaccine injuries can often be
“disguised” by labeling the conditions as learning disabilities, hyperactivity,
mental retardation, attention deficit, etc. Many parents are completely unaware
at how common these adverse reactions can be, let alone that they can occur at
all.
According to a study published by Pediatrics,
when parents were specifically asked to observe changes in their baby's
behavior after a shot, only 7% reported no reactions at all.
Because of the public's general
ignorance of the various types of possible damage that can result from
vaccines, the true number of vaccine injuries may be vastly underreported.
According to this study:
In 1986, Congress passed the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (PL-99-660) requiring health care
providers to report suspected vaccine reactions to a centralized reporting system.
As a result, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), cosponsored
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), was established in 1990.
VAERS is a postmarketing safety
surveillance program that collects information about possible adverse reactions
(side effects) that occur after the administration of vaccines licensed for use
in the United States. Current and historic VAERS data are public access,
available to health care providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the general
public.
VAERS receives approximately 30,000
reports annually. Since 1990, VAERS has received over 350,000 reports, most of
which describe mild side effects, such as fever and local reactions.
About 13% of all reactions are
classified as serious, involving life-threatening conditions, hospitalization,
permanent disability, or death. By monitoring such events, VAERS helps to
identify unusual patterns of reports and important safety concerns.
Our findings show a positive
correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage
of hospitalizations and deaths.
Since vaccines are given to
millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have
scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of
vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety
should be the highest priority.
However, the FDA estimates that 90%
of doctors don't even report reactions. Continuing from the study on VAERS:
Since VAERS is a passive system, it
is inherently subject to underreporting. For example, a confidential study
conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that “a
fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events” is likely.
According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, “only
about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.”
According to Ottaviani et al., “Any case of sudden unexpected death occurring...in
infancy, especially soon after a vaccination, should always undergo a full
necropsy study,” otherwise a true association between vaccination and death may
escape detection.
A recent study by Kuhnert et al. demonstrated a 16-fold increase in unexplained sudden
unexpected death after the fourth dose of a penta- (5-in-1) or hexavalent
(6-in-1) vaccine.
Similarly, Zinka et al. reported 6 cases of sudden infant death syndrome that
occurred within 48 hours following the administration of a hexavalent vaccine.
At postmortal examination, these cases showed “unusual findings in the brain”
that appeared compatible with an association between hexavalent vaccination and
sudden infant death syndrome.
These examples provide additional
evidence that cases of vaccine-related mortality are likely underreported in
VAERS.
According to Neil Miller, one of
the authors of the aforementioned study, the federal government is aware of the
unnecessarily high danger of many vaccines.
In fact, Congress established a
“hazard” tax on childhood vaccines. When parents pay the doctor for requested
shots, some of that money goes into a special fund to compensate them when
their children are seriously damaged or die.
As of September 2009, nearly $2
billion was granted for thousands of injuries and deaths caused by mandated
vaccines. Numerous cases are still pending. Awards were issued for permanent
injuries such as learning disabilities, seizure disorders, mental retardations,
paralysis, and numerous deaths, including many that were initially misclassified
as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Parents need to understand that
vaccines are drugs. Each one contains a proprietary blend of chemicals,
pathogens and other foreign matter. That is the nature of a vaccine.
Today, children receive one vaccine
at birth, eight vaccines at two months, eight vaccines at four months, nine
vaccines a six months, and twelve additional vaccines between 12 and 18 months
(DtaP and MMR are each given with a single injection but contain three
vaccines).
The United States is the most
vaccinated country in the world, yet it has a poor infant mortality rate. One
would think that a country with more immunizations, which are explicitly
promoted as life saving, especially for babies, would have an excellent infant
death rate...as new vaccines are added to the recommended vaccine schedule, the
US infant mortality rate worsens.
In 1960 (before mass vaccines) the
US had one of the best infant mortality rates in the world. By 1998, the US
dropped to 28th place. By 2006 [the US] fell to 42nd place, worse than Cuba but
ahead of Croatia.
Interesting that Croatia would be
so low on that list as well, as their policy towards vaccinating infants was
made very clear by recent legislation forcing all parents to vaccinate,
a disturbing decision that was even more disturbingly lauded by those who think
the vaccine debate is only about “autism.”
However, Miller is quite clear that
vaccination does prevent disease...the tragedy is that greed and
conspiracy have created a system that is becoming increasingly difficult to
trust.
If you choose not to vaccinate,
there are risks involved. Your child could contract a disease for which a
vaccine has been developed. Your child may also experience complications form
this disease, which could be permanently debilitating or life-threatening,
depending on the particular condition and other factors, such as the child's
physical constitution and its ability to reestablish health.
Not vaccinating is just one risk;
vaccinating is another...diseases are described in frightening detail and their
risks exaggerated beyond reality.
With vaccines (and many drugs as
well) the “solution” is often developed prior to the marketing of fear. For
example, before the chickenpox vaccine was licensed for general use in
1995, doctors would encourage parents to expose their children to the disease
while they were young. Doctors recommended this course of action because they
knew that chickenpox is relatively innocuous when contracted prior to the
teenage years, but more dangerous in adolescents and adults.
It wasn't until after the
vaccine was licensed that the CDC began warning parents about the dangers of
chickenpox. Many doctors soon stopped encouraging parents to expose their
children and instead receive the shot. The “solution”—a vaccine—preceded the
apparent danger.
Vaccine efficacy can be specious.
For example, scientists presume
that certain “surrogate markers” or “precancerous lesions” precede cervical
cancer. With the HPV vaccine, they simply compared the numbers of these markers
in women who received the vaccine to the numbers of these markers in women who
received the placebo. However, no actual cases of cervical cancer were
prevented in any of the test subjects in any of the clinical studies of the HPV
vaccine.
The HPV vaccine was marketed
deceptively as well when first introduced, being promoted as “100%” effective.
However, the vaccine is only “100%” effective against two of numerous strains
of HPV, not cervical cancer itself.
During prelicensure studies, 361
women who received at least one shot of Gardasil went on to develop
precancerous lesions on their cervixes within three years.
According to the report HPV Vaccination – More Answers, More
Questions: “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.”
In this 2007 report commissioned by
the NEJM, two studies were considered on the vaccine's effectiveness on
cervical cancer. The report asked: “In these trials, called Females United to
Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE) I and II, what is the
efficacy of vaccination among all subjects, regardless of causal HPV types?”
The results were not promising, as
it was determined that in FUTURE I that the vaccine had an efficacy of only
20%, and this was only against low-risk lesions: “no efficacy was demonstrable
for higher-grade disease, but the trial may have lacked adequate power to
detect a difference.”
However, the larger FUTURE II had
more conclusive, and even less favorable, results, as the vaccine was only 17%
effective, and again had no impact on preventing high-risk lesions. The report
mentions the obvious shortcomings of the vaccine:
Another factor explaining the
modest efficacy of the vaccine is the role of oncogenic HPV types not included
in the vaccine. At least 15 oncogenic HPV types have been identified; so
targeting only 2 types may not have had a great effect on overall rates of
preinvasive lesions.
This concept of “strain
replacement” is not limited to the HPV vaccine, and is an extremely important
aspect of the vaccine debate that deserves more attention. Miller continues:
Gardasil is not the only vaccine
that targets some strains of the disease while excluding others. The Hib and
pneumococcal vaccines were also constructed in this manner, and have become
problematic due to “strain replacement.”
Scientists have discovered that
when vaccines only attack some strains of a disease, other strains gain
prominence. The disease becomes more virulent and people who are normally not
susceptible to the ailment are infected.
For example, there are several
different types of haemophilus influenzae, including types a, b, c, d, e, and
f. The “b” type is just one strain—the only one for which a vaccine was
created—the Hib shot. Although this vaccine appears to have decreased cases of
haemophilus influenzae type b in children, the overall rate of invasive
haemophilus influenzae disease in adults increased.
Researchers don't consider this a
failing of the Hib vaccine, rather “it raises the
question whether a [new] vaccine will need to be developed.”
Prevnar, the pneumococcal vaccine,
is only designed to protect against a few of the 90 different strains that can
cause the disease. The vaccine is therefore still considered “effective” if the
child is stricken with pneumococcus...just not from one of the strains included
in the vaccine.
The Journal of the American
Medical Association and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
have both published data demonstrating that non-vaccine strains of pneumococcus
are replacing the strains targeting by the vaccine. What's even more concerning
is the new strains are more dangerous and drug-resistant. According to the
study Pediatric
Invasive Pneumococcal Disease in the United States in the Era of Pneumococcal
Conjugate Vaccines:
Through the widespread use of PCV7
in the United States, there has been a significant decrease in the incidence of
IPD and nasopharyngeal carriage of vaccine serotypes in all age groups. However,
the emergence of replacement pneumococcal serotypes (e.g., 19A, 1, 5, 15, and
33) is now having a significant impact on the success of PCV7.
These serotypes have become the
most common causes of IPD in infants, children, and adults, with serotype 19A
having emerged as the predominant replacement serotype associated with
multidrug-resistant infections.
Another concern is when vaccines
are given to one group with the hope of protecting another group. Miller
explains:
Mass rubella vaccination campaigns
were never intended to protect vaccine recipients; the disease is usually
harmless when contracted by children. Instead, the goal has always been to
protect the unborn fetuses of rubella-susceptible pregnant women.
When the hepatitis B vaccine was
originally introduced, this same rationale was employed. Children rarely
develop this disease. In the US, less that 1% of all cases occur in persons
less than 15 years of age. The disease is even more uncommon in babies and
toddlers. However, “because a vaccination strategy limited to high-risk
individuals has failed,” and since children are “accessible,” they are
compelled to receive the three-shot series beginning at birth.
Some studies show that hepatitis B
vaccine recipients lose protective antibodies after 5 to 10 years. The vaccine
that babies receive shortly after birth at the hospital will not be effective a
few years later. “By 5 to 15 years
after vaccination, some
individuals have antibody levels below the protective threshold—and in some
cases even undetectable.”
The necessity for multiple
“booster” shots is disturbing. Initially, when a new vaccine is introduced, a
single shot may be recommended, Later, when the artificial immunity wears off,
vaccine manufacturers and the CDC recommend one or more additional shots.
With natural immunity, which is
acquired by being exposed to the actual disease, protection is not meager and
temporary, but rather complete and lifelong. The child will rarely contract the
disease again. This is not true with vaccines. Isn't it odd that the vaccine
industry's answer to an ineffective vaccine is to compel more of it?
Another example of the strange
logic employed by the media and many vaccine enthusiasts is the hysteria
surrounding blaming those who are unvaccinated when there are outbreaks of
disease.
Unvaccinated children are often
sent home form school during outbreaks of measles, mumps and other contagious
diseases. Ironically, these children are not sent home for their own
protection. On the contrary, doctors claim that unvaccinated children will
spread disease.
Of course, this does not make sense
(unless we consider it a veiled confession of vaccine inefficacy). How is it
possible for an unvaccinated child to imperil vaccinated children? If the shots
are effective, then vaccinated children should be protected.
Miller continues by stressing that
even members of the U.S. government are aware that the current vaccine program
has many shortcomings, as well as the uncomfortable fact that some members of
the FDA and CDC have extremely suspect financial interests.
Hearings are regularly held to
highlight problems with individual vaccines as well as to investigate the
integrity of the vaccine program itself...Members of the exclusive FDA and
CDC committees that are responsible for licensing and recommending vaccines for
all children in the US are permitted to have financial stakes in those
vaccines.
For example, in 2000, a
congressional hearing before the Committee on Government Reform was held called
Conflicts of
Interest in Vaccine Policy Making.
The tone of the hearing was set in the opening statements, when it was
announced that they needed to determine if “the entire process of licensing and
recommending vaccines” has been polluted and the public trust has been
violated.
Recent revelations about
questionable tactics to approve the first rotavirus vaccine prompted the
hearing. It was suspected that members of the FDA and CDC knew about the
dangers of the rotavirus vaccine before approving it and recommending it for
every child in the country.
Dr. Kathryn Edwards, a physician on
the FDA's committees that voted to recommend the vaccine, received
$255,000 a year from Wyeth-Lederle,
the making of the vaccine. This fact was also cited in the 2000 congressional
hearing.
Dr. Paul Offit, who was on the
CDC's committee that recommended the vaccine, also held a lucrative patent on
another rotavirus vaccine under development. “In addition, [Offit] was paid by
the drug industry to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines
are safe.”
Indeed, even within the last few
months, Offit has made appearances on numerous talk shows, both TV and radio,
bemoaning those who dare to question vaccines. The vast majority of the time he
specifically mentions only “autism” and how ignorant the “anti-vaxxers” are for
being afraid of “autism.” Instead of educating, he is continuing to restrict
the conversation by completely omitting all of the concerns outlined so far,
among many others.
One of the more striking things revealed
by this hearing was with regards to the FDA and CDC advisory committees that
voted to recommend adding the rotavirus vaccine to the childhood vaccination
schedule. A whopping 60% of the FDA advisory committee and 50% of the CDC
committee had financial ties either to the drug company that produced the
vaccine or to Merck and SmithKline Beecham, two other companies developing
potentially lucrative rotavirus vaccines.
During the hearing, Congressman Dan
Burton had this to say:
Families need to have confidence
that the vaccines that their children take are safe, effective and very
necessary. Doctors need to feel confident that when the FDA licenses a drug,
that it's really safe and that the pharmaceutical industry has not influenced
the decision-making process.
Maintaining the highest level of
integrity over the entire spectrum of vaccine development and implementation is
essential. No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions
regarding vaccines that may be mandated for use should be participating in the
discussion or policymaking for vaccines.
One would think, in the face of
waning public confidence in the entirety of the vaccine program, that the FDA
and CDC would take the opportunity to agree with such a rational request and
restore the confidence of Congress and the public. Sadly, the response was
quite the opposite.
On August 24th, 2000, Reuters
Medical News published an article called “Congressional report slams FDA,
CDC policies on disclosing financial conflicts.” The article describes how
Linda Suydam, the senior associate commissioner at the FDA, stated quite
unequivocally that “Both the law and policies allow us to use people who have
financial ties.” Both the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) were also unwilling to make any of the recommended changes.
The rotavirus vaccine saga
continued when a 2006 study was used by the FDA and CDC as a basis for licensing and
recommending a new vaccine called RotaTeq. Neil Miller explains the obvious
conflict of interest:
Authors of the study included Paul
Offit and H. Fred Clark, co-owners of the patent on this vaccine (along with
Dr. Stanley Plotkin). In addition, several other members of the study team who
were supposed to be objectively evaluating the safety and efficacy of this
vaccine, were paid consulting fees, lecture fees, and/or provided grant support
by Merck, the vaccine manufacturer, or by GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of another
rotavirus vaccine soon to be approved as well.
Some study team members even owned
stock in Merck, whose equity value would increase by positive evaluations of
this vaccine. Apparently, such conflicts of interest were deemed irrelevant to
the impartiality required to ensure the integrity of the entire vaccine
approval process and the safety of millions of babies who would soon receive
this new vaccine.
The vaccine market is shifting
towards adolescents and adults as well. According to a June 17th, 2007 article
published by Genetic Engineering and Biotech News, “at present,
pediatric vaccines occupy a higher market share, but this trend will shift
towards the adult vaccine segment.”
Naturally, the US is the largest
market for vaccines because they are “more profitable than generic
pharmaceutical drugs.”
No comments:
Post a Comment